The Challenge of Trek 3

[Silversmok3]

As many of you already know,society has changed a great deal in the 30 years since The Motion Picture came out.And so has the traditional moviegoer.

Today the average Joe doesn't have the attention span for a movie like that.Us fans love nothing better then an in depth story of great sophistication combined with powerful action scenes.In the reel world (heh) such a movie would be a commercial flop.

There's a reason a flashy, jittercam Trek movie is so successful-because modern audiences have neither the attention span or the IQ required to address a deep plot.Look at Inception; a lot of people hated the movie because they couldn't grasp the plot,to say nothing of the deeper philosophical themes.

The dilemma the next creative team for Trek has is making a movie as smart as Inception was,without alienating a mass audience.Its no small challenge;the highest grossing movies in recent history like Avatar and Titanic have simplistic stories,thin characters,and more plot holes then ST First Contact.

I suppose the real question is if its even possible to make such a movie?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

...modern audiences have neither the attention span or the IQ required to address a deep plot..

I think you're going to need to post some evidence that the folks who comprise "modern audiences" have more limited IQs than you do before any of this can be taken seriously.

BTW, Star Trek The Motion Picture does not feature a "deep and sophisticated" plot.

 

[BillJ]

I suppose the real question is if its even possible to make such a movie?

Inception did $825 million worldwide. So I'm confused?

I think people mistake slow movies as being deep and action movies as being dumb. Movies mean different things to different people, I found Star Trek Into Darkness deeper than most Trek films and with better characterizations.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

i does like modern movies i do, and i not dat stoopid

 

[Gov Kodos]

...modern audiences have neither the attention span or the IQ required to address a deep plot..

I think you're going to need to post some evidence that the folks who comprise "modern audiences" have more limited IQs than you do before any of this can be taken seriously.

BTW, Star Trek The Motion Picture does not feature a "deep and sophisticated" plot.

1979 featured films like Norma Rae, Apocalypse Now, Kramer vs Kramer, and All That Jazz. 2012, Life of Pi, Lincoln, Les Miserables, and Argo. It doesn't sound like audiences are any less sophisticated today than in 1979 going by the movies preferred. They have enjoyed the latest JJ Trek films far more than the ones prior to his work though if box office receipts are any indication.

 

[M'Sharak]

<snip>

I suppose the real question is if its even possible to make such a movie?

I can think of a couple of other questions.

* Why post here what amounts to a blog entry - one which presents no clear topic for discussion nor any clearly intended direction for such a discussion to proceed?

* Why post here a thread which isn't really about Trek 3 at all?

* Why so many BS phrases and cut-and-paste assertions?

- "As many of you already know..."
- "society has changed a great deal..."
- "Us[[highlight]s/b "We"[/highlight]] fans love nothing better then[[highlight]s/b "than"[/highlight]] an in[[highlight]hyphen goes here[/highlight]]depth story of great sophistication combined with powerful action scenes."
- "the average Joe doesn't have the attention span..."
- "... because modern audiences have neither the attention span or[[highlight]s/b "nor"[/highlight]] the IQ required to address a deep plot."
- "The dilemma the next creative team for ___ has... "
- "... making a movie as smart as ___ was,without alienating a mass audience."
- "the highest grossing movies in recent history like ___ have simplistic stories,thin characters,and more plot holes then[[highlight]s/b "than"[/highlight]] ___"​

(What a load of prefabricated twaddle that was.)

Finally...
* WHY U NO PUT SPACES after your commas and periods?


A suggestion: why not come up with a solid topic which has potential for discussion, and present it without condescending to your potential partners in conversation? If it's actually about the next Star Trek movie, then post it here; if it's not, then post it where it belongs.

 

[BillJ]

What better place to start than the weekly top-grossing US films for any given week since, say, 1990? You'll find SOME quality and a lot of something else...

That is pretty much every year though. Star Wars and Indiana Jones, among others, weren't exactly think pieces.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Avatar, God help us, more or less is a Star Trek aesop. It's a cruddy one but it made more money than God. It also is basically the plot of insurrection, only people actually rooted for the Nav'i/Baku.

Star Trek 3 will be fine if they can do the movie WELL.

 

[M'Sharak]

Admiral Buzzkill wrote:

''I think you're going to need to post some evidence that the folks who comprise "modern audiences" have more limited IQs than you do before any of this can be taken seriously.''


What better place to start than the weekly top-grossing US films for any given week since, say, 1990? You'll find SOME quality and a lot of something else...

I think you'll find that's been pretty much constant throughout the history of film or any creative art.

"Ninety percent of everything is garbage." - Theodore Sturgeon (1956)​

 

[RoJoHen]

The dilemma the next creative team for Trek has is making a movie as smart as Inception was,without alienating a mass audience.

And why do you think these people have this dilemma? They've managed to make two successful Trek movies already. Why will the third be such a challenge?

 

[Danny99]

The challenge of Star Trek 3 will be finding a more cohesive script. The last two movies have had scenes that merely exist to get us to another major plot point instead of having a kind of flow.

Abrams and his writers (which I haven't been thrilled with since they couldn't end Lost in a smart way) need to form a script that can be intellectual.

 

[BillJ]

Abrams and his writers (which I haven't been thrilled with since they couldn't end Lost in a smart way) need to form a script that can be intellectual.

Who decides when a script is intellectual or not?

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think Trekkies have to be real careful not to develop an elitist mentality. Trek is, first and foremost, a mass entertainment property aimed at a very wide audience. It can occasionally offer food for thought--and it's been lauded countless times for doing so--but Trek is as much about just blowing stuff up and people running around in funny costumes & makeup as it is about provoking thought, IMO.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Star Trek should be high concept, not cerebral if that makes sense.

 

[BillJ]

Star Trek should be high concept, not cerebral if that makes sense.

People just aren't that interested in high-concept sci-fi on the big-screen right now. The time will likely come again we they will be, but I can enjoy Trek of either the high-concept or the action-adventure variety.

 

[Lance]

I'm still not 100% convinced Star Trek really belongs in movie theaters. Despite the presence of twelve movies providing evidence to the contrary. Its underlying concept was as a television series, and I think that it's on television that it has always had the most dramatic potential. On the other hand, its on the movie screen that it has always had the most revenue potential. So what can you do?

 

[BillJ]

I'm still not 100% convinced Star Trek really belongs in movie theaters.

I think it does belong on the big-screen. But I think that many fans can't really see that the two different incarnations have different economic models. Because they have two different economic models, they have different storytelling objectives and are catered to different audiences.

Personally, I have no problem with Trek never returning to the small-screen.

 

[Lance]

I'm still not 100% convinced Star Trek really belongs in movie theaters.

I think it does belong on the big-screen. But I think that many fans can't really see that the two different incarnations have different economic models. Because they have two different economic models, they have different storytelling objectives and are catered to different audiences.

I agree with you, as the rest of my (unquoted) post above indicated. Movies and television are dramatically different things, and people can't expect a movie to go after the same kind of audience as a television show. I disagree with the OP in that I do think movies can have depth, but they can't been ALL depth. It's a cake mix of different ingredients. And there are many Star Trek fans who just can't accept that, to them the franchise is one particular thing and they're very senstive to what they perceive as "dumbing down".

I accept Star Trek in many forms, but there is still a part of me (a wholely sentimental part?) that still thinks it was birthed of television and that television will always be its true "home". If that makes any sense.

 

[BillJ]

I accept Star Trek in many forms, but there is still a part of me (a wholely sentimental part?) that still thinks it was birthed of television and that television will always be its true "home". If that makes any sense.

It does.

But after seven-hundred plus episodes, I just ain't that eager for a return to TV (though I'd likely still watch if it came back ).

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Admiral Buzzkill wrote:

''I think you're going to need to post some evidence that the folks who comprise "modern audiences" have more limited IQs than you do before any of this can be taken seriously.''


What better place to start than the weekly top-grossing US films for any given week since, say, 1990? You'll find SOME quality and a lot of something else...

I'm sorry, did you actually read what was posted? Your suggestion doesn't address the question at all.