• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Rolling Stone will only cover the new movie-Bastards!

Dusty Ayres

Commodore
What I'm saying, is that magazines like Rolling Stone, to name an example, never ever bothered to cover TOS,Next Generation, Deep Space 9, Voyager or Enterprise, but now will cover the movie simply because J.J. Abrams is directing and producing it, and because every star from Hollywood to Bollywood wants to bei in it. I've been mulling over this for a while (while reading some old Rolling Stone issues) and it bugs the hell out of my Trekker ass.

What I want to know is, does it bug any of you?
 
Not for a moment. Why should it?

Entertainment news publications cover those things that interest their audience. Not all audiences are the same.
 
That's an exaggeration, to be sure. It's remarkable, though, how much buzz this thing is generating in the industry.

Of course, there aren't that many hugely budgeted films in active production right now in L.A. Trek looms a little larger as a result.
 
Dusty Ayres said:
What I want to know is, does it bug any of you?

I AM MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!!! :scream: THIS IS FUCKING INSANE!!!!!! :brickwall: HOW MUCH MORE DO THEY THINK WE CAN TAKE!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: THE HUMANITY!!!!!!!!!!!! :scream:

**sobs**
 
Not really, it never occurred this was a problem. Trek simply hadn't done anything yet that got it on Rolling Stone's radar - well that's changed now. That should maybe tell us something about this project, to me good things - though I know there's some bitter Trek fan out there yelling: "Yeah it proves Star Trek has sold out, JJ's killing, Roberto Orci is killing my childhood!" or words like that.

Sharr
 
Given the nature of Rolling Stone and it's MO, nothing else preceding the new Trek movie has warranted their attention.
 
PREMIERE magazine never wanted to cover Trek movies until NEMESIS, so what does that say about judgement? (especially given that PREMIERE was pretty high-profile for awhile before its crash&burn.)

A lot of it has to do with the studios as well. Paramount has on trek films (and others) often been very rude to minor press (by minor, I mean everybody with circulation less than TV GUIDE), so a lot of periodicals probably don't think it is worth the hassle. I almost had two trek fx movie pieces cancelled (on GEN and FC) because Paramount simply refused to provide images to illustrate the articles; in the end, we got pretty much everything from ILM and other sources, doing an end run around them, though the mag paid for that by getting even less cooperation on other films like FORREST GUMP and the first MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE.

On TUC, the PR department literally ignored every piece of mail I sent and every phone call made over 7 months to schedule interviews, and this was after I had already interviewed the director on my own initiative. When the PR dept finally came through it was with cast interviews, stuff that had no business being in a tech article, and then they resumed ignoring all inquiries, and I only got the interviews I did because the film's associate producer just opened up a book and gave me every phone number in there on everybody associated with the show (some were out of date, but enough to do the story.)

When I covered TOMB RAIDER, which involved Paramount, for another magazine, I had to sign a virtual file drawer full of non-disclosures, even though the article contained almost no plot content or spoilers.

I'm not saying there are only issues with Paramount shows; I used to have 45 pages of correspondence with Warner PR over covering (or not covering) the first HARRY POTTER, and that was ALL I had to show for what was supposed to be a 7,000 word article on the cinematography, art direction and visual effects. But that was more the exception than the rule, and if I had simply cheated and avoided the PR dept altogether, I'd probably have gotten at least a third of the story, and with a head of steam up, had a better chance to get them to shrug and agree to help.

And would a trek story appeal to general readers? I remember PLAYBOY had a fantastic piece on Trumbull's effects work on TMP, but I'm reasonably sure they never had cause to cover any other Trek stuff. TMP was a serious event film, and while I'm sure Paramount HOPES this one will be, it isn't like this has been something that folks waited 10 years to see.
 
Dusty Ayres said:
I've been mulling over this for a while (while reading some old Rolling Stone issues) and it bugs the hell out of my Trekker ass.

Obviously, the first ten ST movies weren't being marketed to the audience that reads "Rolling Stone". This one will, possibly, appeal to that audience.

Not "Rolling Stone"'s fault, though.
 
Let me get this straight, you are retroactively mad that RS is covering Trek XI but not everything that came before?

Ooook....
 
Any stated intention on "Rolling Stone's" part to cover the Trek movie simply underscores how very far from hip that publication has drifted...

Too bad we'll never see Hunter Thompson's "Fear And Loathing On The Good Ship Enterprise:"

No one talks about anything on this set but Shatner. His bloated caricature hovers over the studio like smog licking the desicated palms on Melrose, poisoning everything. The spectre of his return as Kirk is a needle-toothed Nixonian ghost gnawing at the edge of perception, tattooed into the retinas by heinous chemicals. Kirk's body should have been burned in a dumpster and mixed into the grout for one of Redstone's rococo grotto pools.
 
Starship Polaris said:
Any stated intention on "Rolling Stone's" part to cover the Trek movie simply underscores how very far from hip that publication has drifted...

Too bad we'll never see Hunter Thompson's "Fear And Loathing On The Good Ship Enterprise." :lol:

At least we can live comforted in the fact that that particular role won't be played by Johnny Depp.
 
Dusty Ayres said:
What I'm saying, is that magazines like Rolling Stone, to name an example, never ever bothered to cover TOS,Next Generation, Deep Space 9, Voyager or Enterprise, but now will cover the movie simply because J.J. Abrams is directing and producing it, and because every star from Hollywood to Bollywood wants to bei in it. I've been mulling over this for a while (while reading some old Rolling Stone issues) and it bugs the hell out of my Trekker ass.

What I want to know is, does it bug any of you?
Frankly I'm happy they're finally doing it. Well, not really. It doesn't matter if they cover it or not. rolling Stone has always been irrelevant to me.
 
I'm positive I read an article or two about TNG in Rolling Stone during it's height in the early 90s. It was the highest rated syndicated show on TV behind the big game shows, so it did get a bit of coverage from the general interest and pop culture mags. It was everywhere and hard to ignore; the days when even your half-blind Granny had heard of "Data", resistance was futile, and bald men became sexy again. :lol:
 
"I AM MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS FUCKING INSANE!!!!!! HOW MUCH MORE DO THEY THINK WE CAN TAKE!!!!!!!!!!! THE HUMANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!

**sobs**"

Hey that's my line!!!! :mad: :scream: :censored: :brickwall:
 
Dusty Ayres said:
What I'm saying, is that magazines like Rolling Stone, to name an example, never ever bothered to cover TOS,Next Generation, Deep Space 9, Voyager or Enterprise, but now will cover the movie simply because J.J. Abrams is directing and producing it, and because every star from Hollywood to Bollywood wants to bei in it. I've been mulling over this for a while (while reading some old Rolling Stone issues) and it bugs the hell out of my Trekker ass.

What I want to know is, does it bug any of you?


I have no problem with it.
But you are wrong that Rolling Stone never did an article about Trek. About twenty years ago, the magazine did do a small story about the premiere of The Next Generation with a photo of the cast. I remember this because I brought that issue. It had REM on the cover.
I was a Michigan State junior at the time.
 
Starship Polaris said:
Any stated intention on "Rolling Stone's" part to cover the Trek movie simply underscores how very far from hip that publication has drifted...

Too bad we'll never see Hunter Thompson's "Fear And Loathing On The Good Ship Enterprise:"

No one talks about anything on this set but Shatner. His bloated caricature hovers over the studio like smog licking the desicated palms on Melrose, poisoning everything. The spectre of his return as Kirk is a needle-toothed Nixonian ghost gnawing at the edge of perception, tattooed into the retinas by heinous chemicals. Kirk's body should have been burned in a dumpster and mixed into the grout for one of Redstone's rococo grotto pools.

:lol: You really ought to see a urologist about that raging hard-on you harbor against The Shat. Surely it's been more than six hours, no?

Anyway--and sci-fi heretical as this will sound--I am far more bemused (not really annoyed) that, in a world with The Wire and, until recently, The Sopranos, RS has seen fit to dub nuBSG "the best show on television."

Uh, no. ;)
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top