Star Trek teaser w/Cloverfield -
- Thread starter T'Cal
- Start date
The context makes it clear: It was intended to mean restarting.
Sharr
Disclaimer: The following post contains the opinions of one Trek fan based upon nothing but blurry 'spy' photographs, interpretations of comments made by the production crew and his own 'feelings'. As this is a message board designed for people to post their opinions, the Trek fan felt that it would be a logical place for him to post his own. It should by no means be taken as a statement of fact.
Since the teaser trailer is likely going to show us a new Enterprise for a new audience, I wouldn't bother trying to make something that is intended to draw in the classic fans or pay homage to previous trailers/canon. I'd focus on trying to make the target audience excited, who are largely people who won't know much about Trek (perhaps not even what the Enterprise looks like).
Thematically, it should emphasise that this is new Trek for the less wonder-filled and more reality-grounded moviegoers. This is going to be a film about the characters, the personal drama, the gunz, and is likely going to be light on the wonderment, the 'human adventure' and the...well, let's face it, the science fiction. The pulp excitement about exploring strange new worlds isn't going to be present here. Like most money-making contemporary productions, it's going to be about gritty, 'real' characters in a more believable and less imaginative future. It's too much of a stretch today for the audience to believe in a future where humans aren't selfish folk without day-to-day problems, and where everyone is equal and has no wants. Militarism is the name of the game today. The new ship should be shown off in that respect; not as a chariot of exploration, knowledge seeking and understanding, but as a powerful entity of defence and protection. The teaser needs to play up that angle if it wants to draw in the crowds.
Let's face it: hard-core purists (those who believe Star Trek died with 'Turnabout Intruder') or Trekkies like me (canonites) aren't going to go see the movie, so there's no point it trying to appeal to us! The only Trekkies who are going to pay for tickets are the casual types (the 'normal' sort), the ones that joined the franchise later on (usually around VOY), or ones who will pay money for anything with 'Trek' written on it. They don't really need to be pandered to either, as they'll be shelling out the money regardless. It's the general action crowd that need to be drawn in. The people who paid to go see the 'Star Wars' prequels despite having only seen some of the original trilogy once at Christmas/as a kid and only remembering the franchise as the films with Darth Vader in.
Since the teaser trailer is likely going to show us a new Enterprise for a new audience, I wouldn't bother trying to make something that is intended to draw in the classic fans or pay homage to previous trailers/canon. I'd focus on trying to make the target audience excited, who are largely people who won't know much about Trek (perhaps not even what the Enterprise looks like).
Thematically, it should emphasise that this is new Trek for the less wonder-filled and more reality-grounded moviegoers. This is going to be a film about the characters, the personal drama, the gunz, and is likely going to be light on the wonderment, the 'human adventure' and the...well, let's face it, the science fiction. The pulp excitement about exploring strange new worlds isn't going to be present here. Like most money-making contemporary productions, it's going to be about gritty, 'real' characters in a more believable and less imaginative future. It's too much of a stretch today for the audience to believe in a future where humans aren't selfish folk without day-to-day problems, and where everyone is equal and has no wants. Militarism is the name of the game today. The new ship should be shown off in that respect; not as a chariot of exploration, knowledge seeking and understanding, but as a powerful entity of defence and protection. The teaser needs to play up that angle if it wants to draw in the crowds.
Let's face it: hard-core purists (those who believe Star Trek died with 'Turnabout Intruder') or Trekkies like me (canonites) aren't going to go see the movie, so there's no point it trying to appeal to us! The only Trekkies who are going to pay for tickets are the casual types (the 'normal' sort), the ones that joined the franchise later on (usually around VOY), or ones who will pay money for anything with 'Trek' written on it. They don't really need to be pandered to either, as they'll be shelling out the money regardless. It's the general action crowd that need to be drawn in. The people who paid to go see the 'Star Wars' prequels despite having only seen some of the original trilogy once at Christmas/as a kid and only remembering the franchise as the films with Darth Vader in.
I think there's a fair chance of what mada101 describes occuring. I wasn't that impressed with Transformers, the last blockbuster screen credit of Orci & Kurtzmann. And Abrams' past productions simply fail to interest me. I recorded Mission Impossible III on my Skybox a while back (more or less equivalent to the American TiVo, I believe), pressed play... and zoned out after about ten minutes. Script by Abrams, Orci, Kurtzmann, music by Giacchino, directed by Abrams, based on a 1960s TV series...
Still, I'm willing to give this product the benefit of the doubt. And I don't like bashing something before I've seen it, that makes my bashing so... well.. insubstanial!
Still, I'm willing to give this product the benefit of the doubt. And I don't like bashing something before I've seen it, that makes my bashing so... well.. insubstanial!
Thank you for the semi-support, Mr Kringle.
To be fair, I wasn't bashing the film. I hope it does really well, Paramount make lots of cash from it and there is a whole new generation of people who enjoy this as 'their' Star Trek.
But I just hope that they are IDIC enough to understand that this is no longer 'my' Star Trek, which ended with ENT. And that they allow me five posts-worth of moaning per month
To be fair, I wasn't bashing the film. I hope it does really well, Paramount make lots of cash from it and there is a whole new generation of people who enjoy this as 'their' Star Trek.
But I just hope that they are IDIC enough to understand that this is no longer 'my' Star Trek, which ended with ENT. And that they allow me five posts-worth of moaning per month
Ah but there's no denying it was a blockbuster-hit, something Trek has seldom been. This movie could only hope to do as well as Transformers has done and "fail" as badly.
I can only speak about Abrams tv work which I have had various interest in but it is enough to encourage me.
Sharr
... I just have to point out that myself, and I know you're interested, didn't see Transformers. I did get it for X-Mass but it was a bootleg from Shanghai (long story). It's dark, and in some Indonesian dialect. The sub-titles were Hindi though.
It's interesting to discuss the creative past of those we're are so interested in currently. But it's hard to see a good movie in a guy. Heck, if you'd have told me the guy who made 'Dead Alive' (Braindead) would give me Fellowship Of The Ring I'd have knocked you out.
It's interesting to discuss the creative past of those we're are so interested in currently. But it's hard to see a good movie in a guy. Heck, if you'd have told me the guy who made 'Dead Alive' (Braindead) would give me Fellowship Of The Ring I'd have knocked you out.
If my memory serves there were many aghast that Peter Jackson was in charge of the whole LoTR's project at first. The love fest didn't really start until a trailer aired. Certainly nothing in his past really indicated he could pull something so massive off. Lets also face that Trek is far less challenging a feat then LoTR's.
And oh yeah Transformers is getting a sequel which tells me it at least did most of what it needed to do.
Sharr
Quite true. I'm not faulting any of these guys for their inability to make wildly popular entertainment. Each has a movie or a TV show that's been a smash hit, that pretty much speaks for itself.
What I'm saying is I didn't find them that entertaining. It's quite possible this movie will be both a mega hit but also bores me. Hey, I'm a pretty eccentric person when it comes to my filmic tastes, as I'd be the first to admit.
It does and of course should be Trek's chief concern at the moment.
Simply making Trek "by the numbers" conform to what people presume Star Trek "Should be" hasn't served it these last few years. Its not a bad thing being popular entertainment, that's believe it or not why its here. To a degree everything else Trek is or we seek for it to be is more what look to find in it.
Originally its prime reason for being was to be a tv show, one occasionally filled with a point/metaphor but tended to get clunky when the point overshadowed its entertainment value.
Sharr
True. But this, again, isn't the issue. All that matters to me, as a consumer, is that I find a film entertaining. Naturally if it is I hope it's successful, but that's a secondary concern. If I don't find it entertaining I'm apathetic either way as to its success.
I'd agree that the last few years the franchise pretty much ran itself into the ground, it needs a fresh start and new people. I'm not yet convinced that these are the guys it needs to make Star Trek something that entertains me again. I'll let you know if they are when I've seen the movie.
