one thing that annoys me . . .

[backstept]

I often have ideas in my head that I have trouble putting into words, so forgive me if this becomes confusing . . .

why do some of us trek fans feel like JJ and company should have gotten our approval before the movie comes out?
'how dare they redesign such an iconic bridge set!' etc . . .
'should X be in the movie?' etc . . .
'THEY RAPED MY CHILDHOOD!' etc . . .

what I mean to say is why do we care what happens?
JJ and company are filmmakers who know what they are doing, they are some of the best-in-the-biz . . . why should this movie fit into 'canon?'

still trying to arrange my thoughts . . .

I guess some of us trek fans feel some amount of ownership in the franchise, we've been with it for decades, we grew up with it, it makes us happy etc . . . when in reality, all that we own is the enjoyment we get from the franchise . . . we have absolutely no say in what happens

JJ and company don't owe us anything . . . sure they have some obligation to stay true to the original, but since they're working with a clean slate, they can do whatever they want.

I feel that they have done their best to tell a great story, and I'm glad.
but why are some of us already throwing hate at it? all we've seen so far are about a dozen little pictures, and some tidbits about the story, and we've got people screaming that it's a disaster! why?
it's like the Cardassian Justice System . . . Guilty until proven guilty.

it shouldn't be like this . . . one of trek's largest themes is optimism, so why are we divided into 'looks good, I'll wait and see' and 'it's not the same, I hate it' camps?

I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me, I just wanted to throw this out there and sort through my thoughts . . .

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I guess some of us trek fans feel some amount of ownership in the franchise. . .

Exactly. Fans are emotionally invested in this thing; they feel some ownership of it. They feel like it's theirs.

Since in fact it's not ours in any real sense other than our attachment to it, there's a big emotional and even cognitive conflict there. At certain points it spills out in expressions of frustration, anger and even outrage.

Attempts to impose a rational framework on feelings of entitlement rarely rise above temper-driven rationalizations of the simplest kind, like "If enough of us withhold our eight dollars, they'll see who's in charge!"

That fails to assuage the bad feelings for any length of time, because even though it's based in the only influence we really have - we can punish the studio (not that we effectively do very often, but hypothetically we can) - punishing the owners of "Star Trek" is not what we want. We want them to deliver very specific and individual visions of "Star Trek' to us, and we simply have no practical leverage with which to make that happen.

 

[backstept]

I guess some of us trek fans feel some amount of ownership in the franchise. . .

Exactly. Fans are emotionally invested in this thing; they feel some ownership of it. They feel like it's theirs.

Since in fact it's not ours in any real sense other than our attachment to it, there's a big emotional and even cognitive conflict there. At certain points it spills out in expressions of frustration, anger and even outrage.

Attempts to impose a rational framework on feelings of entitlement rarely rise above temper-driven rationalizations of the simplest kind, like "If enough of us withhold our eight dollars, they'll see who's in charge!"

That fails to assuage the bad feelings for any length of time, because even though it's based in the only influence we really have - we can punish the studio (not that we effectively do very often, but hypothetically we can) - punishing the owners of "Star Trek" is not what we want.

yeah, emotions are definitely a huge part of it
'entitlement' was the word I was looking for . . . it really is a no-win scenario since we all have our preconceptions about what Trek should be, that no matter what happens there is a chance that any change will touch a nerve, and we begin to take a purely rational design or storytelling choice as an intensely personal affront to our idea of Star Trek.

We want them to deliver very specific and individual visions of "Star Trek' to us, and we simply have no practical leverage with which to make that happen.

save for fan fiction, fan films and other derivative works, which vary widely in quality and exposure

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

I just want them to make a good movie.

At this point, it's impossible to tell whether it will be any good or not. It could be the best Star Trek ever. It could be average. It could be shit.

Some of us like the tiny scraps we have been shown so far. Some of us don't. Some of us (on both sides) will likely have those opinions reversed once we see the final film.

Till then, it's a waiting game. Just like it is with any new movie.

And, in the meantime, the impatience and the desire to see "our version of the movie" often brings out the worst in us.

 

[Icy_Penguigo]

As much as I would have loved a close and faithful remake of TOS(like keeping most of the aesthetic elements of the TOS Enterprise bridge, and just making it feel more real and functional), I accepted long ago that it wasn't probable. Frankly, I'm pleasantly surprised that many elements are as close as they are to TOS.

If the story and actors are good, I will enjoy it. I ain't gonna line up for this movie around the block, but I will see it on opening day if I can.

I will always have my TOS DVD's too. No amount of remakes or reboots can take those from me.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

I though the same myself.

Everyone is nervous, and as James Kirk said to Azedbur in Star Trek VI, "People can be very frightened of change."

I'm looking forward to the movie myself, and the Bridge design is growing on me.

I certainly understand people's concern though.

In the end, either the movie will work, or it will not. We already have all that has gone before, and that will not change.

If this movie works, and stays true to established continuity (story wise), then it should be considered Canon.

If not: It can be taken out of Canon, and put down as an attempted reboot.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

As much as I would have loved a close and faithful remake of TOS(like keeping most of the aesthetic elements of the TOS Enterprise bridge, and just making it feel more real and functional), I accepted long ago that it wasn't probable. Frankly, I'm pleasantly surprised that many elements are as close as they are to TOS.

It's entirely possible that they can change the look of the movie, but keep the spirit of Trek, which I'm sure most would agree is better than keeping the look, but losing the spirit (which is not to say that they could not have made a film that upholds both the look and the spirit, because I'm sure they could have).

They could also change the look and the spirit, and still end up with a good movie.

Or, again, it could be shit.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

We want them to deliver very specific and individual visions of "Star Trek' to us, and we simply have no practical leverage with which to make that happen.

save for fan fiction, fan films and other derivative works, which vary widely in quality and exposure

Which is a big reason that I'm so fond of many of those things and participate in them - doing something on one's own is always a freeing alternative to trying to make other people do something one's own way.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

backstept said:
why do some of us trek fans feel like JJ and company should have gotten our approval before the movie comes out?
'how dare they redesign such an iconic bridge set!' etc . . .
'should X be in the movie?' etc . . .
'THEY RAPED MY CHILDHOOD!' etc . . .

OK, granted I just stepped into this forum for the first time in months because I ran across an article about the movie yesterday, but from what I've seen poking around here, no one is saying "they raped my childhood" or anything even remotely that vitriolic.

As for discussing and expressing opinions about the choices made for the film - well, that's what fans do. That's why we have a discussion board.

I don't know that anyone feels Abrams should have gotten our approval (an impossible task considering that Trek fans, like any other subgroup, are far from monolithic and we have a huge range of opinions about what any new Trek should be like), but we are certainly going to express our approval or disapproval with choices made. It's how everyone engages with art of any kind.

I guess some of us trek fans feel some amount of ownership in the franchise. . .

Exactly. Fans are emotionally invested in this thing; they feel some ownership of it. They feel like it's theirs.

Since in fact it's not ours in any real sense other than our attachment to it, there's a big emotional and even cognitive conflict there. At certain points it spills out in expressions of frustration, anger and even outrage.

Attempts to impose a rational framework on feelings of entitlement rarely rise above temper-driven rationalizations of the simplest kind, like "If enough of us withhold our eight dollars, they'll see who's in charge!"

That fails to assuage the bad feelings for any length of time, because even though it's based in the only influence we really have - we can punish the studio (not that we effectively do very often, but hypothetically we can) - punishing the owners of "Star Trek" is not what we want. We want them to deliver very specific and individual visions of "Star Trek' to us, and we simply have no practical leverage with which to make that happen.

How is Star Trek not 'ours'?

I understand, obviously, that the production of, say, new movies, or new tv shows, is not collectively in the control of the people who purchase these things - but we do purchase these things, thus making them ours.

Beyond that, Star Trek is the great-grandmama of the interactive fan culture. It has often been argued that the Trek franchise would not exist had it not been for fan action that ensured the third season, thus giving TOS enough episodes to go into syndication where it became a pop phenomenon. Even if there was not such a direct action example, literary theory has long shown how the reader creates the text, and collectively, Trek fandom has in many ways created the shape of not only Star Trek, but modern franchise production. The introduction of the internet has, of course, added an element by which producers can directly tap fan opinions (ask Mr. Abrams about the power of fans, who sunk his Superman movie script through internet commentary), and take those opinions into account in the creation of new material. It's been obvious that fan reaction has been instrumental in the direction of the Trek franchise.

Not to mention, as you well know, numerous fans eventually become writers within Trek, and Abrams has quite a few Trek fans on the production team.

I think it's a bit simplistic to say the only effect fans have is whether or not they plunk down their money for a movie. Obviously, all fans do not have the same effect, but, especially today, it's not as straightforward as we are a passive audience being fed material from an active producer.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I understand, obviously, that the production of, say, new movies, or new tv shows, is not collectively in the control of the people who purchase these things - but we do purchase these things, thus making them ours.

We purchase a product. The rights and the means of production belong to someone else.

If I buy a steak I can dispose of it as I wish - eat it, give it away, throw it away. I don't buy an ownership share in the cattle ranch. I own a steak, not the beef industry.

Beyond that, you're just restating what I said: the extent of our influence is in the choice to purchase or not purchase. The fact that there aren't enough trekkies to make production profitable for the studio - and that each of those fans has their own notion of what would constitute a "good movie" that is often in conflict with that of other fans - guarantees that we have insufficient leverage to exercise any specific influence with the people who actually do own "Star Trek."

 

[Franklin]

Trek fans are no different than sports fans.

Sports fans always gripe about how WE need a left-handed power hitter. Or, WE need a number two starter. Or, WE need to fire the manager. Or, WE need to hit-and-run more. Or, WE need a glove in center field.
Some fans are die-hard and the team can do no wrong. Others jump ship the moment the team starts losing. Others root only when the team is winning or it's popular to do so.
But, like Trek fans, the only way they can really affect the product is by their financial support, or lack of it. Buying tickets and TV packages. And that's just an expression of a preference, not really control of any kind.

The BBS and places like this are no different than call-in sports talk shows.

 

[backstept]

backstept said:
why do some of us trek fans feel like JJ and company should have gotten our approval before the movie comes out?
'how dare they redesign such an iconic bridge set!' etc . . .
'should X be in the movie?' etc . . .
'THEY RAPED MY CHILDHOOD!' etc . . .

OK, granted I just stepped into this forum for the first time in months because I ran across an article about the movie yesterday, but from what I've seen poking around here, no one is saying "they raped my childhood" or anything even remotely that vitriolic.

an exaggeration to further the point I was trying to make

 

[Sector 7]

backstept said:
why do some of us trek fans feel like JJ and company should have gotten our approval before the movie comes out?
'how dare they redesign such an iconic bridge set!' etc . . .
'should X be in the movie?' etc . . .
'THEY RAPED MY CHILDHOOD!' etc . . .

OK, granted I just stepped into this forum for the first time in months because I ran across an article about the movie yesterday, but from what I've seen poking around here, no one is saying "they raped my childhood" or anything even remotely that vitriolic.

an exaggeration to further the point I was trying to make

Welcome back to the board. If you actually read all the threads on this board, you will find many who are fanatically adamant that "THEY RAPED MY CHILDHOOD!" In fact, they use those exact words. My guess is that you have barely scratched the surface here.

Originally Posted by backstept
I guess some of us trek fans feel some amount of ownership in the franchise. . .

Unfortunately, this is a faulty assumption. The facts say otherwise. It is a lesson I learned the hard way in Hollywood.
Paramount owns the rights to all Star Trek movies. CBS owns the rights to all Star Trek television series. This is the way it really is. They can shoot down any ideas. TPTB can make you change what THEY don't like about your series or movie. The only power you (as a consumer) have is to buy it or watch it... or not.
If you withhold your movie dollars, the only thing you will accomplish is to ensure that there may not be more movies. Even this won't matter if they get enough non-fans to pay for tickets and they like what they see.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Or, again, it could be shit.

I've found something enjoyable about most ST episodes/movies/novels/comics, even if a few have been sorely lacking, but even my favourites have been branded "shit" by others.

A film that polarizes viewers into "love" and "hate" is probably better for the ongoing franchise than a film which most viewers say "Eh, I guess it was okay."

 

[MadBaggins]

The thing that annoys me the most is Kirk looking like he's about twelve.

 

[Tyberius]

I will always have my TOS DVD's too. No amount of remakes or reboots can take those from me.

I heard* that part of Abrams' contract specifically states that the licenses for previous Trek media will expire. Paramount will be requesting their intellectual property back, and using sales data compiled over the last 40 years, will mount a campaign to retrieve, by force if necessary, every version of Trek obviated by the new movie. As I write this, complaints are being filed with the Department of Justice pursuant to Senate bill 3325 - passed this September. Count on a visit from the FBI or the Secret Service electronic crimes taskforce if you are found in non-compliance.


(*The above is a joke)

 

[Sector 7]

I will always have my TOS DVD's too. No amount of remakes or reboots can take those from me.

I heard* that part of Abrams' contract specifically states that the licenses for previous Trek media will expire. Paramount will be requesting their intellectual property back, and using sales data compiled over the last 40 years, will mount a campaign to retrieve, by force if necessary, every version of Trek obviated by the new movie. As I write this, complaints are being filed with the Department of Justice pursuant to Senate bill 3325 - passed this September. Count on a visit from the FBI or the Secret Service electronic crimes taskforce if you are found in non-compliance.


(*The above is a joke)

Thank heavens we are getting a new Congress and Administration. I know it was made a plank on the Democratic platform to rescind Senate Bill 3325. I'm not sure about the Republicans. Candidate Obama is a Trek fan, so look for him to support a repeal.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I understand, obviously, that the production of, say, new movies, or new tv shows, is not collectively in the control of the people who purchase these things - but we do purchase these things, thus making them ours.

We purchase a product. The rights and the means of production belong to someone else.

If I buy a steak I can dispose of it as I wish - eat it, give it away, throw it away. I don't buy an ownership share in the cattle ranch. I own a steak, not the beef industry.

Beyond that, you're just restating what I said: the extent of our influence is in the choice to purchase or not purchase. The fact that there aren't enough trekkies to make production profitable for the studio - and that each of those fans has their own notion of what would constitute a "good movie" that is often in conflict with that of other fans - guarantees that we have insufficient leverage to exercise any specific influence with the people who actually do own "Star Trek."

No, I did not restate what you said - in fact, I specifically said the opposite.

What you are describing is how Paramount is the sole owner of intellectual property rights as defined under current US law, which is what gives that company the ability to produce material with the brand name Star Trek, and derive profit from it. This is a very specific, legalistic, and limited definiton of the word "own".

From dictionary.com

own - verb

1.to have or hold as one's own; possess.
2.to acknowledge or admit: to own a fault.
3.to acknowledge as one's own; recognize as having full claim, authority, power, dominion, etc.:

The more philosophical form of "own" is #1. The legalistic form of "own" is the sub-phrase of #3.

To own any work of imagination means more than who is allowed to make money from it.

[Welcome back to the board. If you actually read all the threads on this board, you will find many who are fanatically adamant that "THEY RAPED MY CHILDHOOD!" In fact, they use those exact words. My guess is that you have barely scratched the surface here.

I've been on the board for well over 8 years. I've only just reentered this particular forum after not having visited it in probably 6 months. I've never heard any Trek fan say "They raped my childhood" (which is not to say I don't believe that someone somewhere on this board used thost exact words at some point). Having been involved in Trek fandom for about 30 years, I have found very few people who can be described as "fanatically adamant" about anything Trek-related. It's easy and fun to shout and scream on the internet. Doesn't really mean anything.

 

[Sector 7]

I understand, obviously, that the production of, say, new movies, or new tv shows, is not collectively in the control of the people who purchase these things - but we do purchase these things, thus making them ours.

We purchase a product. The rights and the means of production belong to someone else.

If I buy a steak I can dispose of it as I wish - eat it, give it away, throw it away. I don't buy an ownership share in the cattle ranch. I own a steak, not the beef industry.

Beyond that, you're just restating what I said: the extent of our influence is in the choice to purchase or not purchase. The fact that there aren't enough trekkies to make production profitable for the studio - and that each of those fans has their own notion of what would constitute a "good movie" that is often in conflict with that of other fans - guarantees that we have insufficient leverage to exercise any specific influence with the people who actually do own "Star Trek."

No, I did not restate what you said - in fact, I specifically said the opposite.

What you are describing is how Paramount is the sole owner of intellectual property rights as defined under current US law, which is what gives that company the ability to produce material with the brand name Star Trek, and derive profit from it. This is a very specific, legalistic, and limited definiton of the word "own".

From dictionary.com

own - verb

1.to have or hold as one's own; possess.
2.to acknowledge or admit: to own a fault.
3.to acknowledge as one's own; recognize as having full claim, authority, power, dominion, etc.:

The more philosophical form of "own" is #1. The legalistic form of "own" is the sub-phrase of #3.

To own any work of imagination means more than who is allowed to make money from it.

[Welcome back to the board. If you actually read all the threads on this board, you will find many who are fanatically adamant that "THEY RAPED MY CHILDHOOD!" In fact, they use those exact words. My guess is that you have barely scratched the surface here.

I've been on the board for well over 8 years. I've only just reentered this particular forum after not having visited it in probably 6 months. I've never heard any Trek fan say "They raped my childhood" (which is not to say I don't believe that someone somewhere on this board used thost exact words at some point). Having been involved in Trek fandom for about 30 years, I have found very few people who can be described as "fanatically adamant" about anything Trek-related. It's easy and fun to shout and scream on the internet. Doesn't really mean anything.

I stand by my earlier statement.

 

[Jon1701]

Abrams raped my childhood. Then kicked it.

Then urinated on it.

Then danced on it.

But then he bought it something nice.