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

[Drago-Kazov]

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?

History will be our judge.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

"Don't sell the steak. Sell the sizzle."

Abrams knows exactly what he is doing, and he does it better than most.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

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 pay my $8.75 (more for 3D Imax), and what I get in return is the opportunity to see the film in the theater.
If I want more than that, then maybe I should pony up enough money to be a "producer". Then I would be entitled to some pre-release inside info.

 

[KalEl]

I can't stand the secrecy, I think it's meaningless. Cloverfeild sucked, it had all this secrecy about it, just to find out that it was just another POV camera movie with a monster you can't even see. Blair Witch Project style. There were some cool shots, but pretty much sucked. Super 8 was a little better, but really just a combination of ET and Close Encounters, not much originality. Star Trek was good, I liked it, but there was a lot of unnecessary things like blowing up Vulcan, which I doubt they are going to even discuss in the new movie. I still maintain that the timeline change was unnecessary and it could have been just a prequel.

They seem to do things just because it looks cool, but no real thought about it. The secrecy seems obsessive. What harm does it do to tell us the name of the so called villain? So we are given the name of a completely forgettable character, that tells us nothing about the plot. So you kept us dragging on for John Harrison, really? Even if it was Khan or Mitchell, it still just gives us a basic idea of how the movie will play out, well that still is nothing. Let me guess, the bad guy blows a lot of shit up, there's some sort of delima between Kirk and Spock, McCoy is the voice of reason, the bad guy is hunted down and stopped, the end. That's going to be every Star Trek movie, it tells nothing of the plot. I don't want be spoiled, but the secrecy is too much.

If you compare it to Christopher Nolan's secrecy, his seems more reasonable. It never was like this during the 80s and 90s as far as I remember. I know the internet has changed things, but my god, it's really not a big deal if you just give us the characters and a few random pics.

 

[Shilliam Watner]

The reason I like the secrecy is that it creates curiosity. It makes people go and actually study up on Star Treks past episodes to get clues of who these characters we have been talking about (Harrison, Khan, Garth, Lazarus, Charlie X and now April). It generates interest in the franchise by non trekkers and therefore brings in more revenue. Abrams indeed knows what he is doing.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I can't stand the secrecy, I think it's meaningless. Cloverfeild sucked, it had all this secrecy about it, just to find out that it was just another POV camera movie with a monster you can't even see. Blair Witch Project style. There were some cool shots, but pretty much sucked. Super 8 was a little better, but really just a combination of ET and Close Encounters, not much originality. Star Trek was good, I liked it, but there was a lot of unnecessary things like blowing up Vulcan, which I doubt they are going to even discuss in the new movie. I still maintain that the timeline change was unnecessary and it could have been just a prequel.

They seem to do things just because it looks cool, but no real thought about it. The secrecy seems obsessive. What harm does it do to tell us the name of the so called villain? So we are given the name of a completely forgettable character, that tells us nothing about the plot. So you kept us dragging on for John Harrison, really? Even if it was Khan or Mitchell, it still just gives us a basic idea of how the movie will play out, well that still is nothing. Let me guess, the bad guy blows a lot of shit up, there's some sort of delima between Kirk and Spock, McCoy is the voice of reason, the bad guy is hunted down and stopped, the end. That's going to be every Star Trek movie, it tells nothing of the plot. I don't want be spoiled, but the secrecy is too much.

If you compare it to Christopher Nolan's secrecy, his seems more reasonable. It never was like this during the 80s and 90s as far as I remember. I know the internet has changed things, but my god, it's really not a big deal if you just give us the characters and a few random pics.

This just seems like a really bizarre entitlement mentality. Abrams is not obliged to share anything publicly if he doesn't want to. If you want to know what happens, go buy a ticket and see it.

 

[M'Sharak]

The reason I like the secrecy is that it creates curiosity. It makes people go and actually study up on Star Treks past episodes to get clues of who these characters we have been talking about (Harrison, Khan, Garth, Lazarus, Charlie X and now April). It generates interest in the franchise by non trekkers and therefore brings in more revenue. Abrams indeed knows what he is doing.

It also gives the imagination a chance for a workout. I think Abrams' "mystery box" approach is, to one degree or another, about giving the viewer's imagination some room in which to play, and that room definitely includes the build-up to the movie itself.

 

[KalEl]

I can't stand the secrecy, I think it's meaningless. Cloverfeild sucked, it had all this secrecy about it, just to find out that it was just another POV camera movie with a monster you can't even see. Blair Witch Project style. There were some cool shots, but pretty much sucked. Super 8 was a little better, but really just a combination of ET and Close Encounters, not much originality. Star Trek was good, I liked it, but there was a lot of unnecessary things like blowing up Vulcan, which I doubt they are going to even discuss in the new movie. I still maintain that the timeline change was unnecessary and it could have been just a prequel.

They seem to do things just because it looks cool, but no real thought about it. The secrecy seems obsessive. What harm does it do to tell us the name of the so called villain? So we are given the name of a completely forgettable character, that tells us nothing about the plot. So you kept us dragging on for John Harrison, really? Even if it was Khan or Mitchell, it still just gives us a basic idea of how the movie will play out, well that still is nothing. Let me guess, the bad guy blows a lot of shit up, there's some sort of delima between Kirk and Spock, McCoy is the voice of reason, the bad guy is hunted down and stopped, the end. That's going to be every Star Trek movie, it tells nothing of the plot. I don't want be spoiled, but the secrecy is too much.

If you compare it to Christopher Nolan's secrecy, his seems more reasonable. It never was like this during the 80s and 90s as far as I remember. I know the internet has changed things, but my god, it's really not a big deal if you just give us the characters and a few random pics.

This just seems like a really bizarre entitlement mentality. Abrams is not obliged to share anything publicly if he doesn't want to. If you want to know what happens, go buy a ticket and see it.

If you want me to buy a ticket, give some information to go off of. You're right, JJ doesn't owe us shit, but if the secrecy is over something ridiculous like the name of a character, it feels like there is a lack of respect for the fan base. He's just doing it just to do it and stroke his ego, he doesn't give a shit what we think, he's trying to reach the mainstream audience right? So, why not give them the name of the villain, they won't care and won't be spoiled, in the mean time, we can still speculate what the bad guy is going to do. It just seems like he's doing it just to fuck with us, which is pretty dickish in my opinion.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I can't stand the secrecy, I think it's meaningless. Cloverfeild sucked, it had all this secrecy about it, just to find out that it was just another POV camera movie with a monster you can't even see. Blair Witch Project style. There were some cool shots, but pretty much sucked. Super 8 was a little better, but really just a combination of ET and Close Encounters, not much originality. Star Trek was good, I liked it, but there was a lot of unnecessary things like blowing up Vulcan, which I doubt they are going to even discuss in the new movie. I still maintain that the timeline change was unnecessary and it could have been just a prequel.

They seem to do things just because it looks cool, but no real thought about it. The secrecy seems obsessive. What harm does it do to tell us the name of the so called villain? So we are given the name of a completely forgettable character, that tells us nothing about the plot. So you kept us dragging on for John Harrison, really? Even if it was Khan or Mitchell, it still just gives us a basic idea of how the movie will play out, well that still is nothing. Let me guess, the bad guy blows a lot of shit up, there's some sort of delima between Kirk and Spock, McCoy is the voice of reason, the bad guy is hunted down and stopped, the end. That's going to be every Star Trek movie, it tells nothing of the plot. I don't want be spoiled, but the secrecy is too much.

If you compare it to Christopher Nolan's secrecy, his seems more reasonable. It never was like this during the 80s and 90s as far as I remember. I know the internet has changed things, but my god, it's really not a big deal if you just give us the characters and a few random pics.

This just seems like a really bizarre entitlement mentality. Abrams is not obliged to share anything publicly if he doesn't want to. If you want to know what happens, go buy a ticket and see it.

If you want me to buy a ticket, give some information to go off of. You're right, JJ doesn't owe us shit, but if the secrecy is over something ridiculous like the name of a character, it feels like there is a lack of respect for the fan base. He's just doing it just to do it and stroke his ego, he doesn't give a shit what we think, he's trying to reach the mainstream audience right? So, why not give them the name of the villain, they won't care and won't be spoiled, in the mean time, we can still speculate what the bad guy is going to do. It just seems like he's doing it just to fuck with us, which is pretty dickish in my opinion.

He's doing it for the publicity it generates, which is clearly working very well.

 

[SalvorHardin]

it feels like there is a lack of respect for the fan base.

sigh...not this shit again.

 

[urbandk]

TrekBBS focus group executive committee says it wants more/less/same amount of secrecy. Are you listening, J.J.?

 

[Greg Cox]

Doesn't bother me. It baffles me why people would want to know everything six months before the movie opens.

I still regret hearing about the chest-burster scene before seeing ALIEN for the first time. And I don't get me started about that friend back in 1980 who left me a phone message to the effect of "Ohmigod, Vader is Luke's father!"

Clearly, I'm still suffering from Post-Traumatic Spoiler Syndrome . . .

 

[Franklin]

The secrecy can be vexing to me, I'll admit that. (John Harrison? For real?)

I suppose with the movie being five months off, I could do the rational thing and walk away from it until May. I could, mind you. I don't need to go to trektoday or trekmovie.com every day to see if JJ has given us another piece of kibble to chew on. I can quit any time I want to. Yep. I just don't want to quit right now.

 

[Ovation]

Doesn't bother me. It baffles me why people would want to know everything six months before the movie opens.

I still regret hearing about the chest-burster scene before seeing ALIEN for the first time. And I don't get me started about that friend back in 1980 who left me a phone message to the effect of "Ohmigod, Vader is Luke's father!"

Clearly, I'm still suffering from Post-Traumatic Spoiler Syndrome . . .

Surely you mean "ex-friend".

 

[C.E. Evans]

I actually like the secrecy a lot and would be perfectly content if the news we got so far is pretty much all we'll be getting until the movie's release.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

We're not being forced to pay any attention to it, and it's a smart way to market the movie before the real marketing (Paramount's) takes over.

...although I suppose it's a bit annoying that I wanted to stick around only till I learned the name of the charatcer Cumby is playing so I don't get wildly spoiled on everything like last time. Well, I've learned it but somehow I think there's more to the story.

 

[bbailey861]

I have no problem with the secrecy at all. I would prefer not knowing or hearing anything about the film before going in - although that's virtually impossible. I'll make up my own mind if I like it or not.

 

[Greg Cox]

Doesn't bother me. It baffles me why people would want to know everything six months before the movie opens.

I still regret hearing about the chest-burster scene before seeing ALIEN for the first time. And I don't get me started about that friend back in 1980 who left me a phone message to the effect of "Ohmigod, Vader is Luke's father!"

Clearly, I'm still suffering from Post-Traumatic Spoiler Syndrome . . .

Surely you mean "ex-friend".

Believe it or not, no. But you'll note I'm still bitching about it thirty-two years later!

 

[trekkiebaggio]

It doesn't really bother me that much, although the secrecy does build the anticipation so I hope the film can live up to that. In some ways I'm glad, it makes avoiding spoilers a lot easier

 

[milo bloom]

All the speculation and combing through old episodes is fun, yes, but the only thing that would worry me is if it's over-hyped and then under-delivers.

Face it, a good movie is one that you can watch over and over even knowing a big reveal (like The Empire Strikes Back). A big shock revelation is fun once, but if that's all a film has, then it won't stand the test of time. I'm hoping Abrams is holding stuff for a big reveal that won't be that entertaining when it's watched for the dozenth time.