LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about film

[Dale]

This was in today's LA Times and includes a mention of Trek BBS.

LA Times article on the new movie and our opinions thereof...

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Re: LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about f

"Bonnie Malmat"????

T'Bonz!!!!!!!!!!!??????????

...that's kind of cool, sounds like an alien name anyway.

 

[James Bond]

Re: LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about f

That was a good article, and I generally agree with it.

I think Bonz's 'cautiously optimistic' label works, but I think that the board members (and fanbase as a whole) are at least a bit more excited than that. The label could just be a general perception caused by the small vocal minority around here. I'd say that it's the usual suspects who are making all of fandom look like the kind of people you'd see in Trekkies.

Of course, Paramount is likely not too concerned with what these die-hard fans think--they'll come see the movie no matter what happens, even if only to hate it.

Totally!

 

[Dale]

Re: LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about f

It does seem like TBBS posters and mods were the sole sources for the article... even the quotes she used from the production people were posted here or were to be found in links posted here.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Re: LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about f

I'd call myself hopefully pessimistic. I think it would be great if it were great but that it will, in all likelihood, suck.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about f

Of course, Paramount is likely not too concerned with what these die-hard fans think--they'll come see the movie no matter what happens, even if only to hate it.

Nailed it! Nothing more to be said, really. :thumbsup:

 

[James Bond]

Re: LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about f

Brutal Strudel said:
I'd call myself hopefully pessimistic. I think it would be great if it were great but that it will, in all likelihood, suck.

Oh?

 

[Pensive]

Re: LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about f

Decent article despite the jab at ENT *fist*

 

[Dale]

Re: LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about f

"The early cancellation of Enterprise" and "Enterprise didn't work" are hardly jabs. It was cancelled early and it didn't work well enough to build or even keep a Trek audience that was already hemmoraging members at the start of the series.

 

[Lord Garth]

I spotted out the names of other staff members too. Makes me glad I've been scarce outside of checking this forum once a night.

 

[Mordock]

Re: LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about f

Good article. Soberly written, and it puts fandom in perspective without being derogatory. If all or even most of the Trek XI coverage in the mainstream press had a similar tone, it would be a fine thing.

 

[Pensive]

Re: LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about f

dalehoppert said:
"The early cancellation of Enterprise" and "Enterprise didn't work" are hardly jabs. It was cancelled early and it didn't work well enough to build or even keep a Trek audience that was already hemmoraging members at the start of the series.

No no, I meant this:

"We assumed they would be jumping for joy that a high-profile genre director would be taking over their beloved franchise, but instead they treated the news with a skeptical "we'll see" attitude. This is a group that has been burned in the past ("Enterprise" anyone?), and who can blame them if they have little faith in anyone."

 

[Dale]

Re: LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about f

Alright then, I'll give it to you... that was a jab, and it wasn't even couched in a quote... it came straight from the reporter herself.

Clearly, she's been spending time lurking the board... she writes like one of us. Must be a fan...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about f

dalehoppert said:
"The early cancellation of Enterprise" and "Enterprise didn't work" are hardly jabs. It was cancelled early and it didn't work well enough to build or even keep a Trek audience that was already hemmoraging members at the start of the series.

This is true.

 

[Corran Horn]

Re: LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about f

'Nemesis' moved forward too. Right off a cliff.

 

[Sigaba]

Re: LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about f

The conclusion that "Paramount is likely not too concerned with what these die-hard fans think--they'll come see the movie no matter what happens, even if only to hate it" is probably accurate. However, I hope that the studio crafts the next film to a higher standard than that.

 

[Warp Coil]

Re: LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about f

"Cautiously optimistic" is an accurate description of how I feel. I trust JJ Abrams, I have faith in him and his team. Personally, I'm just really happy to see such a talented creative team take over the franchise. But I don't know how this "reboot, not a reboot" thing will pan out. Time will tell.

 

[seigezunt]

Re: LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about f

"the franchise succeeds when it moves forward"?

hm.

 

[Kokomo]

Re: LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about f

Honestly, as long as I don't see Harve's Starfleet Academy movie where Spock has "rubber glove sex" I will be happy From what I have seen, Abrams and his crew are full on dedicated to making this a good movie, and I absolutely cannot wait to see what they have in store for us.

 

[Balthier the Great]

Re: LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about f

Starship Polaris said:

Of course, Paramount is likely not too concerned with what these die-hard fans think--they'll come see the movie no matter what happens, even if only to hate it.

Nailed it! Nothing more to be said, really. :thumbsup:

They got us pegged. I'll see it 15 times and come on here every day to tell you how much it sucked. I'll be the one in the front row with the Spock ears.