The New Enterprise Reveald

[Mad Jack Wolfe]

There doesn't seem to be much variation among less, uh, intense fans (and/or long-suffering signficant others) about the new design; they're not stressing.

That's just it. I had to point out the major differences to her. Overall, she liked it. Then again, its not Trek-geek she has to put up with from me for the most part, but pirate-geek. Same dance, different tune.

But her reaction nudged me even further into the "What the hell? Let's see where they take this thing" camp. I like this new E.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Flowers. And a movie. A really GOOD one.

How does a movie coming out in May sound, I hear its a good one.

So you know people who've seen it already?

 

[ThunderAeroI]

Flowers. And a movie. A really GOOD one.

How does a movie coming out in May sound, I hear its a good one.

So you know people who've seen it already?

Kevin Smith says its good?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

How does a movie coming out in May sound, I hear its a good one.

So you know people who've seen it already?

Kevin Smith says its good?

Then again, Kevin Smith made "Jersey Girl," too. (Sorry, couldn't resist Kev!)

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

How does a movie coming out in May sound, I hear its a good one.

So you know people who've seen it already?

Kevin Smith says its good?

Well, the trailer looks fantastic...and the vast majority of people who've seen about twenty percent of the actual film are very, very positive about it. So there's no reason so far to expect bad things.

 

[Vance]

Well, the trailer looks fantastic...and the vast majority of people who've seen about twenty percent of the actual film are very, very positive about it. So there's no reason so far to expect bad things.

And I'm sure we can count on you to hate and flame everyone who dares disagree or just voices their concern for the months ahead, right? :P

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm sorry...who are you, again?

 

[Vance]

I'm sorry...who are you, again?

I'm the movie's target audience.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I'm sorry...who are you, again?

I'm the movie's target audience.

None of us that post on this board or any other Trek board are the movie's target audience. We are the periphery audience at best. This movie is looking to snare those that have a passing familiarity with Trek and those who've never even given it a second, hell even a first, glance.

 

[Vance]

None of us that post on this board or any other Trek board are the movie's target audience. We are the periphery audience at best. This movie is looking to snare those that have a passing familiarity with Trek and those who've never even given it a second, hell even a first, glance.

Do you honestly think that people who have thought Star Trek was stupid for 40 years are now going to say "Now it's KEWL!" and suddenly line up? Heck no. Are they going to do it so soon after Star Trek has delivered a long stream of product that basically proved them right? Heck no.

They're appealing to geeky-action fans, and hoping to GOD that there's some crossover appeal to mainstream somehow in order to make back a fraction of the $300,000,000 spent on this flick. That means that, yes, I'm the target audience, and so are you, and so's your college-frat brother who just wants to see boobs on the silver screen. The 'target audience' in this, supposedly, is everyone.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

None of us that post on this board or any other Trek board are the movie's target audience. We are the periphery audience at best. This movie is looking to snare those that have a passing familiarity with Trek and those who've never even given it a second, hell even a first, glance.

Do you honestly think that people who have thought Star Trek was stupid for 40 years are now going to say "Now it's KEWL!" and suddenly line up? Heck no. Are they going to do it so soon after Star Trek has delivered a long stream of product that basically proved them right? Heck no.

They're appealing to geeky-action fans, and hoping to GOD that there's some crossover appeal to mainstream somehow in order to make back a fraction of the $300,000,000 spent on this flick. That means that, yes, I'm the target audience, and so are you, and so's your college-frat brother who just wants to see boobs on the silver screen. The 'target audience' in this, supposedly, is everyone.

A better analogy (and I hate to bring politics into it but it FITS) would be the John McCain presidential campaign.

He was chosen by the party leadership because he would "appeal to the mainstreet crowd"... the more right-leaning folks in the party were simply assumed to "follow along" because, well... where would they go?

Ultimately, by abandoning the base, the base wasn't fired-up enough to make the campaign strong. And the "moderates" (in this analogy, the non-hardcore-trek-movie-viewing-public) didn't take to the campaign strongly.

So instead of "winning a massive success" by bringing in a new constituency, they got about the same amount of the "undecideds" as you might expect but lost a lot of the base.

You can't run a campaign without trying to keep your base. You simply need to figure out a way to keep your base AND bring new people in.

You can't have a successful "franchise movie" without trying to keep your base. But you need to bring new people in, too.

It's a FALSE ARGUMENT that, in either case, you need to decide between one or the other ... the "base" or the "new supporter." You need to convince the "new supporters" that you've got something great to offer... but you don't accomplish that by tossing aside what's gotten you your strongest, longest-lasting support from the "base." Do that, and you lose both the base AND the new voters. Do that, and you lose both the "hardcore Trek fans" and the "potential new fans." You'll end up with a moderate candidate... or a moderate moneymaker of a movie. In neither case do you end up with a SUCCESS... not a blockbuster flick, not a winning candidate.

You don't have to choose. You can make your base happy AND make "the vast unwashed masses" happy... the two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Warped9]

From another thread...

I think they should have just paid the guy who came up with this and used it:

that certainly looks much better than what ive seen of the new movie ship.

Although the proportions are much better and the execution is very good I really hate the industrial hardware look that has become the generally accepted look of SF science and technology since Star Wars. It's quite suitable for Star Wars and some works like the Alien films, but it doesn't suit Star Trek, particularly the TOS era.

The Enterprise represented the series ethos as a whole and to dress it this way it immediately ceases to be the Enterprise, but rather some steam punkish nightmare from a frightening alternate reality. It looks like it would be more at home in the Mirror Universe.

 

[Captain Robert April]

To carry the political analogy just a tad further, Ronald Reagan didn't pander to moderates one bit. He stated clearly what he believed and where he wanted to take the country, and he won back to back landslides.

The most successful of the Star Trek films didn't pander to the ever elusive "mass audience." They were unapologetic Star Trek movies that stayed true to their roots and made sure they didn't torque off the fanbase. And not only did those fans show up in droves, they brought their nonfan friends (and that's how you build the base, recruiting). And, of course, they showed up in droves several times.

Going by the apparent fan reaction to the redesign of the Enterprise, roughly twenty percent of the fanbase is feeling particularly betrayed by this bunch, and it's a safe bet that the vast majority of that segment will not be showing up opening night. Figure another thirty percent will show up opening night, and not be back for subsequent screenings because of JJ making such a mess of things.

We're talking about what used to be guaranteed box office for opening weekend, and is now put very much in doubt, for the simple fact that we have been both taken for granted and deemed unimportant, a logic that only works in Hollywood.

And, quite frankly, that is one of the big reasons why this thing so richly deserves to tank.

 

[Tom Servo]

This movie will not fail because Trek fans go see it or not, it's whether or not the casual fan will, the people who are not on message boards, and the ones who don't care about the changes to the ship. I don't understand how you can think for one second atleast 20% of the fanbase won't see this movie based on the ship design? If thats true we deserved to be made fun of then.

 

[Vance]

This movie will not fail because Trek fans go see it or not, it's whether or not the casual fan will, the people who are not on message boards, and the ones who don't care about the changes to the ship. I don't understand how you can think for one second atleast 20% of the fanbase won't see this movie based on the ship design? If thats true we deserved to be made fun of then.

And those guys aren't likely going to see the movie, really, because it's Star Trek, and, to most of them, Star Trek equals 'crap'. They're going to watch Transformers: Revenge of the CGI instead.

 

[ST-One]

The most successful of the Star Trek films didn't pander to the ever elusive "mass audience." They were unapologetic Star Trek movies that stayed true to their roots and made sure they didn't torque off the fanbase. And not only did those fans show up in droves, they brought their nonfan friends (and that's how you build the base, recruiting). And, of course, they showed up in droves several times.

TVH, TWOK, FC and TMP?
They didn't try to attract a broader audience?

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

None of us that post on this board or any other Trek board are the movie's target audience. We are the periphery audience at best. This movie is looking to snare those that have a passing familiarity with Trek and those who've never even given it a second, hell even a first, glance.

Do you honestly think that people who have thought Star Trek was stupid for 40 years are now going to say "Now it's KEWL!" and suddenly line up? Heck no. Are they going to do it so soon after Star Trek has delivered a long stream of product that basically proved them right? Heck no.

It's not what I think, but rather what the director of the film himself has stated.

“Despite all the stuff that a non-fan would find silly, clichéd, crazy, my goal was to make it feel legitimate,” he [ABRAMS] said.
Source: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/j-j-abrams-reveals-his-star-trek-movie/?hp

and

Abrams made his perspective clear: ''We weren't making a movie for fans of Star Trek,'' he said. ''We were making a movie for fans of movies.''
Source: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20233502_4,00.html

They're appealing to geeky-action fans, and hoping to GOD that there's some crossover appeal to mainstream somehow in order to make back a fraction of the $300,000,000 spent on this flick. That means that, yes, I'm the target audience, and so are you, and so's your college-frat brother who just wants to see boobs on the silver screen. The 'target audience' in this, supposedly, is everyone.

Semantics, I suppose. They want us all in the theaters in May, but Abrams has made it clear that they are primarily going after those with only a passing interest in Trek or non at all in order to get a "new generation of fans." Thus, their "target"--read preferred--audience is not us.

Would they like us to show up? Yes, of course they would. My money, your money and (well I've never had a college frat buddy, but what the heck) college-frat brother's money is all the same in the most generalized sense. Yet, if they get the majority of moviegoers who aren't Trek fans and not the majority of us, I really don't see them giving two-shits about it.

Nevertheless, I'll be there in May and I'm pretty sure the majority of those around here will be as well, even if they 'hate' what they've seen so far.

 

[Warped9]

To carry the political analogy just a tad further, Ronald Reagan didn't pander to moderates one bit. He stated clearly what he believed and where he wanted to take the country, and he won back to back landslides.

The most successful of the Star Trek films didn't pander to the ever elusive "mass audience." They were unapologetic Star Trek movies that stayed true to their roots and made sure they didn't torque off the fanbase. And not only did those fans show up in droves, they brought their nonfan friends (and that's how you build the base, recruiting). And, of course, they showed up in droves several times.

Going by the apparent fan reaction to the redesign of the Enterprise, roughly twenty percent of the fanbase is feeling particularly betrayed by this bunch, and it's a safe bet that the vast majority of that segment will not be showing up opening night. Figure another thirty percent will show up opening night, and not be back for subsequent screenings because of JJ making such a mess of things.

We're talking about what used to be guaranteed box office for opening weekend, and is now put very much in doubt, for the simple fact that we have been both taken for granted and deemed unimportant, a logic that only works in Hollywood.

And, quite frankly, that is one of the big reasons why this thing so richly deserves to tank.

I suspect this film could have a decent to big opening weekend due to the curiosity factor. But what happens after that is anyone's guess and word-of-mouth and word-online travels awfully fast.

 

[USS Mariner]

Nice points guys, but let's keep the political analogies to ourselves. Some people can't contain their shit, and we're making good progress here.

Not in convincing anybody, but just in developing better articulations.

 

[Vance]

TVH, TWOK, FC and TMP?
They didn't try to attract a broader audience?

TMP seemed to not want an audience at all, honestly. :P

But, more seriously, of course they want as big of an audience as possible, but they never decided that 'ditching the fans completely' was a good approach.

Now, there was one Trek movie that explicitly did that... let's seee, that one was... oh yeah, that's right, Nemesis, and look how well that turned out.