So what will Paramount do when Star Trek XI tanks?

[Cary L. Brown]

Exactly correct, guys.

At what point did certain members of "fandom" conclude that fans are born that way??? Those of us who are fans of any particular entertainment became that because we enjoyed it. We enjoyed it because it had good writing, good characterization, entertaining storytelling ,etc. That's what made me a fan of the original Star Trek.

That's also what general audiences want.

It's an oft-repeated MYTH that somehow, what "general audiences" want from a movie is different than what "fans" want from a movie. The two are not in any way in contradiction to each other.

Yes, fans may care a bit more about the movie fitting in with what's come before (actually, general audiences care about that too, but they're less familiar with it so fewer things are likely to shock them out of their "willful suspension of disbelief" than will do so for more hardcore fans).

But let's be blunt here. Any movie that will REALLY appeal to the fan audience (by virtue of being a GOOD MOVIE) will also appeal to the "general audience (by virtue of being a GOOD MOVIE). And any movie that does not appeal to general audiences (by being an awful abortion of a film) will also not appeal to the fan audience.

Making a movie "focused on the fans" is a bullshit idea based upon a totally false concept that "fans" are somehow a difference species, with different psychology, than "normal mere mortal humanity."

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

jon17HoHoHo1 said:

Basil said:
Like it or not, fans are still going to be the sizable audience.

Then we are fucked. May as well stop now.

Yep.

 

[SlyCardie]

Good post Cary, I think you're spot on.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Paramount is a big studio. The final failure of "Star Trek" would be a disappointment to them, not a disaster.

There are a group of big Hollywood studios that have been around for generations out there - they have good years, lean years, hits and flops, and every single one of them other than Paramount has managed to survive and often prosper without ever producing a single "Star Trek" film or TV series.

 

[qstor]

With the new uniforms, I have no doubt that ST XI will tank. After all aren't the odds films *supposed* be be the worse. This one looks like a real stinker with those SW Imperial Officer uniforms. I'll watch it on tv when it comes out.

Mike

 

[Basil]

Sharr Khan said:

That's actually my point. Starship Troopers was an attempt to create more or less a Star Trek movie aimed at mass audiences

Oh and here I thought it was just Paul Vehoven being who he was... I'm sorry I can't imagining any studio bean counter green lighting *any production* because of X fanbase, be it Star Trek, Starship Troopers, or ah The X-Men - studios gain more my bringing in broader audiences not by catering to single groups.

Even with a strong marketing campaign, it'll be word of mouth that ushers holdouts into the theaters -- and those holdouts will be the so-called mainstream audiences that are unfazed by the advertisements.

"Holdouts" are in my opinion more likely to come among the "fanbase" then the general audience. Do you think it was Transfans alone that made "Transformers" a money maker?

But it was not the hit everyone had hoped. Sci-fi audiences generally avoided it because they thought it was dumb; mainstream audiences largely avoided it because they thought it was geeky sci-fi . . . like Star Trek. (I rather enjoyed it, recognizing it was like Star Trek would have been had Kirk stopped Edith Keeler from getting run over by a delivery truck.)

I'm sorry you feel that away about "general audiences" (a highly misapprictiad group around these parts - again geeky elitism rearing its head ) A "dumb" movie alone doesn't a failure make, I've observed sometimes its the dumb movies that end up paying off better the so called "smart ones".

Star Trek is absolutely going to need the fanbase to succeed because I doubt very much there will be enough mainstream audience members that are willing to shell out $8 to $10 to see it . . . that audience will largely stay home and catch it on cable or DVD, if they watch it at all.

Don't agree at all, and neither it seems do the writers/director or studio backing them. Its the the fans are a blip compared to the general audiences. Speaking its wasn't just LoTR's fans that made those movies sell tickets either...

I could be wrong. It could be the next Star Wars. But by making a film that will try to stay "in universe" with previous Star Trek incarnations (by having Nimoy at the very least) rather than a complete reimagining, I doubt it. Like it or not, fans are still going to be the sizable audience.

You can do both, provided you are somewhat smart and creative.

Sharr

We'll see when the time comes -- I still maintain that the fans will be the more sizable audience, and if they don't show up in large numbers, this movie will not do well. We can check back a year or so from now to see who was right.

 

[Tralah]

The odd films being worse curse was quite sufficiently dispelled with the bomb that was Nemesis. I cannot believe this film is going to make Nemesis look good.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

qstor said:
After all aren't the odds films *supposed* be be the worse.

Absolutely. It's a law of nature. The trekkie who formulated the "even/odd" hypothesis shared the 2002 Nobel Prize for physics with the basement-dweller who formulated the proof.

So, case closed. Ya canna' change th' laws o' physics, man!

 

[Sharr Khan]

We'll see when the time comes -- I still maintain that the fans will be the more sizable audience, and if they don't show up in large numbers, this movie will not do well. We can check back a year or so from now to see who was right.

Its a simple economic fact that studios shoot for broader demographics, that how they make money. Fans, by their very definition are minorities in a sea of outsiders. You just don't make films that way or rather because they have been making Trek films that way (aimed at Trekkies) Star Trek has fallen off the radar of the "general audience". This films purpose is to flip that around. The writers practically tell us this. Just go read that interview Dennis posted.

Sharr

 

[Basil]

jon17HoHoHo1 said:

Basil said:
Like it or not, fans are still going to be the sizable audience.

Then we are fucked. May as well stop now.

Not at all, assuming that unlike Nemesis (or TV's Enterprise), J.J. Abrams makes a high quality film that appeals to them. There's no reason it has to exclude anyone else from seeing Star Trek, but they are going to be the primary audience.

 

[Basil]

Sharr Khan said:

We'll see when the time comes -- I still maintain that the fans will be the more sizable audience, and if they don't show up in large numbers, this movie will not do well. We can check back a year or so from now to see who was right.

Its a simple economic fact that studios shoot for broader demographics, that how they make money. Fans, by their very definition are minorities in a sea of outsiders. You just don't make films that way or rather because they have been making Trek films that way (aimed at Trekkies) Star Trek has fallen off the radar of the "general audience". This films purpose is to flip that around. The writers practically tell us this. Just go read that interview Dennis posted.

Sharr

As I said, we'll see when the time comes. Check back here in about a year to see who was right.

Who's Dennis?

 

[Basil]

Cary L. Brown said:
Exactly correct, guys.

At what point did certain members of "fandom" conclude that fans are born that way??? Those of us who are fans of any particular entertainment became that because we enjoyed it. We enjoyed it because it had good writing, good characterization, entertaining storytelling ,etc. That's what made me a fan of the original Star Trek.

That's also what general audiences want.

It's an oft-repeated MYTH that somehow, what "general audiences" want from a movie is different than what "fans" want from a movie. The two are not in any way in contradiction to each other.

Yes, fans may care a bit more about the movie fitting in with what's come before (actually, general audiences care about that too, but they're less familiar with it so fewer things are likely to shock them out of their "willful suspension of disbelief" than will do so for more hardcore fans).

But let's be blunt here. Any movie that will REALLY appeal to the fan audience (by virtue of being a GOOD MOVIE) will also appeal to the "general audience (by virtue of being a GOOD MOVIE). And any movie that does not appeal to general audiences (by being an awful abortion of a film) will also not appeal to the fan audience.

Making a movie "focused on the fans" is a bullshit idea based upon a totally false concept that "fans" are somehow a difference species, with different psychology, than "normal mere mortal humanity."

So let me get this straight: You think that what general audiences are looking for is no different than what sci-fi, in this case Star Trek, fans are looking for?

 

[ancient]

You think that what general audiences are looking for is no different than what sci-fi, in this case Star Trek, fans are looking for?

You didn't ask me, but here's my 2c. I think Cary is right, there are very few differences in what fans and everyone else wants. Fans want to see some consistancy and little peices of continuity porn, but overall a movie can have those things in spades and still suck giant rhino ass, like NEMESIS did.

But it's not the continuity OR the consistancy which causes a movie to suck. It's the overall shittyness of the movie which causes BOTH fans and the general population to not see the movie. On the other hand, movies that are the most popular with non-fans also tend to be the favs of the fans. Just look at the past 10 movies and there you go.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Who's Dennis?

North Pole-aris

Sharr

 

[Basil]

ancient said:

You think that what general audiences are looking for is no different than what sci-fi, in this case Star Trek, fans are looking for?

You didn't ask me, but here's my 2c. I think Cary is right, there are very few differences in what fans and everyone else wants. Fans want to see some consistancy and little peices of continuity porn, but overall a movie can have those things in spades and still suck giant rhino ass, like NEMESIS did.

But it's not the continuity OR the consistancy which causes a movie to suck. It's the overall shittyness of the movie which causes BOTH fans and the general population to not see the movie. On the other hand, movies that are the most popular with non-fans also tend to be the favs of the fans. Just look at the past 10 movies and there you go.

I didn't think quality was ever on the table -- my point hasn't been that Star Trek can be of poor quality regardless of who it is primarily aimed at. My point is that the fans will be the audience that makes or breaks the film's success.

I'm not saying you're doing this, but there seems to be an implication that if the fans are considered the primary audience for the film somehow it will be of lesser quality than if it is aimed at a more general audience. I don't think that's true.

I do think, however, fans will be the ones there for a tremendous opening weekend -- which is nowadays almost imperative for a film's success -- and for repeat viewings and DVD sales. I don't preclude others from showing up, nor that they won't contribute to the bottom line. But I still think fans are going to drive the success of this film, the ones lined up around the block

I think Nemesis is a good example. Some people seem to put the blame for its failure on everything but the fact that it was awful. There's even some bizarre hostility on this board toward the fans. But like Enterprise, its poor quality kept people away. But if Nemesis sold any tickets, it was only to fans. It's just this time, many of them chose to pass on it based on the buzz that it was a dud, and many fans did not see it more than once in the theater. General audiences, needless to say, avoided it like the plague. Nemesis didn't fail because the fans somehow failed it by not buying enough tickets; Nemesis failed because it couldn't even please its primary audience.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Basil said:

Cary L. Brown said:
Exactly correct, guys.

At what point did certain members of "fandom" conclude that fans are born that way??? Those of us who are fans of any particular entertainment became that because we enjoyed it. We enjoyed it because it had good writing, good characterization, entertaining storytelling ,etc. That's what made me a fan of the original Star Trek.

That's also what general audiences want.

It's an oft-repeated MYTH that somehow, what "general audiences" want from a movie is different than what "fans" want from a movie. The two are not in any way in contradiction to each other.

Yes, fans may care a bit more about the movie fitting in with what's come before (actually, general audiences care about that too, but they're less familiar with it so fewer things are likely to shock them out of their "willful suspension of disbelief" than will do so for more hardcore fans).

But let's be blunt here. Any movie that will REALLY appeal to the fan audience (by virtue of being a GOOD MOVIE) will also appeal to the "general audience (by virtue of being a GOOD MOVIE). And any movie that does not appeal to general audiences (by being an awful abortion of a film) will also not appeal to the fan audience.

Making a movie "focused on the fans" is a bullshit idea based upon a totally false concept that "fans" are somehow a difference species, with different psychology, than "normal mere mortal humanity."

So let me get this straight: You think that what general audiences are looking for is no different than what sci-fi, in this case Star Trek, fans are looking for?

Absolutely.

Sci-fi fans, and in particular Star Trek fans, want good storytelling, excellent characterization, visually-interesting (yet not "jarring") scenery... aka "set dressing", and most of all, to be ENTERTAINED.

Are you going to tell me that you think Sci-fi fans DON'T want that?

Or are you going to tell me that non-sci-fi fans don't want that?

Find any really bad movie. It's not bad because it didn't have enough nernie-greeblies added onto a ship model. It's bad because the characters are wooden, the dialog is terrible, the situations are ludicrous, the visuals are distracting rather than immersive, etc, etc.

Find any popular movie... sci-fi or otherwise. Look at why it's popular. Find any element in that film that would, somehow, drive away people who like sci-fi films if it were found in a sci-fi film.

Can you do it?

 

[ancient]

Basil said:

ancient said:

You think that what general audiences are looking for is no different than what sci-fi, in this case Star Trek, fans are looking for?

You didn't ask me, but here's my 2c. I think Cary is right, there are very few differences in what fans and everyone else wants. Fans want to see some consistancy and little peices of continuity porn, but overall a movie can have those things in spades and still suck giant rhino ass, like NEMESIS did.

But it's not the continuity OR the consistancy which causes a movie to suck. It's the overall shittyness of the movie which causes BOTH fans and the general population to not see the movie. On the other hand, movies that are the most popular with non-fans also tend to be the favs of the fans. Just look at the past 10 movies and there you go.

I didn't think quality was ever on the table -- my point hasn't been that Star Trek can be of poor quality regardless of who it is primarily aimed at. My point is that the fans will be the audience that makes or breaks the film's success.

Well, I was only responding to your single-line post about fan/non-fan likes.

there seems to be an implication that if the fans are considered the primary audience for the film somehow it will be of lesser quality than if it is aimed at a more general audience. I don't think that's true.

I don't think there's any significant difference, really.

I do think, however, fans will be the ones there for a tremendous opening weekend -- which is nowadays almost imperative for a film's success -- and for repeat viewings and DVD sales. I don't preclude others from showing up, nor that they won't contribute to the bottom line. But I still think fans are going to drive the success of this film, the ones lined up around the block

The only question is, are there enough Trekkies to form a line that long?

Nemesis failed because it couldn't even please its primary audience.

Do you mean 'primary' as in 'biggest' or 'most obsessed'? If the former is true I can't see Trek XI making 300 mil domestic.

 

[Basil]

Cary L. Brown said:

Basil said:

Cary L. Brown said:
Exactly correct, guys.

At what point did certain members of "fandom" conclude that fans are born that way??? Those of us who are fans of any particular entertainment became that because we enjoyed it. We enjoyed it because it had good writing, good characterization, entertaining storytelling ,etc. That's what made me a fan of the original Star Trek.

That's also what general audiences want.

It's an oft-repeated MYTH that somehow, what "general audiences" want from a movie is different than what "fans" want from a movie. The two are not in any way in contradiction to each other.

Yes, fans may care a bit more about the movie fitting in with what's come before (actually, general audiences care about that too, but they're less familiar with it so fewer things are likely to shock them out of their "willful suspension of disbelief" than will do so for more hardcore fans).

But let's be blunt here. Any movie that will REALLY appeal to the fan audience (by virtue of being a GOOD MOVIE) will also appeal to the "general audience (by virtue of being a GOOD MOVIE). And any movie that does not appeal to general audiences (by being an awful abortion of a film) will also not appeal to the fan audience.

Making a movie "focused on the fans" is a bullshit idea based upon a totally false concept that "fans" are somehow a difference species, with different psychology, than "normal mere mortal humanity."

So let me get this straight: You think that what general audiences are looking for is no different than what sci-fi, in this case Star Trek, fans are looking for?

Absolutely.

. . .

Can you do it?

Sure. If you're correct, I should be able to find aliens, technobabble, ray guns, space ships, scientific emphasis, green women, brainy (and not just smart or cunning) main characters, parallel universes, alternate dimensions, time travel, and so forth in popular mainstream films (and not simply sci-fi films that have crossed over, like Star Wars or ET).

Well, let's see, The Shawshank Redemption often tops polls of Americans' favorite films, but I don't recall these features in that movie. Nor in perennial favorites Forrest Gump, The Godfather, or Gone with the Wind.

No one's saying that sci-fi fans and general audiences don't both want high quality. But there's a reason there's a separate section in the bookstore, video store, and many libraries that separate sci-fi from general interest -- the very features that define a genre. There's a reason there's a Sci-Fi Channel and the genre isn't just a regular staple on all of the networks and in most of their shows.

You might find these negligible differences, but not only are they differences, but I know audiences who absolutely will not see a movie just because it has sci-fi trappings. They all fit the demographics and psychographics of the "average" movie-goer.

 

[Basil]

ancient said:

Basil said:

ancient said:

You think that what general audiences are looking for is no different than what sci-fi, in this case Star Trek, fans are looking for?

You didn't ask me, but here's my 2c. I think Cary is right, there are very few differences in what fans and everyone else wants. Fans want to see some consistancy and little peices of continuity porn, but overall a movie can have those things in spades and still suck giant rhino ass, like NEMESIS did.

But it's not the continuity OR the consistancy which causes a movie to suck. It's the overall shittyness of the movie which causes BOTH fans and the general population to not see the movie. On the other hand, movies that are the most popular with non-fans also tend to be the favs of the fans. Just look at the past 10 movies and there you go.

I didn't think quality was ever on the table -- my point hasn't been that Star Trek can be of poor quality regardless of who it is primarily aimed at. My point is that the fans will be the audience that makes or breaks the film's success.

Well, I was only responding to your single-line post about fan/non-fan likes.

there seems to be an implication that if the fans are considered the primary audience for the film somehow it will be of lesser quality than if it is aimed at a more general audience. I don't think that's true.

I don't think there's any significant difference, really.

I do think, however, fans will be the ones there for a tremendous opening weekend -- which is nowadays almost imperative for a film's success -- and for repeat viewings and DVD sales. I don't preclude others from showing up, nor that they won't contribute to the bottom line. But I still think fans are going to drive the success of this film, the ones lined up around the block

The only question is, are there enough Trekkies to form a line that long?

Nemesis failed because it couldn't even please its primary audience.

Do you mean 'primary' as in 'biggest' or 'most obsessed'? If the former is true I can't see Trek XI making 300 mil domestic.

My point is there are differences. Primary audience means which of the intended audiences is the film most aimed at. In this case, given the decision to bring Nimoy out of retirement, respect canon, and reuse the old characters, I'd say it's the fans. A secondary audience would be the general movie-goer. I think that's a wise choice for the reasons I've stated several times earlier.

 

[Sharr Khan]

But there's a reason there's a separate section in the bookstore, video store, and many libraries that separate sci-fi from general interest

Mostly that's about categorization and ability to find what you want at the moment. "General interest" isn't a real category: it has Westerns, biographies, and historical fiction (and all the same rules apply to any kind of fiction), Fantasy, cook books.

If the story is good and is entertaining or holds some kind of artistic merit those not into "scifi" will go or "Star Wars", "ET" and "Close Encounters" wouldn't become iconic films.

At one point in time there wasn't a "Star Trek" to fit into any category and no fans of such - those fans had to come from someplace and don't doubt there are cross overs there since humans are by nature dynamic beings.

Sharr