GUARDIAN: Your vessel, your beginning, all that you knew is gone.

[JWPlatt]

GUARDIAN: Your vessel, your beginning, all that you knew is gone.

Has the Guardian of Forever been quoted before to describe the Abramsverse and the loss of Prime?

I listened to a podcast recently that lamented the overall tendency of franchises to leave their old fans and decades of story behind to reboot, restart, reset, reimagine, or re-whatever when the franchise gets in their way of what they think is a good story. Their focus was the "Terminator: Genisys" trailer which they lambasted, but Star Trek came into the mix as well.

So see this article.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1793496/can-new-star-trek-3-co-writer-scotty-new-director-pull-the-core-fan-base-back/

Because acccording to it, we may hear a new quote from the Guardian in the near future:

GUARDIAN: Time has resumed its shape. All is as it was before...

I really don't imagine we'll be pulled back into Prime but, well, apparently, the article says we core fans are pissed at Abrams. Having been disappointed by the apparent love (or easy acceptance at least) for Abrams I've found in various threads here, I'm thinking the article has an agenda of some sort because I see a lot more appreciation for Abrams here than the article suggests.

It says there are four writers - not two: Simon Pegg and Doug Jung, as previously reported, but also Patrick McKay and John D. Payne. Did I miss this news somewhere?

The headline is stilted because it flatly says the core fans have left the franchise with "Can New ‘Star Trek 3’ Co-Writer ‘Scotty’ And New Director Pull The Core Fan Base Back?"

It goes on with zingers like:

• Paramount hopes to bring back the core fan base who Abrams alienated when he directed the last two Trek films.
• Roberto Orci was announced as Abrams’ replacement, but “issues with the script” saw Orci abandon ship...
• ...[Abrams'] reported alienation of the core Star Trek fan base...
• ...it was harsh criticism that sent Abrams packing.
• ...Abrams had to apologize to fans after them – and his wife – criticized him for overusing a specific special effects technique called “lens flare.”
• Critics pummeled Abrams for the similarities between the Star Trek and Star Wars franchises...
• ...when he dumbed down the plot, it succeeded in alienating and offending the core fan base who wanted nothing to do with the “nonsensical science and the rubbish plot.”

I admit the article is harsh, and might be taking some liberties, but I kind of enjoyed it too.

 

[F. King Daniel]

What's the "core fan base"? The 2.5 million who were still tuning in at the end of Enterprise's run in 2005? Or the 0.6 million non-unique views that the Prelude to Axanar fan film has on Youtube? Those numbers are trifling next to the 8.4 million tickets sold for Into Darkness in it's first weekend alone. Do those "core" numbers matter on such a vast stage?

The article seems to have taken a vocal minority's complaints (lens flares again?) and decided that listening to them will make a difference - should TNG have been changed to please the loud 80's fans who insisted it was an inferior rip-off of TOS?


Also, I'm really looking forward to Terminator Genisys

 

[Amaris]

It's fun to read in a "Jesus Christ, unclench!" kind of way, but that's about it. The rest is tired retreads of pettiness and self-indulgence with no basis in anything beyond "because I think this". I would be more enlightened reading the scribblings on the tiled walls of the local service station restroom.

 

[Mudd]

The article is rubbish click-bait, recycling a few facts from elsewhere that provide no actual support for the author's wishful thinking.

To every claim phrased as a question there, the answer is "no."

Next.

 

[-Brett-]

The mainstream audience holds Star Trek fans in such contempt that their hatred of the films sounds like a ringing endorsement. Why should Paramount want you back?

 

[BillJ]

I hope CBS/Paramount go back to the Prime timeline and give Trekkies every single thing they want. It will drive a decisive final stake through the heart of the franchise. The next time we see it after that it will be something that pokes fun at the franchise and its fans with Jack Black as Kirk and Will Ferrell as Spock.

I have enough Star Trek to keep me busy for the rest of my life anyway.

 

[fireproof78]

I'll admit to having a hard time taking the article seriously. When it mentioned Abrams special effects "addiction" (did I read that right?) and the attempt to bring back the "core audience" I laughed. Sorry, that seems like an odd phrase. Core base? Um, does that include fans from TOS who watched it in its original run? Because my dad and another friend of mine loved Trek 09 and enjoyed ID.

I'm not sure what to think, because I have always enjoyed different iterations of Trek (from comics, to books, to films, etc.). My acceptance of Abrams Trek is due to the fact that I think it captures more the adventure of TOS, rather than focus heavily on social commentary. Not sure what other fan sensibilities of mine should have been offended

I get it. Abrams Trek is not for everyone, but that doesn't make it less Trek or more Trek than previous incarnations.

Do I think we will see a soft reset or a return by Spock Prime in the next film? I doubt it. Mostly because there has been provided an in-universe explanation for the timeline and Spock Prime's staying there, rather than returning.

The reasons I saw ID getting panned was due to the TWOk homage, and the insistence that Khan wasn't Khan. Had that been handled better, I think ID would have done better. Beyond that, I don't know...

 

[Amaris]

By "core base", one can safely assume the author means "people who agree with me."

 

[M'Sharak]

... BreatheCast reports that the reason for the all new behind the scenes cast is because Paramount hopes to bring back the core fan base who Abrams alienated when he directed the last two Trek films.

I've never heard of "BreatheCast" before, but they're cited as the source of the assertion that the core fan base left. Looks like some of us never got the "we're leaving" memo, and I'm not sure how I'm supposed to feel about that - a little left out, I guess, or abandoned by the core fan base?


Edit:

Oddly enough, the BreatheCast piece doesn't appear to say what the Inquisitr piece says it does. Among the things it does say:

As Pegg is a writer of repute, he will be expected to give a big boost to help revive the 'Star Trek' franchise's credibility with its wider fan base. Many had criticized recent installments of the franchise as being more like Star Wars than Star Trek. Director J.J. Abrams, who directed the previous installments of the franchise, was criticized heavily by some for making 2013's 'Star Trek: Into the Darkness' and 'Star Trek' in 2009, too much like 'Star Wars'-like films.
Now that an entire new team is behind 'Star Trek 3,' fans are hoping the upcoming movie will be able to crush all the criticism it has been drawing.

Edit:

To date the film has taken in less than $500 million

Ooo, crushing criticism there. They also see fit to quote WhatCulture, source of some windy but ultimately empty diatribes against the previous two movies.

 

[BillJ]

Edit:

To date the film has taken in less than $500 million

Which isn't true if "TheNumbers.com" is anywhere in the ballpark.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Star-Trek-2-(2012)#tab=more

I tab it at a little better than $540 million, that's without international Blu-ray/DVD sales and various TV deals.

 

[Franklin]

By "core base", one can safely assume the author means "people who agree with me."

I agree with you.

 

[Set Harth]

[*]...it was harsh criticism that sent Abrams packing.

I'm pretty sure it was getting the Star Wars gig, but whatever.

 

[JWPlatt]

Yeah. I didn't write that despite your attribution. Inquisitr did. But if the timing were different, we don't know whether Abrams would have taken the Star Trek 3 job.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't see any reason why he would not. He definitely had some growing pains with ID, but I see him wanting to continue on, and apply those lessons.

 

[Set Harth]

Yeah. I didn't write that despite your attribution. Inquisitr did.

I know. But it was quoted from your post, that's all that was meant to signify, not that they were your words.

 

[Woulfe]

... BreatheCast reports that the reason for the all new behind the scenes cast is because Paramount hopes to bring back the core fan base who Abrams alienated when he directed the last two Trek films.

I've never heard of "BreatheCast" before, but they're cited as the source of the assertion that the core fan base left. Looks like some of us never got the "we're leaving" memo, and I'm not sure how I'm supposed to feel about that - a little left out, I guess, or abandoned by the core fan base?


Edit:

Oddly enough, the BreatheCast piece doesn't appear to say what the Inquisitr piece says it does. Among the things it does say:

As Pegg is a writer of repute, he will be expected to give a big boost to help revive the 'Star Trek' franchise's credibility with its wider fan base. Many had criticized recent installments of the franchise as being more like Star Wars than Star Trek. Director J.J. Abrams, who directed the previous installments of the franchise, was criticized heavily by some for making 2013's 'Star Trek: Into the Darkness' and 'Star Trek' in 2009, too much like 'Star Wars'-like films.
Now that an entire new team is behind 'Star Trek 3,' fans are hoping the upcoming movie will be able to crush all the criticism it has been drawing.

Edit:

To date the film has taken in less than $500 million

Ooo, crushing criticism there. They also see fit to quote WhatCulture, source of some windy but ultimately empty diatribes against the previous two movies.

There was a memo ?

I must of missed it as well....

So your not all alone there....

;-)

P.S. I need to update my avatar in about a year's time....

 

[Greg Cox]

The idea that the "core fan base" has rejected the new movies has been hugely exaggerated by the media, probably because it makes a good story.

Shall I tell my New York Post story again? Why not?

Awhile ago, about the time Into Darkness came out, I was contacted by a reporter at the New York Post who was doing on a story on how all us old-time Trekkies supposedly hated the reboot.

I spent at least a half hour on the phone explaining to him that this was hardly the case and that at most we were talking about a (very) vocal minority. I went on at length about how much I'd liked the 2009 movie and was looking forward to Into Darkness.

This was not what he wanted to hear. He pretty much admitted that his editor had already determined the slant of the article: that all real Trekkies hate the new movies. When I declined to play ball, he asked me to recommend another Trek novelist who might give him the sound byte he wanted. Again, I declined to cooperate.

Sure enough, a few days later the article came out, revealing that--you guessed it!--the core fan base hates the reboot. And the only quote from me was the part where I grudgingly admitted that, okay, some fans didn't like the reboot.

So, yeah, take any articles like this with a grain of salt.

 

[fireproof78]

A very large, large, grain of salt

 

[M'Sharak]

This oughta do.

 

[fireproof78]

I'll take a dozen!