JJ Abrams and Secrecy... anyone else tired of it?

[USSManhattan]

Returning from the grave essentially to get the pulse on something about JJ Abrams that has always annoyed me: his obsession with secrecy on his projects.

I can't speak on Lost, Revolution or Fringe; never saw them and have no interest in them as of now. I did enjoy Cloverfield, Super 8, and at least was entertained by Trek XI... but I did not find them worth the secrecy and suspense JJ assembled around them. In the end, all three were rather pedantic, dime a dozen action movies with some entertaining qualities, but nothing that left me "WOW! That was worth not knowing anything!" Cloverfield in particular was guilty of this for me; in the end, it's a monster rampaging through New York City. There wasn't much added to it or done with it that made it worth the hype he had going. Hell, the trailers and the exclusive clip were the same thing: the Statue of Liberty's head rolling down Broadway, albeit it re-cut with other bits mixed in here and there.

What I'm getting that is this: while I understand some want to go in unspoiled and totally shocked, and that some want to maintain surprise in an age where it's almost impossible, at the same time I find it annoying. If your response to my question "What are you doing?" on every project is to put your finger to your lips, go 'Shhhhhhhh!' and close a curtain... at a certain point, I will not care about your projects. And I feel like I reaching that point with Abrams. Especially with this "John Harrison" thing.

So, maybe I'm just whining, but I wanted to hear from you guys... is Abrams' secrecy MO tiresome, or working for you?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No problem with it.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

When it generates this much entertainment by way of all the speculation and hand-wringing? Hell no!

 

[SalvorHardin]

I'm ok with it.
It's a fun part of the waiting process. And it has entertaining effects on Trek fandom.

 

[Sindatur]

I'm good with it. I have no problem with learning all the little stuff he's letting out now, but, I have no desire to have any twists revealed before I see the movie

I enjoy rewatching stuff, but, I want the first time to be without the twists spoiled.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I have no problem with it. Some people obviously find it entertaining, and it's extremely easy to avoid if you don't.

 

[Ovation]

This

When it generates this much entertainment by way of all the speculation and hand-wringing? Hell no!

and this

I'm ok with it.
It's a fun part of the waiting process. And it has entertaining effects on Trek fandom.

and this

I'm good with it. I have no problem with learning all the little stuff he's letting out now, but, I have no desire to have any twists revealed before I see the movie

I enjoy rewatching stuff, but, I want the first time to be without the twists spoiled.

wrap it up quite nicely as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Balrog]

Tired? Nope.

He seems to know just how much to keep close to the vest and release enough tidbits of info to ramp up the excitement for the film's release.

 

[Bishop76]

No problem at all. Speculation is fun. And it's impressive he does such a good job of keeping shit secret in the Internet age where everyone knows everything at all times.

 

[paudemge]

The real question should, be "is everybody tired of how the internet spoils virtually every movie?"

 

[ralph]

Sorry, USSManhattan. I'm loving it.

 

[Enterprise is Great]

The real question should, be "is everybody tired of how the internet spoils virtually every movie?"

Exactly so!

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

The secrecy is definitely better for "buzz".

Right now, everything is speculation, and every bit of those mounds of speculation is something we can all argue/discuss/debate. As it is now, the sky is the limit when it comes to possible plots and character MO's.

HOWEVER, once the plot is revealed, those mounds of speculation go away, and all we are left with is the actual plot and the actual character motivations to nitpick (and ST fans are sure to nitpick the plot).

So from the movie studio's standpoint, the secrecy is good because it creates greater amounts of speculative buzz and a whole lot less nitpicking.

 

[Gojira]

I really don't have a problem with it. My only problem was with Cloverfield. I liked the movie don't get me wrong, but there just was not enough of the monster in the movie. For all the secrecy of that movie the payoff was not large enough for me.

 

[Drago-Kazov]

If it is going to be a Betrayal/False Flag Terrorism story which is pretty likely i definetly don't want to be spoiled. I want to be suprised.

 

[ChristopherPike]

So long as you remember there's probably only one grain of truth, in that shipment of quadrotriticale.




GATT2000? puuuullLEASE

What's that stand for anyway? Genetically Augmented Tyrannical Terrorist (from before the year) 2000?

 

[shapeshifter]

Secrecy? Did you read the forum before you posted? There are tons of new tidbits to chew over.

I'm loving the time-released trickle of information. All of it seems perfectly designed to do one thing - appease our sense of curiosity with just enough info to keep us buzzing without ripping the wrapper off spoiling the Big Reveals.

 

[ManOnTheWave]

No. What I'm sick of is being told every detail of a film's plot, including twists, by the trailer and the press release.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I really don't have a problem with it. My only problem was with Cloverfield. I liked the movie don't get me wrong, but there just was not enough of the monster in the movie. For all the secrecy of that movie the payoff was not large enough for me.

Yeah, but the point of that movie was to tell the story from the point of view of average people caught up in it.

That is a departure from most monster movies where the main focus seems to be on the people (government/military/whatever) trying to deal the "big picture" of killing or eliminating the monster threat. By that very nature of those traditional monster movies, the main characters whose task it is to try to eliminate the threat of the monster have/gain a lot of information about the monster (and, thus, so does the audience).

Cloverfield, on the other hand, was mostly about the people on the ground, and by that very nature, they would have far less information about the monster itself.

It was that departure from the traditional way to tell a monster invasion story is why I DID like Cloverfield.

 

[M'Sharak]

... is Abrams' secrecy MO tiresome, or working for you?

I'm fine with it, really. Last time around, there was a set schedule of released information and promotion which seemed to work quite well. I have no reason to think it won't be very much the same this time.

The real question should, be "is everybody tired of how the internet spoils virtually every movie?"

Not so much that, but that there seems to have developed a never-ending sense of consumer entitlement to more, more, more! No amount of whatever it is—spoilers, DVD extras, bonus goodies, spy pics, inside dirt, collectible items—is ever enough. There's gotta be more of it.

I was starting to roll my eyes back in the late 1990s when someone I worked with bought a DVD of a fairly major early-1960s movie and ended up returning it for refund unwatched because there were no extras, no director commentary. Have the hype and the extra stuff become more important than the movie-watching experience itself? One does sometimes wonder.