Trek 09 disapproval questioned.

[Devon]

One moment it seemed embarrassed to be Star Trek, then the next it was screaming "Look at me! I'm Star Trek!".

Not exactly. Obviously it can't be "embarrassed" to be Star Trek. However, it made a point to let everyone know that this is a modern day Trek while retaining classic Trek elements. Basically one of the few rare instances in Star Trek, if ever, that it successfully managed to keep most of the old fans but yet allowed for new fans to enjoy it too (that's not an opinion.) Both groups saw two different movies, and the grand majority of both groups liked what they saw. Its supposed "huge flaws" are a moot point at this juncture and obviously didn't matter that much to most, nor likely were even considered "huge flaws (if even anything of a flaw)" by most, at least enough to keep them away.

 

[lawman]

Its supposed "huge flaws" are a moot point at this juncture and obviously didn't matter that much to most, nor likely were even considered "huge flaws (if even anything of a flaw)" by most, at least enough to keep them away.

People keep bringing up variations on this argument, but I still don't understand it. We're talking about the artistic merits of the film. How on earth is that discussion "moot" just because it made money? Nobody's disputing that it made a ton of money.

That's the part that should be "moot" to us, though, unless we happen to be Paramount executives. Surely you're not arguing that a movie has to be good in order to be profitable? The counter-evidence is all around us, year in and year out. One need look no further than Transformers 2, for instance, by the same writers as Star Trek, which was even more profitable -- the #3 movie of 2009 -- yet which virtually everyone agrees was utter drek. That lots of people paid to see a thing does not necessarily mean they actually liked it, much less that it was "good" in the sense of measuring up to any coherent critical standards.

I venture to say all of us discussing this have seen the movie, and probably paid to do so, regardless of what we thought of it. Does that make it any better a film than if we hadn't?

 

[Therin of Andor]

Is it possible to have a big ST movie that both attracts the general public and satisfies the maximum number of ST fans?

JJ's movie seems to have come closest. TMP, ST IV and "First Contact" were also really big ST movies that both attracted the general public (for various reasons: curiosity/spectacle; comedy; action; in that order) and satisfied a lot of ST fans. But each of those ST movies have their own very loud detractors amongst ST fandom.

A JJ movie that was not a crowd-pleaser, but thrilled every ST fan, would certainly not have made sufficient money to guarantee a sequel. So some compromise is necessary. As it has always been.

 

[Aragorn]

Is it possible to have a big ST movie that both attracts the general public and satisfies the maximum number of ST fans?

That depends on whether you think one basher here isn't alone when he proclaims that he wants Star Trek to be a small niche instead of being a massive success.

 

[M'Sharak]

Is it possible to have a big ST movie that both attracts the general public and satisfies the maximum number of ST fans?

That depends on whether you think one basher here isn't alone when he proclaims that he wants Star Trek to be a small niche instead of being a massive success.

The "try to guess who that one person might be" aspect aside (please,) I'm not sure that has anything to do with the question, really, as those expressing the desire that Trek remain a modest-budget niche market have never represented more than a small fraction even of the Trek fans active on this board, let alone a substantial part of any "maximum" number of Trek fans.

 

[lawman]

Is it possible to have a big ST movie that both attracts the general public and satisfies the maximum number of ST fans?

That's a good question, actually. I think an even slightly better one would be, is it possible to have a good ST movie that both attracts the general public and satisfies the maximum number of ST fans?

I think it is, but Paramount seems to disagree. They evidently decided that they had to choose between "big" and "good," and opted for the former.

A JJ movie that was not a crowd-pleaser, but thrilled every ST fan, would certainly not have made sufficient money to guarantee a sequel. So some compromise is necessary. As it has always been.

Fallacy of the excluded middle. What about a movie (even a reboot! whether by Abrams or not) that pleased both Trek fans and enough casual viewers to make good money? You seem to be operating on the same assumption as the executives I hypothesized: that we can have art or commerce, but there's no middle ground.

That depends on whether you think one basher here isn't alone when he proclaims that he wants Star Trek to be a small niche instead of being a massive success.

Hey, nice with the cheap shots. As I'm the most prominent critic in this thread at the moment, I'll assume you're speaking of me. I dislike being dismissed as "one basher," however. For one thing, I'm hardly the only one to point out the film's flaws. Even a lot of its fans acknowledge them; they just try to excuse them for one reason or another.

Second, I didn't approach this film predisposed to dislike it, I assure you. I was really excited when I first heard about it, and when images started to be released. It was the end product that ruined it for me. Making patient attempts to explain why is hardly "bashing."

Either way, I'm not trying to limit Trek to a "small niche." I'd be perfectly happy if it were immensely popular without sacrificing quality storytelling, and I think that's entirely possible, as I just described.

My point remains, however, that the profitability of the property isn't really my concern. Quality of the story is, and if for some reason the filmmakers sacrifice that on the altar of profitability, then why should I care if sequels get made?

I'm not a middle-school student: I don't care whether the stuff I like is popular with other kids. I care whether it's worth liking according to my own standards, about which I try to be relatively consistent.

 

[SheliakBob]

Is it possible to have a big ST movie that both attracts the general public and satisfies the maximum number of ST fans?

That depends on whether you think one basher here isn't alone when he proclaims that he wants Star Trek to be a small niche instead of being a massive success.

Oooh! Ooooh! Oooh! If you're not talking 'bout me, then someone out there Is Not Alone! rockin'. :P

 

[Aragorn]

No, it's no one in this thread. I don't think he even posts in Trek XI anymore. He was someone who was predisposed to hate the movie from its conception and therefore was hellbent on fulfilling his own prophecy.

 

[Devon]

Its supposed "huge flaws" are a moot point at this juncture and obviously didn't matter that much to most, nor likely were even considered "huge flaws (if even anything of a flaw)" by most, at least enough to keep them away.

People keep bringing up variations on this argument, but I still don't understand it.

Then look at the rest of the post instead of leaving it to this.

We're talking about the artistic merits of the film. How on earth is that discussion "moot" just because it made money? Nobody's disputing that it made a ton of money.

Didn't say anything about how much money it made.

 

[SheliakBob]

oh. drat.
Well, in truth I have always felt that the movies haven't served Trek very well in the past. Trek is a television property that at least used to have a continuity and reality of its own. Every time a movie has come out, the increased money involved and the expectations of the studios have led to tinkering and reworkings that wouldn't have take place if the story had been adapted for a smaller audience.
To whit, Klingons replacing Romulans in "Search for Spock"--mandated by the studio because Klingons were more "commercial"--and forever muddying the waters with Klingon "Birds of Prey" which never should have existed in the first place.
Same thing happened in "Insurrection" where the story got yanked out of the Neutral Zone and the Romulans got replaced with the Son'a. BUT they left the cloaked ship, that was supposed to have been part of the Romulan contribution to the scheme! argh.

Big budgets have almost invariably led to TPTB buggering up the "Trek" part of Trek projects in an unholy quest for that semi-mythical "non-fan" market.

For crying out loud, it's STAR @#$%ing TREK! There is a huge enough fan base in existence to keep books and toys and models and dvd's and video games and wot not in production for years and years with no end in sight!

I would rather have had Trek turn into a series of occasional direct to DVD releases than have had to endure the mauling, mutation and mutilation that went into The Abomination in an effort to drag in a market that will almost certainly prove to be transitory, fickle and bothersome.
Same thing has happened in comics where old continuities keep getting thrown out in favor of new revised versions, only to have the companies start to bring back older elements when they realized that the long term hard core fans were still out there and that new generation of fans they went whoring after got bored and left.

I spend a lot of time feeling exasperated and frustrated with this NuTrek "thing" and it has sapped away a lot of the joy I used to get from Star Trek. Can't help but be a little bit bitter about it.

 

[Devon]

For crying out loud, it's STAR @#$%ing TREK! There is a huge enough fan base in existence to keep books and toys and models and dvd's and video games and wot not in production for years and years with no end in sight!

Funnily enough, it was the novelization of the latest movie that ended up as a New York Times Best Seller, a feat rarely achieved in Trek. Apparently the fanbase wanted more from this.

to endure the mauling, mutation and mutilation that went into The Abomination in an effort to drag in a market that will almost certainly prove to be transitory, fickle and bothersome.

Then let's hope they mutilate it more for the next film.

I spend a lot of time feeling exasperated and frustrated with this NuTrek "thing" and it has sapped away a lot of the joy I used to get from Star Trek. Can't help but be a little bit bitter about it.

Then move on to that other "Trek" you enjoy. Life is too short to cling on to this and blame it for something that you only let it do.

 

[Therin of Andor]

You seem to be operating on the same assumption as the executives I hypothesized: that we can have art or commerce, but there's no middle ground.

You know what people would say: such a film would be "wishy washy", "middle ground", made by producers "scared to take risks".

 

[Kaziarl]

First off, I personally liked the movie. I liked the characters, I liked the ship, I liked the story, and yes... I LIKED the villain.

Did it have flaws? What movie doesn't?

But like the OP, I don't understand some of the resentment. Those of you that don't like the movie are entitled to your opinion, and I can understand some of the ones posted in this thread.

There are others, however, that when I see them I just get this pain, right behind the eye, that I'm sure brain cells are dying.

One of which (no, I will not name any names) hated the movie so much that for about... oh... 4 or 5 months every single post he made HAD to be about his complete and total loathing of the film. Those or the ones I really don't get, to hate a movie so bad that they almost take on this holy crusade to bash it into oblivion.

Or the ones that say, "Oh, you weren't old enough to watch TOS when it aired, so you aren't a real fan."

Yeah, I've been told that too, and again I just don't understand it. Trek NEEDS new fans to keep going, otherwise we're all going to get old and die and then NO ONE will be around to care weather it's good or not. And you know what, the new movie did that. I couldn't possibly give a number, but it brought in at least 1 new fan. (a friend of mine that I drug with me when I saw it.)

So did it make money for the franchise? yes.
Did it get new fans? yes.
Was it fun to watch? In my opinion, yes.

Edited to add:
That does go both ways though. I've even seen some posts that say if you DIDN"T like the movie, then you weren't a true fan. I just don't get either view point.

 

[lawman]

Its supposed "huge flaws" are a moot point at this juncture and obviously didn't matter that much to most, nor likely were even considered "huge flaws (if even anything of a flaw)" by most, at least enough to keep them away.

People keep bringing up variations on this argument, but I still don't understand it.

Then look at the rest of the post instead of leaving it to this... didn't say anything about how much money it made.

I read the whole post, of course. I just didn't quote it all. Your point appeared to be that the film succeeded because it both kept old fans and attracted new ones, and you asserted that a "grand majority" liked what they saw, so the film's flaws "obviously didn't matter"—so much so that you relegated them to "supposed" flaws.

None of that negates my response. The only actual evidence you have for who the film kept or attracted (much less what anyone liked) is ticket sales — IOW, the film made money — so yes, you did reference that implicitly in your argument. (Unless you have some reliable survey data to point to about what the audiences liked and disliked?) But ticket sales are not a surrogate for artistic success; otherwise Transformers 2 would objectively be an even better film than Star Trek.

Thus, so long as we're talking about the film's artistic merits, its successes or failures as a story, how many tickets it sold is utterly irrelevant. See?

I would rather [not] endure the mauling, mutation and mutilation that went into The Abomination in an effort to drag in a market that will almost certainly prove to be transitory, fickle and bothersome.

Same thing has happened in comics where old continuities keep getting thrown out in favor of new revised versions, only to have the companies start to bring back older elements when they realized that the long term hard core fans were still out there and that new generation of fans they went whoring after got bored and left.

Very well put, and accurate. The entertainment industry seems constantly preoccupied with chasing new dollars, rather than satisfying the customers they have — probably the result of too many MBAs indoctrinated with dogma about "expanding your market" but clueless about what makes an artistic work successful in the first place. It's not enough for a piece of intellectual property to be well-received and profitable—no, it has to be the Next Big Thing.

It's not just movies or comics... just look at how the publishing industry has consolidated in recent years, and how much they now depend on "blockbuster" books rather than sustaining a decent midlist.

Trouble is, the "casual" (read "mass") audience spending those new dollars are all just looking for the Next Big Thing themselves... they're really not the same kind of people who become long-term fans of something. So you can "reimagine" a property and reboot it and water it down to the lowest of all possible common denominators, and if you're lucky you might hit the jackpot briefly... but without artistic integrity, it won't be successful in the long term.

Then let's hope they mutilate it more for the next film.

Okay, you're just trying to get under people's skin, aren't you?

You seem to be operating on the same assumption as the executives I hypothesized: that we can have art or commerce, but there's no middle ground.

You know what people would say: such a film would be "wishy washy", "middle ground", made by producers "scared to take risks".

I don't know about that. If you create something that bridges the gap between art and commerce and pleases all comers, who's going to be looking to criticize?

In a nutshell, what I want is smart Star Trek, rather than stupid Star Trek. There's nothing wishy-washy about that.

Besides which, this film certainly didn't "take any risks" creatively. It did things for shock value, certainly (killing Amanda, destroying Vulcan), but that's not the same thing. Storywise, it was pure formula from beginning to end, like any number of other successful but ultimately forgettable action movies.

...Trek NEEDS new fans to keep going, otherwise we're all going to get old and die and then NO ONE will be around to care weather it's good or not.

Sad fact of the matter is, we're all going to get old and die anyway regardless of whether Trek attracts any new fans.

...Until that happens, however, what I care about entertainment-wise is material that has artistic integrity, that challenges both my emotions and my intellect. How many other people it attracts doesn't really matter to me, and it's not going to get special dispensation just because it has a "Star Trek" brand stamped on it.

 

[Kaziarl]

Sad fact of the matter is, we're all going to get old and die anyway regardless of whether Trek attracts any new fans.

...Until that happens, however, what I care about entertainment-wise is material that has artistic integrity, that challenges both my emotions and my intellect. How many other people it attracts doesn't really matter to me, and it's not going to get special dispensation just because it has a "Star Trek" brand stamped on it.

On an emotional level it felt great to see the new crew, weather or not it was the same group of actors. Some of the new actors did a great job in my opinion, and I especially liked the new McCoy. He wasn't the "Real McCoy" (hehe, sorry, bad pun) but to me it was just as funny the way he and spock interacted.

On an intellectual level, I've been having a great time since seeing that movie speculation on the social, cultural, and political ramifications of the destruction of Vulcan. Sure, I cringed slightly when it happened. Vulcan means about as much to us as fans as Earth herself does. But it opened a vast assortment of possibilities.

And like I said before, it was entertaining. And if it wasn't called Star Trek, I would have still found it entertaining, in both an emotional and an intellectual sense.

 

[lawman]

Sad fact of the matter is, we're all going to get old and die anyway regardless of whether Trek attracts any new fans.

...Until that happens, however, what I care about entertainment-wise is material that has artistic integrity, that challenges both my emotions and my intellect. How many other people it attracts doesn't really matter to me, and it's not going to get special dispensation just because it has a "Star Trek" brand stamped on it.

On an emotional level it felt great to see the new crew, weather or not it was the same group of actors. Some of the new actors did a great job in my opinion, and I especially liked the new McCoy. He wasn't the "Real McCoy" (hehe, sorry, bad pun) but to me it was just as funny the way he and spock interacted.

Oh, it had its moments. I've never claimed the movie was completely without merit, and some of the performances were certainly among its high points, as I've written elsewhere — especially Karl Urban as Mccoy and Bruce Greenwood as Pike. It was also a beautiful film to look at in many ways—at least in terms of SFX and general grandeur, if not so much cinematography (shakycam and lens flare!) or set design (whole different discussion).

However, my main problems remain with the story, which was just so jaw-droppingly stupid in so many ways that by the end of the first act it completely outweighed the things I found appealing.

On an intellectual level, I've been having a great time since seeing that movie speculation on the social, cultural, and political ramifications of the destruction of Vulcan. ... it opened a vast assortment of possibilities.

I might enjoy seeing something like that explored by talented writers. I have no expectation whatsoever that these writers will do anything thought-provoking with it, however. They're way past wearing out any benefit of the doubt I might once have extended them.

 

[Shazam!]

On an intellectual level, I've been having a great time since seeing that movie speculation on the social, cultural, and political ramifications of the destruction of Vulcan. ... it opened a vast assortment of possibilities.

I'll bet you any money you like the best you'll get is a line of dialogue mentioning it.

 

[Kaziarl]

On an intellectual level, I've been having a great time since seeing that movie speculation on the social, cultural, and political ramifications of the destruction of Vulcan. ... it opened a vast assortment of possibilities.

I'll bet you any money you like the best you'll get is a line of dialogue mentioning it.

You're probably right. But we, as fans, seem to have a knack filling in the gaps. So still, it's an interesting topic to think about.

 

[Geckothan]

I gave Star Trek XI another chance on DVD yesterday (haven't watched it since it was on at BFI Imax, even though I've had the DVD since Xmas), and I have to admit, I actually enjoyed it - UNTIL the point that fat-fingered Kirk started babbling about lightning storms in space. As far as I'm concerned, that plot point is the single most retarded thing I've seen in an official Trek production, and there's plenty of cringe-worthy moments in previous Trek. From there, I just zoned out and couldn't take the movie seriously any more. None of the other things that bothered me about the movie when I saw it in the cinema bothered me this time around, I could forgive the lens flares, shaky cam, Enterprise design, Beastie Boys song, Nokia advertisement and Kirk being a dickhead on the Kobayashi Maru test. But seriously, KIRK SUDDENLY REMEMBERS THAT LIGHTNING STORMS IN SPACE = BAD? From that point onwards, the whole movie just went downhill, to the point that the only reason I kept watching was that I had nothing better to do and I was so tired that I could just turn my brain off and enjoy the action.

After this re-visit, my conclusion is: it had the potential to be a good movie if the plot hadn't been so stupid. The end result however, was a watchable-at-best sci-fi action flick let down by an utter trainwreck of a story. Though, I still enjoyed the first half of it.

 

[Shazam!]

The end result however, was a watchable-at-best sci-fi action flick let down by an utter trainwreck of a story

BINGO