Why Some Fan are dissing ST XI before its Release in May?

I'm a Star Trek fan. Maybe not as passionate like others, but I'm a just as faithful like everybody else.

I just want to understand why are some fans are being so spiteful about a movie that won't be release until May 8.

Some people are truly nitpicking the movie based on a two minute trailer.
A Two Minutes Trailer??????

Just explain it me.

Discuss. That's all.

 

I diss ST:XI because I know how to use IMDB.com.

TGT

 

^I'm truly serious. I trying to understand the logic.

 

^ I don't think there is any real logic in deciding to hate something before all the facts are in. But there are some fans who have been hating this movie from the moment it was announced. Not based on any actual knowledge, mind you - based purely on speculation.

The bottom line? Some people are just not happy unless they are miserable. That holds true in the rest of the world outside Trek fandom...and it's the same within Trek fandom.

Some people would simply not know what to do with themselves unless they had shit to bitch about 24/7/365. If it wasn't Star Trek, it would be something else.

 

Also, many have spent years upon years speculating on the TOS and pre-TOS eras, and have worked out a personal canon of their own as to what everything should look like and how it should happen.

When something comes along and goes against this, they feel slighted and brushed aside. Thus, they go to war.

 

A trailer is suppose to give an idea what the movie will be like, right? Why would they release a trailer which is utterly different from the actual material?

Based on the trailers I've seen, it doesn't look like a good movie. It looks like movies I've already seen which I didn't particularly like.

Is that so illogical? I mean, isn't your desire to see the movie based on the same trailer?

 

Trailers and film clips can be edited into a vastly differing number of genres. Ever see the Shining trailer re-edited to seem like a family misadventure?

Maybe they went for an angle different from what you're seeing between the trailer and the feature. It's happened many a time before.

Benefit of the doubt, and all that, eh?

 

I was once warned by Holdfast to never mention that particular re-edit again.

 

Not really.

A trailer is supposed to make the most people want to see the movie. It's an advertisement.

Other advertising on TV doesn't necessarily demonstrate all of the EXACT characteristics of the product they are trying to sell; TV advertising simply tries to make the product look pleasing to a large number of consumers by demonstrating that the product has the positive characteristics the consumer is looking for.

 

It ain't brain surgery. I didn't much like what I saw--the trailer made me LESS interested (not MORE--LESS interested) in seeing the movie.

How hard is that to understand?

 

I would guess that many of the hardcore fans are not open-minded about the new Star Trek film. The fact that it ignores what the original series set up 40+ years ago and decided to try to start fresh a la Batman Begins rubs a lot of those fans the wrong way.

Personally, I'm excited about the new look of Star Trek, though I was skeptical at first. The trailer really sold me on it -- though I wish the bridge didn't look like an Apple store.

 

Then I suppose you are not the type of consumer to which that particular advertisement was aimed.

There were things that I didn't like about that trailer, but for the most part I think it was good (about 75% of it was good). Therefore -- for me at least -- the trailer did it's job.

I suppose if I wanted to dwell on the 25% of the trailer I didn't like, I could do that...but it would be counter-productive. I'm going to see the film, and I WANT to enjoy the film, so why should I dwell on those negatives?

 

Mind if I ask what aspects of the high powered trailer you didn't like? Or are you one of those fans that will never be happy unless TOS is recreated exactly the way it was?

 

I agree. I'm NOT the target audience for this film. I will be 47 next month and a life-long fan of the TOS. While I'm not "closed-minded" about changes etc. I really don't care much for what I've seen in the trailer. I found the car-over-the-cliff sequence with young Jimmy Kirk to be eyerollingly tedious. As I said in another post, there may be a very good reason within the context of the film why this kid is trashing what is a museum-piece today (never mind 200 years from now) but the sequence seemed cheesy and manipulative. It did NOT raise questions in my mind that I found interesting: ie where did kiddie Kirk get this car, why is he trashing it etc. Rather, it felt to me instnatly like an action sequence that someone thought would look "kewl" in a promo and "we'll find a way to make it make sense later". I could be wrong. I hope I am. I hope when I see the film (and I WILL see it--I'm just not nearly as excited now) that the reasons for that event will be deep and meaningful and move me profoundly.

But then we get to the adolescent angst of daddy-son friction. HOOooo-booy--is there a cheaper, more obvious (read "lazy") way of motivating a young male in films. CLICHE! CLICHE! CLICHE! Never mind that through three years of TOS and six and a half movies, the character of Kirk NEVER showed "daddy" issues, it's just such cheap Screenwriting 101 character "development" that it chills me to think that this "re-envisioning" of these characters might be so superficial and standardly "teen-angsty" as to be groan-inducing. Again, I sense this picture is NOT aimed at MY demographic.

I don't hate the new Enterprise but I don't like the pimped out "kick-ass" bulging nacellles. It looks to me like someone took the the basic starship to a biker chop-shop and asked to have it tricked out with some "bitchin' chrome" so it'll look "hawt". The new bridge design looks like a PARODY to me. NO, it does NOT look more "real" or fuctional to me. It looks like a cheap set. I don't like it. Maybe others do. It's a subjective thing.

I have no quarrel with the new cast, per se. I suspect they're decent performers and I hope I'll enjoy the words the writers place in their mouths. I AM dissapointed at the one and only line we got from Simon Pegg as Scotty. As I pointed out in another thread, the deterioration of the Montgomery Scott character was one of the great wastes of "Star Trek". He went from being, early in the series, a strong effective leader, an innovative engineer who could be relied upon to hold the ship together to a deceiftful, conniving fluffball of pure comic-relief by the end. YES, the early Scotty DID have funny moments--but they were ASPECTS of the larger character and NOT all the character was about. I was hoping with this film to see a reinvigoration of the Scotty character to that more well-developed, multi-faceted personality of the early show. The single "comedy line" from Pegg's "Scotty" made it seem unlikely. Eh, it was a personal hope that the Scotty character might be restored but no reason to have expected it to happen. Still, another point of dissappointment (seemingly) rising from this trailer.

I DON'T think this film is intended for people like me. A lot of people seem to LIKE what they're seeing here and, if it works for them, great. Film, like any art-form, is a subjective medium. So far, with this, I am more DIScouraged than ENcouraged. But it's not up to me whether the film is "good" or "bad". The only decision I can make is whether I like it or not. I'd like to, but I'm not too hopeful now.

 

I would also remind everyone that it is NOT just the trailer...we have several scene descriptions of various parts of the movie that reinforce that the characters have been SEVERELY changed from what they were.