Now Kevin Smith says Star Trek almost as good as Dark Knight

[T'Cal]

The big difference here is the Batman history has been revised several times in comic books, on TV as a live action show and as a few animated series, and at the movies. Yes, there are some basic hard points in the various itterations, but otherwise it's pretty much all over the map.

Trek hasn't been revised in the same way at all. All the series and films were based on the same "history" from TOS. JJA says he's staying within that framework. I think the biggest comparisons will be to TWoK and TVH probably because they did well with the general movie going audience.

 

[Eric Cheung]

If this were one of the other Trek movies I'd agree. But this is completely uncharted territory for Trek. In a way we've been pretty licuky in that we haven't had a remake or reboot, whereas Batman has. Whether this movie sticks to canon isn't the issue with the studio and the general audience--only that this movie perform.

So in that way, in this case, since this is the first time there's been a reboot of this magnitude in Trek (especially in that it's the TOS characters and involves an almost entirely new crew behind the scenes), means that commercially speaking it has more in common with Batman Begins and Superman Returns and Spider-Man and King Kong.

 

[cooleddie74]

I think TREK XI will do better than many think if only because the movie franchise is now in new hands and the greater franchise-as-a-whole has been less visible since 2005 and the premature cancellation of ENTERPRISE. We've all gone more than three years now without a single new STAR TREK film or television episode of any kind. That's been a breathing space for the public to forget how overexposed they were to TREK during the 1990s and the early stages of this decade.

 

[Eric Cheung]

Though overexposure was a problem in the 80s and 90s, I'm not sure overexposure is was much of a problem as the connotation that Trek is for nerds.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I'm not sure overexposure is [as] much of a problem as the connotation that Trek is for nerds.

I think this is THE biggest obstacle that Abrams needs to overcome. I also think that is why this film is being kept so secretive and "under the radar" when it comes to the general public.

I think that Abrams is not going to over-hype this film early with the hopes of catching the general public/average movie-goer off guard come May.

He wants the first impression of this film for the Average Joe to be the TV commercials that show this film "Looking cool", so as not to allow the general public to get pre-conceived notions of what they think this Star Trek movie will be like...and more than likely those pre-conceived notions would be that "Star Trek is for geeks".

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the TV commercials (and trailers) for this film will only identify it as "Star Trek" at the very end...just like the teaser trailer did. That way people will (hopefully) say to themselves "this looks cool -- what movie is this?" before they find out it is Star Trek.

...although I'm sure that 75% of average moviegoers will recognize it as Star Trek...but hopefully they will be pleasantly surprised by the way the film looks in the trailer/TV advertisements.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the TV commercials (and trailers) for this film will only identify it as "Star Trek" at the very end...just like the teaser trailer did. That way people will (hopefully) say to themselves "this looks cool -- what movie is this?" before they find out it is Star Trek.

The trailer for "Batman Begins" did this very well -- and it's a great idea -- but it will be a little harder to hide the fact that this is a Star Trek trailer until the very end.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^
^^Yeah -- I thought about that.

However I think that...maybe 50%?...of the 'Average Joe/Jane Movie-goers' may not recognize it until it gets overtly labeled as "Star Trek".

It depends on the ad...if they show a full shot of the Enterprise early in the ad, it will be pretty obvious as to what film it is. However, if they mostly show interior/planet scenes of the characters 'doing stuff', then it will be harder to identify.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It would be real hard to hide the fact that it's a space movie - and come to think of it, they're not all that much in vogue these days either. But assuming that the look of the effects, photography, design and so on is actually as distinct from previous Trek as the filmmakers claim, then three things would quickly identify it as Trek - Leonard Nimoy, familar music and a (presumed-to-be) recognizable Enterprise. Those elements could be held, oh, thirty seconds or more into a brief trailer.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^
^^I was thinking more of **some** of the TV ads, not the Trailers. Perhaps ones made especially for -- and directed at -- the non-fan. Ads that may catch their interest before identifying the product. I think this could be done with some fast editing of explosions, Chris Pine/Zach Quinto/Eric Bana action scenes, and phaser fights. If we don't see the Big E, Nimoy, or the TOS uniforms, then it would be tough for the average Joe to know what he is seeing, until the end of the ad.

Of course there could also be some TV ads that come right out and unabashedly scream "this is Star Trek". These ads would be directed at the portion of the public that isn't automatically turned off by anything labeled "Star Trek".

 

[dru]

Greaaaaat. Dark Knight was crap.

 

[Brian]

Greaaaaat. Dark Knight was crap.

[whisper]Hasn't anyone told you that Heath Ledger is dead?[/whisper]

LOL, finally someone who is honest about their feelings on the film.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Greaaaaat. Dark Knight was crap.

[whisper]Hasn't anyone told you that Heath Ledger is dead?[/whisper]

LOL, finally someone who is honest about their feelings on the film.

You want to cite a specific example of someone who isn't?

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Greaaaaat. Dark Knight was crap.

[whisper]Hasn't anyone told you that Heath Ledger is dead?[/whisper]

LOL, finally someone who is honest about their feelings on the film.

You want to cite a specific example of someone who isn't?

^
^^ Yeah -- when I said I thought The Dark Knight was "pretty good" I was lying through my teeth. What I really thought of it was that it was "somewhere between 'alright' and 'good'"

 

[Brian]

In general, anyone who ever posted "Best. Movie. Evarr!!1!" in regards to TDK. Not even close.

when I said I thought The Dark Knight was "pretty good"

See now, that sounds like another honest appraisal, rather than the tragic-death-fueled hype herd I mentioned above.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

In general, anyone who ever posted "Best. Movie. Evarr!!1!" in regards to TDK. Not even close.

Because you don't agree with them doesn't make their expressed opinions dishonest.

Again, any specific examples?

 

[Brian]

And what would that serve? They exist. You know they do. I know they do. I think they're full of shit. You don't. I would post them. You would say I'm wrong. Fuck that. I have my opinion. You have yours. We just saved three pages of pointless debate.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^
^^...and on the other end of the spectrum are the Contrarians.

I'm not necessarily labeling you as one...I'm just saying they exist.

 

[ancient]

Contrarians...I'm just saying they exist.

No they don't!

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Contrarians...I'm just saying they exist.

No they don't!

Yeah they do!

 

[cooleddie74]

^
No they don't...except when they do!

I'm confused...but clearly so!