They don't. They just know that they can take us for granted. Every indication is that they're right.
Globe-trotting J.J. on "Star Trek"
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
They don't. They just know that they can take us for granted. Every indication is that they're right.
Not entirely. I'm an old trekkie from the first TOS run, and I'm looking forward to the "modernized" Trek. I have no problem with keeping the stories, props and sets in line with the times.
I bet there are more of us "progressive Trekkies" out there than you think.
Same, though I was too young for the first run (born the year season one began), but I caught up as soon as I could.
LOVE the original, and looking forward to seeing the adventures of our first friends in this universe rendered again.
BUT...the most important part about this, to me, is getting the FEEL right. Do the actors inhabit the characters sufficiently? Does the universe feel right? Have they captured the fundamental themes and ideas of Trek?
To me, it looks like they have. Yes, some of the visuals have changed, but they've kept enough in that for me, and even the changed stuff still has a similar voice to where I feel confident. If they get the rest right, I'll be a happy Trekkie and looking forward to the new adventures.
If enough people agree, I can look forward to much more in TV/movie material in this, one of my favorite fictional universes.
I don't see how any Trek fan can be displeased at this prospect.
LOVE the original, and looking forward to seeing the adventures of our first friends in this universe rendered again.
BUT...the most important part about this, to me, is getting the FEEL right. Do the actors inhabit the characters sufficiently? Does the universe feel right? Have they captured the fundamental themes and ideas of Trek?
To me, it looks like they have. Yes, some of the visuals have changed, but they've kept enough in that for me, and even the changed stuff still has a similar voice to where I feel confident. If they get the rest right, I'll be a happy Trekkie and looking forward to the new adventures.
If enough people agree, I can look forward to much more in TV/movie material in this, one of my favorite fictional universes.
I don't see how any Trek fan can be displeased at this prospect.
number6
Vice Admiral
I am with you there. I certainly hope there are more "progressive Trekkies."
I am always saddened that there aren't as many as I would hope.
Thank you for being one.
The studios make these movies one at a time and hope to make a good profit on each one. The fact that you'll pay to see the one they're releasing now is all the "taking for granted" that matters from their POV.
So what?
Of course you saw Nemesis. Most trek fans saw Nemesis.
No one else did, though.
Things like Nemesis are how they know they can take you for granted. You've just proved them right.
I didn't pay the studio, that's what. But big deal, they didn't miss it.
I'm not sure how you've established that most "trek fans" saw Nemesis and "no one else" did, unless your definition of "trek fan" is "anyone who saw Nemesis". That's a fallacy.
That's a grandiose statement...
I don't think anyone thinks that Kirk was never immature or brash. However, I think "aimless" doesn't fit. And "aimless," at least so far as this film is concerned, is probably due to the time-changing events caused by Nero (which, I suspect now, having seen a bit more of the "setup" for this movie, will be fixed at the end, by "aimless Kirk," setting things back to how we remember at the end)
All "young, brash, aimless Kirk" has to do is use the "red matter bomb" to prevent a catastrophy from happening in the future. If you've read the comics, you know what I'm talking about already.
And suddenly... "reset button." No catastrophy, no reason for Nero to time travel at all.
That's my prediction. It ends, everything is "reset," and we see a Kirk, not wearing a black shirt but a gold one, complete with captain's stripes, telling his crew (not Pikes) to "buckle up."
Numbers and basic logic. How many of those four or five million people do you figure just got confused and thought they were watching "Maid In Manhattan?"
trevanian
Rear Admiral
But how many times in the theater? Not at all, going by your link.
I mean, 'the measure of a fan' is supposed to be their fanaticism in seeing these thing in the theater first (TREK, SW, whatever) multiple times, otherwise, where is the 'fan' in fanatic? If you and most of what others are characterizing as your ilk saw the movie once theatrically, or skipped it altogether, after going to the prior ones more, that would indicate the fanbase was wising up and not patronizing bad filmmaking and bad trek storytelling.
So Paramount really can't count on that fan impulse others accuse you of, can they? Good, make them earn that trust back. It took years to win back most fans from the TMP days (about 7), otherwise KHAN would have done even better theatrically (unless you buy into fans not reseeing it because Spock dies, which has always seemed like balderdash to me.)
I think they'll get a bit of novelty value attendance out of Trek looking different this time, in terms of regular filmgoers. Depending on how spectacular the action is, they can even earn some brownie points for sequels (whereas BATMAN BEGINS earned early interest in DARK KNIGHT based on character and storytelling more than spectacle, but take what you can get.)
But depending on what else releases after TREK in May, I think the short-attention-span general audience will probably be on to the next big deal rather shortly thereafter, and that still leaves this movie with a lot to recoup, given there's a fair possiblity 'fans' won't be reseeing it endlessly.
Similar threads
