No more temper tantrums necessary... Abrams "beholden to Trek fans"

[KirkusOveractus]

Re: No more temper tantrums necessary... Abrams "beholden to Trek fans

You wouldn't want a non-Rock and Roll producer to produce The Beatles, would you?

(no, wait...)

I think having a new take and outlook on something that was previously being controlled by committee for the past 3 series and several movies could only benefit it, both creatively and financially.

Like all classics, they have to be able to appeal to the next generation (no pun intended) to survive and not end up a footnote in history.

If it takes a fresh look to make it live on vibrantly, so be it.

 

[indranee]

Re: No more temper tantrums necessary... Abrams "beholden to Trek fans

I like this thread. it's exciting!

(and hi-larious)

 

[Sharr Khan]

Re: No more temper tantrums necessary... Abrams "beholden to Trek fans

Originally Posted by True Trek Fan
I sure as hell wouldn't want a director who isn't a fan of Superman for example to make a Superman movie, same thing goes for Star Trek.

That mindset has brought us, myopic and dull and small in scope "Star Trek" over the last couple years. Sometimes you need to break the mold and go outside of the established parameters to return life to a fictional universe. by this logic Nick Mayer shouldn't have made Trek II or even Robert Wise TMP since I'm pretty sure he wasn't commissioned for his fandom ranking either but that he was a well known director.

Sharr

 

[marc0702]

Re: No more temper tantrums necessary... Abrams "beholden to Trek fans

This is a good thread!

I personally am looking forward to the movie, and JJ has done good work till now IMO, so I look forward to seeing what he does to trek.

The movie can honnestly not be as bad as most of the Trek we've gotten in the past, what, 5 years now?

Trek needs to be made with the entire in mind, not just the fans who know every character tidbit since 1969. But injecting some references to past stuff, alternate timeline and what not, I think is a good way to keep the old stuff still relevant without making it a complete reboot.

That's just my opinion.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Re: No more temper tantrums necessary... Abrams "beholden to Trek fans

That's another thing "Star Trek" IS NOT an elite club despite what a few around here seem to think, its a piece of entertainment and only requires for you to show up and watch it to be part of it.

Sharr

 

[M'Sharak]

Re: No more temper tantrums necessary... Abrams "beholden to Trek fans

...

... Grow up already, ...

No more of that, please. It added nothing worthwhile to your post, which was otherwise to the point.

 

[Ptrope]

Re: No more temper tantrums necessary... Abrams "beholden to Trek fans

I don't have a problem with rebooting Star Trek and clearing out the contradictions that are all, somehow, 'canon.' I don't have a problem with making a Star Trek movie so steeped in canon and TOS-style visuals that only we here on the board could appreciate - if not actually be excited by - it. My main objection is the doublespeak/doublethink that permeates this enterprise and makes it potentially problematic for all audiences, fan and non-fan alike. Using time travel yet again to excuse - not explain - the differences strikes me as simply pandering to the fans, not really embracing them. At the same time, it imbues the film with so much in the way of 'inside' information that it may leave non-fans puzzled as to the relevance of the references, and thus it affects their appreciation of the film overall. Generally, one cannot satisfactorily serve two masters, and it sounds like that is what this film attempts to do. I just hope they are better - or luckier - than the many interviews make them seem, because what I've read hasn't really impressed me; J.J. and crew sound, to me, like stereotypical self-absorbed 'artists' who can't understand or countenance the lesser folk who don't 'get' their brilliance. It's all berets and fingersnaps. But I'll see the movie and decide for myself, and try to keep my eyes and mind open.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Re: No more temper tantrums necessary... Abrams "beholden to Trek fans

Using time travel yet again to excuse - not explain - the differences strikes me as simply pandering to the fans, not really embracing them.

Ever tried to embrace someone who's refusing to be hugged?

At the same time, it imbues the film with so much in the way of 'inside' information that it may leave non-fans puzzled as to the relevance of the references, and thus it affects their appreciation of the film overall.

Nope.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

Re: No more temper tantrums necessary... Abrams "beholden to Trek fans

I like this thread. it's exciting!

(and hi-larious)

This is a good thread!

What love about this thread is all I had to do is post a link and a title thread accordingly and all hell breaks loose.

is it not ironic that a post about "no more temper tantrums" results in exactly that, from both sides of the JJ-love divide?

I think this sums it up perfectly.

That's another thing "Star Trek" IS NOT an elite club despite what a few around here seem to think, its a piece of entertainment and only requires for you to show up and watch it to be part of it.

Sharr

Good call. I addressed this exact point in World Premiere/Advanced Screening [SPOILERS GUARANTEED] thread (don't worry. if you click the link it'll only show you my post which addresses no spoilers at all).

Of particular note:

"Antithesis of what Trek is all about?"
Sonny, you only HAVE a Star Trek at all because of fans like me who have been keeping it alive with heart, soul and money for decades.

FAIL. Despite your overinflated opinion of your own role in regard to the success of the franchise, you have very little to do with it. 98% of Star Trek's viewing audience has been the non-Trek fan, i.e. the casual viewer. So quite frankly, and I know this may be a big ego blow to you, you (and I both) simply aren't that important to the franchise.

This isn't "Trek", it's an Abomination and an insult to everything a lot of us have loved for a great many years.

This whole post reminds me of all of those nerds in the A/V Club in High School who were all Star Trek fans when I was not and when anyone who wasn't a nerd showed any interest in it and started asking questions they would have a fit and get defensive and condescending. The reason was pretty simple: Star Trek was the only thing the A/V nerds had. They were excluded by the cool kids and while the cool kids and the athletes got all of the girls and were popular the nerds had nothing but their Star Trek. So they'd flip out if any non-nerd would dare try to encroach on what they believed they had exclusive rights on. The irony was that by excluding others from Trek they were guilty of the same thing that they hated the popular kids for.

But the joke is, as I pointed out earlier, that the nerds are vastly outnumbered by the non-nerds when it comes to Trek and always have been whether they knew it or not.

 

[thumbtack]

Re: No more temper tantrums necessary... Abrams "beholden to Trek fans

I expect the film to be fun but not great storytelling

That's what the reviews seem to be saying. Maybe that's why they added Lindeloff to cowrite the next one. He's probably the strongest writer in Abrams' harem.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Re: No more temper tantrums necessary... Abrams "beholden to Trek fans

I expect the film to be fun but not great storytelling

That's what the reviews seem to be saying. Maybe that's why they added Lindeloff to cowrite the next one. He's probably the strongest writer in Abrams' harem.

Funny the reviews I've seen seem to indicate that its good because it is "good storytelling" and much more then big explosions. Though we might mean different things when we say "great storytelling".

Sharr

 

[Plum]

Re: No more temper tantrums necessary... Abrams "beholden to Trek fans

I don't have a problem with rebooting Star Trek and clearing out the contradictions that are all, somehow, 'canon.' I don't have a problem with making a Star Trek movie so steeped in canon and TOS-style visuals that only we here on the board could appreciate - if not actually be excited by - it. My main objection is the doublespeak/doublethink that permeates this enterprise and makes it potentially problematic for all audiences, fan and non-fan alike. Using time travel yet again to excuse - not explain - the differences strikes me as simply pandering to the fans, not really embracing them. At the same time, it imbues the film with so much in the way of 'inside' information that it may leave non-fans puzzled as to the relevance of the references, and thus it affects their appreciation of the film overall. Generally, one cannot satisfactorily serve two masters, and it sounds like that is what this film attempts to do. I just hope they are better - or luckier - than the many interviews make them seem, because what I've read hasn't really impressed me; J.J. and crew sound, to me, like stereotypical self-absorbed 'artists' who can't understand or countenance the lesser folk who don't 'get' their brilliance. It's all berets and fingersnaps. But I'll see the movie and decide for myself, and try to keep my eyes and mind open.

Oh, come on Ptrope. These guys aren't indi film makers. They are Hollywoodland talent. And top talent. LOST, MI:III, Transformers, etc. These guys do make really great stuff, sometimes.

For me, the plot element of Time Travel is fine. It's not alien to any audience. And I feel it's a great way to bring in Nimoy. How else, after all. And considering he, Ambassedor Spock, is so intrical to the plot according to the writers pleases me. Sounds artful. Which makes for good films.

JJ. Abrams is serious about his art. I've posted the TED thing he did, you saw it right? It's great insight to his creative mind and it's one I think that's shared by the best artists. This, film making, is an art after all.