LATimes article calls us "cautiously optimistic" about film

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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

seigezunt said:
"the franchise succeeds when it moves forward"?

hm.

Right.

TNG succeeded, "Enterprise" didn't. From this very limited data set we conclude that the deciding factor is whether the setting moved forward or backward.

To accomplish this, we do have to discard the data points called DS9 and "Voyager," both of which both moved forward and failed to grow - or even maintain - the fan base. But hey, any study where you have to throw away fifty percent or less of the observed data in order to find concordance with your hypothesis is a successful one - right?

 

[xortex]

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

Sigaba said:
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.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, HA !!

 

[xortex]

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

Sigaba said:
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.

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha !!

 

[Valin]

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

dalehoppert said:
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...

Maybe she's not a lurker, but an actual member.

Decent article, overall.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

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.

:thumbsup:

 

[Brutal Strudel]

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

Zed.P.M. said:

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?

It's simple: most Hollywood blockbuster bait sucks as a matter of course. When you add to that a movie series that has had 2, maybe 3, good films out of 10 and that the last of those--the maybe third--was 11 years ago, the chances of this film not sucking aren't very high. But we'll see and hopefully it will beat the odds.

 

[Balthier the Great]

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

Brutal Strudel said:

Zed.P.M. said:

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?

It's simple: most Hollywood blockbuster bait sucks as a matter of course. When you add to that a movie series that has had 2, maybe 3, good films out of 10 and that the last of those--the maybe third--was 11 years ago, the chances of this film not sucking aren't very high. But we'll see and hopefully it will beat the odds.

I'm not sure that it can't be good. I've seen some trends that make me go "WTF, they've got to be kidding, right?" (The name of the badguy is one of them, and the perennial time-travel rumour is the other) But I've seen some positive things too. One is the focus on character -- this doesn't seem like a movie that's going to try and be badass with explosions every ten seconds, and it doesn't sound like it's going to go for "let's try to fanwank everything we can into the movie".

So for me right now:

Nimoy likes it +0
It's about the characters +1
It's actually close to shooting and nobody's said Khaaaaaaaaan yet. +1
No one is bragging about the SFX +1
Time Travel -1
JJ Abrams -1 (sorry, just not a fan)
Nero is a stupid name -1

which leaves me at 0 actually. So I'm cautiously neutral, and won't decide until I see a trailer.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

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

It can be good. It might be good. A fair number of movies are--they beat the odds. But it probably won't. But I am a pessimist by nature. Star Trek--fond as I am of it--doesn't get a pass.

I like your reckoning system, btw.

 

[T'Bonz]

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

*grins*

Wow. I just spoke to her last night.

One of the perks of this gig is the occasional bit in the newspaper.

**prints out story to show Mom."

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

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

I'm not cautiously optimistic. I'm bursting at the seams about this movie. It's the first Trek I've felt any real enthusiasm about since 91. The return of Kirk and the crew of the starship Enterprise is an event! It's a symbol of Paramount's coming to their senses and making a real Star Trek movie with the first real director since Nicholas Meyer! There's nothing cautious in my optimism! I'm throwing caution to the wind! Star Trek is back! It's back and I couldn't be happier!

 

[Akiraprise]

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

It was a good article.
It reads like one of our members here wrote it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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

I'm optimistic because the original Trek is finally being recast, redesigned and rethought for the movies - as opposed to being a repetitious, too-respectful and yet frequently off-target homage to the original TV series and its cast.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

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

Starship Polaris said:
I'm optimistic because the original Trek is finally being recast, redesigned and rethought for the movies - as opposed to being a repetitious, too-respectful and yet frequently off-target homage to the original TV series and its cast.

Is that a New Voyages jab? Just curious.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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

Not all all. I was talking about the previous TOS-derived movies.

I like "New Voyages."

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

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

Starship Polaris said:
Not all all. I was talking about the previous TOS-derived movies.

I like "New Voyages."

Do you mean the TNG films? You can't possibly mean 1-6 because they're not really that close in tone or style to the television series. They're more militarized and dark than the show ever was.

As far as the new movie it needs to be a movie first and foremost and not episode 80 of the television series. But it also needs to not be a nuBSG-style reimagining. The characters have to be the characters and not angsted up for the 21st Century.

 

[T'Bonz]

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

I really AM cautiously optimistic. I'm cautious due to movies like Nemesis but optimistic due to Abrams and having Nimoy on board for the new movie. Plus - I like TOS.

There have been movies I loved, and ones I didn't like. I'm hoping the new one will be one that I love.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

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

if Paramount cares nothing about what die hards think, why are they (reportedly) going with such a fan-wanky plot and messing with alternate timelines to avoid continuity and all that junk, along with Nimoy as Spock? Clearly there's some attempt being made at throwing some bones to the die-hard fans.

personally I wanted a casino royale style reboot, jumping right in with a new Kirk, Spock, McCoy on a new adventure. Epic, but simple and clean that anybody and everybody could jump in, watch, enjoy the iconic characters, without any of the inaccessible junk - inaccessible doesn't always mean 'too complicated', it can sometimes mean 'i just don't care enough about this junk to sort it all out' - it all just sounds very comic booky.

Cautiously optimistic i think was a fair barometer of how I was feeling before all this stuff about time traveling alternate realities stuff started leaking out. Now I'm back to a 'wait and see' mode. Its got the potential to be good, though, I'm still holding out hope that JJ won't make the movie too "fan-wanky".

 

[Michael Chris]

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

Wow, cool. Congrats, T'Bonz.

 

[Kryton]

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

Call me pedantic if you like (it's deserved, I'm sure), but I'm a bit surprised that an LA Times editor (even a WEB editor) let "cache" slip through when "cachet" was clearly the correct term that was meant. (Then again, they spelled the name of the last film "Nemeisis", so maybe it was just a typo...but editors and typesetters are supposed to catch such errors before they hit the press/web.)

Otherwise, YAY TBBS Admin & Mods for getting some respect in the press. :thumbsup:

 

[Plum]

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

Nice work TBonz, I've always liked the LATimes. Good paper, seems to hire good writers.