State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

[HaplessCrewman]

Pretty even-handed account of the state of Trek post-Into Darkness from Entertainment Geekly.

Writer seems to be saying (in part) that though the film did well, the creators (who went in with the best of intentions) are upset that the fans are not embracing the film whole-hardheartedly. The fan-creator divide seems more contentious than ever.

http://popwatch.ew.com/2013/09/19/star-trek-into-darkness-jj-abrams/

BTW, everyone knows there will be a third film but has Paramount officially announced it yet? I read somewhere that Orci and Kurtzman are back on board.

 

[Dream]

Not everyone loved Benedict Cumberbatch: The Movie! They shouldn't be so shocked.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Cumberbatch was the only reason I even saw the movie.

 

[Awesome Possum]

The upset fans are a loud minority, the majority seem to enjoy the movie.

 

[austen_pierce]

I checked out when I hit this:

"Last month, the annual Star Trek convention in Las Vegas declared Star Trek Into Darkness the worst film of the franchise."

This topic has been covered in another thread, so I won't rehash. This EW article loses credibility with this statement, IMO. They didn't do their homework.


BUT

I'm most concerned that fanboy negativity is REALLY ruining our chances of seeing more quality films. Orci's defensive reactions are the case in point. Are we as a fan base collectively shitting where we eat?

 

[Awesome Possum]

The best thing Paramount can do is ignore us because some of us will never be happy. They could rebuilt the original sets, clone the actors and write the greatest hours of television ever seen by human eyes and a small group of fans could find something to complain about. They don't want to happy, they're miserable about something and want to drag everyone down to their level. It's sad, pathetic and annoying. Thankfully the majority of them are confined to the internet, much like that giant head that claimed to be God.

 

[austen_pierce]

^^^ what gets me is that the creators now seem to think we're the target audience, the one's they need to please. Our reaction seems to have depressed them.

AND

"The core fandom is now in a moment of deep pessimism, equivalent to the mid-’70s Animated Series lull and the mid-00s Enterprise decline"

I disagree with this. I think the new movies have reinvigorated the fandom, if only to give new fans voices and give old fans something new to debate.

Do we need to create a love letter to let them know that not all of us think they have failed?

 

[BillJ]

^^^ what gets me is that the creators now seem to think we're the target audience, the one's they need to please. Our reaction seems to have depressed them.

AND

"The core fandom is now in a moment of deep pessimism, equivalent to the mid-’70s Animated Series lull and the mid-00s Enterprise decline"

I disagree with this. I think the new movies have reinvigorated the fandom, if only to give new fans voices and give old fans something new to debate.

Do we need to create a love letter to let them know that not all of us think they have failed?

I think it would be a good idea if someone linked them back to the poll in this very forum that 668 people have voted in and 530 rated the movie a 'B-' or better.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I'm more excited about Trek now than I have been since I was a child and TNG was on. For a while, after Nemesis and Enterprise, I wanted nothing to do with the franchise. But Star Trek 09 rekindled it.

 

[22 Stars]

Trek 09 rekindled it for me too, but STID quashed it for me. A 9/11 conspiracy movie, over 10 years after 9/11 felt forced and self serving for the writer (Orci). Also, regurgitating, multiple lines of dialogue, and entire scenes from TWOK didn't help.

Made the second half of the film more like a parody, than a tribute.

 

[BillJ]

Trek 09 rekindled it for me too, but STID quashed it for me. A 9/11 conspiracy movie, over 10 years after 9/11 felt forced and self serving for the writer (Orci). Also, regurgitating, multiple lines of dialogue, and entire scenes from TWOK didn't help.

Made the second half of the film more like a parody, than a tribute.

When I watched Star Trek Into Darkness, it was the most fun I had with Trek since seeing The Undiscovered Country in the theater in 1991.

 

[Set Harth]

Are we as a fan base collectively shitting where we eat?

No. I reject any logic which says that we are somehow at fault for allegedly making the situation worse. This didn't start with us. It started when the filmmakers apparently largely ignored our concerns that have been voiced repeatedly over the last few years. In other words, if popular complaints about the films somehow hurt our chances of getting any more quality films, is the problem really with us? Besides, if the films are making money, what's the problem?

 

[BillJ]

No. I reject any logic which says that we are at fault for somehow making the situation worse. This didn't start with us. It started when the filmmakers apparently largely ignored our concerns that have been voiced repeatedly over the last few years.

This makes no sense.

How many movie writers and directors consult the audience before making a film?

I seriously don't have any idea what world you're living in?

 

[BillJ]

I posted what I said above and EW still hasn't put it in their comments section.

 

[Therin of Andor]

^^^ what gets me is that the creators now seem to think we're the target audience, the one's they need to please.

Nah they don't, but when producers and writers don't respond to "the fans", they are branded as cowardly and/or secretative. No-win scenario.

Bad Robot's team is making the films they like to watch, and their movies make plenty of money. The active Trek fanbase is a small part of the movie-going population, and always has been. And the tie-in licensees know that only 1%-2% of that audience buys the tie-ins.

We are very useful for generating free, positive word-of-mouth, though. You can't buy that kind of publicity. ST films with poor advance word-of-mouth (ST V, Insurrection, Nemesis) tended to sink. STiD tended to get poor word-of-mouth by the time it reached USA. Perhaps the gap between the Sydney and US premieres was too wide?

 

[Set Harth]

How many movie writers and directors consult the audience before making a film?

A film series has never, ever gone in a different direction by changing the things that pissed off a lot of people?

 

[BillJ]

How many movie writers and directors consult the audience before making a film?

A film series has never, ever gone in a different direction by changing the things that pissed off a lot of people?

Define "a lot of people"?

Star Trek 2009 was nearly universally praised by both Trekkies and general audiences alike. Why would they listen to a few people who have a severe case of butthurt?

 

[bullethead]

Trek 09 rekindled it for me too, but STID quashed it for me. A 9/11 conspiracy movie, over 10 years after 9/11 felt forced and self serving for the writer (Orci). Also, regurgitating, multiple lines of dialogue, and entire scenes from TWOK didn't help.

Made the second half of the film more like a parody, than a tribute.

I too was pumped after ST09 (which had its flaws), but cooled a lot on Abrams Trek after STID. I didn't see/mind the 9/11 conspiracy stuff, because the initial setup had so much promise - a Starfleet officer goes rogue and starts waging a terrorism campaign against Starfleet. What was great about that was that there were plenty of interesting reasons for that happen - hell, the Prime Directive alone is a pretty good one. But then they made it about Khan and militarism being bad, combined it with a story that made you ask why people were (not) doing things too often for its own good, and basically ended on a reset button.

It's really hard to stay enthusiastic about something that drops the ball so hard when it couldn't afford to.

How many movie writers and directors consult the audience before making a film?

A film series has never, ever gone in a different direction by changing the things that pissed off a lot of people?

Define "a lot of people"?

Star Trek 2009 was nearly universally praised by both Trekkies and general audiences alike. Why would they listen to a few people who have a severe case of butthurt?

IIRC, stuff like the whole "Kirk is not ready for the captain's chair" thing was a response to criticisms from a majority of viewers and possibly reviewers too.

 

[Anji]

Ah, hem. The "butthurt" chiming in here.

I think it's pretty safe to say that we're not pissed just disappointed.

Was there really a reason to pull those characters from TWOK?

Abrams didn't seem like he wanted to continue to grow the franchise, but merely take advantage of its successful moments and capitalize on it for his own benefit.

Disappointing.

Glad he went over to Star Wars.

 

[HaplessCrewman]

How many movie writers and directors consult the audience before making a film?

A film series has never, ever gone in a different direction by changing the things that pissed off a lot of people?

Define "a lot of people"?

Star Trek 2009 was nearly universally praised by both Trekkies and general audiences alike. Why would they listen to a few people who have a severe case of butthurt?

Yes, 2009 Trek was universally praised by fans and the general audience. Into Darkness was also of a kind. Why the disconnect with this film? It's more similar in tone and approach to 2009 Trek than not.

Where is the dissatisfaction coming from? Or is the dissatisfaction from the so-called vocal minority? Must be more than that.

Fans should not be placated to. The creators are too beholden to a minority of fans - which sometimes results in hurt feelings from both sides. Creators should create and not try to second-guess what the "fans" want. Maintain professional distance!