The essay over at Movieblog is entertaining if for no other reason than the analogies brought up. Certainly the thoughts behind it have been broached here more than once:
"Why The New Star Trek Must Ignore The Trekkies..."
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
Abrams and Co. should just make what they think is a really good movie.
They shouldn't cater to what the Trekkies want (which is an impossibility, as we know, because there is no consensus), but they shouldn't ignore us either.
And that's what I think we are going to get. If anything, the writer who's a Trekkie (Orci?) seems to be focusing in on way more minutiae than I would have expected, or even wanted, really.
I think we'll get a nice balance of both.
They shouldn't cater to what the Trekkies want (which is an impossibility, as we know, because there is no consensus), but they shouldn't ignore us either.
And that's what I think we are going to get. If anything, the writer who's a Trekkie (Orci?) seems to be focusing in on way more minutiae than I would have expected, or even wanted, really.
I think we'll get a nice balance of both.
What's interesting is that the article treats Trekkies as if they are some kind of fraternal organization "that has been losing old fans... while failing to add new ones." As if we are Moose members, and we have failed to provide enough benefits to our members to keep them around, or entice new members.
It completely ignores that it is the responsibility of the product (movies, series, etc.) to entertain us. And if they fail, we dwindle.
It's not our responsibility to maintain our numbers. We don't even have any formal organization or structure. Calling us a "movement" makes no sense. We have no common theme. No underlying cause. No goal.
They make a movie. If it's "good," Trekkie "membership" increases. If it's "bad," or if there are many "bads" in a row, Trekkies dwindle.
TPTB don't owe us anything. But the entertainment value of their products/merchandise is what determines the size of Trekkie membership. If Trek XI succeeds, that number will go up. If it's crap, the number will drop even further.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go pay my $40 annual membership dues to Trekkies International. My old membership card is about to expire. I can't wait to get my new one. Who is the new Director General this year? And when are we going to get our list of activities and events for this year? I'm thinking of bailing on this club if we don't have at least three karaoke nights at my lodge this year.
It completely ignores that it is the responsibility of the product (movies, series, etc.) to entertain us. And if they fail, we dwindle.
It's not our responsibility to maintain our numbers. We don't even have any formal organization or structure. Calling us a "movement" makes no sense. We have no common theme. No underlying cause. No goal.
They make a movie. If it's "good," Trekkie "membership" increases. If it's "bad," or if there are many "bads" in a row, Trekkies dwindle.
TPTB don't owe us anything. But the entertainment value of their products/merchandise is what determines the size of Trekkie membership. If Trek XI succeeds, that number will go up. If it's crap, the number will drop even further.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go pay my $40 annual membership dues to Trekkies International. My old membership card is about to expire. I can't wait to get my new one. Who is the new Director General this year? And when are we going to get our list of activities and events for this year? I'm thinking of bailing on this club if we don't have at least three karaoke nights at my lodge this year.
Damn right they should. And if they don't I'm going to beat the hell out of her. Er, them.
I pretty much agree with the article-- especially after reading all the ridiculous ideas people over at Trekmovie have for bringing back Shatner.
You would think after the last few disappointing movies, the only thing fans would care about is having a strong story. But instead, all people care about is resurrecting Kirk, no matter HOW many contortions and contrivances it takes to make happen.
I think Abrams definitely has the right idea. I heard people groaning in the audience whenever the Nemesis trailers ran in the theater. And I had to agree with them-- Trek was starting to look really cheesy and generic. Thankfully Abrams and Paramount are trying to make it look hip and relevant again.
You would think after the last few disappointing movies, the only thing fans would care about is having a strong story. But instead, all people care about is resurrecting Kirk, no matter HOW many contortions and contrivances it takes to make happen.
I think Abrams definitely has the right idea. I heard people groaning in the audience whenever the Nemesis trailers ran in the theater. And I had to agree with them-- Trek was starting to look really cheesy and generic. Thankfully Abrams and Paramount are trying to make it look hip and relevant again.
I love trekmovie.com (although I'm NOT loving the glacial pace at which the server move is being DNS propagated
), but PowderedToastMan's site is just one site and the people posting there are just one small segment of the board. Ignore them.
I'm sure Abrams will.
J.J. is no fool; he won't bring The Shat onboard if it doesn't serve the plot of the movie.
A
Amaris
Guest
Professor Moriarty said:
I love trekmovie.com (although I'm NOT loving the glacial pace at which the server move is being DNS propagated
Ignore them.
I'm sure Abrams will.
J.J. is no fool; he won't bring The Shat onboard if it doesn't serve the plot of the movie.
Exactly. I think J.J. has already shown his dedication in doing this movie right from the ground up. He's judicious about who knows what, and appears to be taking great care in his choices. I am really hoping this movie breaks all box office records for a Trek movie.
J.
I really hope this movie rocks...but I already have MY Star Trek. And i'm quite content to keep watching my TOS DVDs to get my fix. TOS has sustained me for 30 years and will continue to do so whether this movie is good or tanks.
Whether or not the "franchise" continues, especially if it completely changes the formula that I like, means nothing to me. I want to like it, but if I don't, no biggie. I didn't like the Wild Wild West movie either...I just keep watching Rober Conrad and the gang on DVD. Same with Trek. I hope it's good, but if it isn't, no skin off my nose..it's just a remake anyway. I have the real deal sitting over there on my shelf. That's all I'll ever need.
Whether or not the "franchise" continues, especially if it completely changes the formula that I like, means nothing to me. I want to like it, but if I don't, no biggie. I didn't like the Wild Wild West movie either...I just keep watching Rober Conrad and the gang on DVD. Same with Trek. I hope it's good, but if it isn't, no skin off my nose..it's just a remake anyway. I have the real deal sitting over there on my shelf. That's all I'll ever need.
Let's face it. The gentleman who wrote the article is right. We Trekkies (read: anyone reading this) don't really count in the grand scheme. And you know what? I'm glad. We're not even close to being far enough removed from this to make a good movie. It's all fanboy details stuff that we want.
For instance, look at all the posts/topics concerning Gary Mitchell in the film. I'm a diehard and even I don't give a shit if he makes an appearance (which he won't except for a mention or an N.D.). It's shit like that that has us as a movement (apologies to Cogley) looking like a bunch of clowns.
The fact is, does Gary Mitchell's inclusion (or Kevin Riley's or Mrs. Roddenberry's) make this a fundamentally better film? No. Almost unequivocally no.
We Trekkies hope it rules, and we love to bitch about things on the internet, but I hope to god JJ isn't reading too closely.
For instance, look at all the posts/topics concerning Gary Mitchell in the film. I'm a diehard and even I don't give a shit if he makes an appearance (which he won't except for a mention or an N.D.). It's shit like that that has us as a movement (apologies to Cogley) looking like a bunch of clowns.
The fact is, does Gary Mitchell's inclusion (or Kevin Riley's or Mrs. Roddenberry's) make this a fundamentally better film? No. Almost unequivocally no.
We Trekkies hope it rules, and we love to bitch about things on the internet, but I hope to god JJ isn't reading too closely.
Same here.
I've got all the originals on DVD. If the new movie kicks ass, great!
If not, it's back into mom's basement. No worries!
I reject his whole approach to the article. You can please the fans and a wider audience at the same time. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.
Also his argument doesn't make sense. It's supposed to be a Star Trek movie yet not be a Star Trek movie?
So what is it? Battlestar Galactica? Babylon 5?
Thirdly his list of recent Star Trek movies means nothing except if you make sucky movies less people go to watch them. Sure Trek fans can't turn a sucky movie like Nemesis into a blockbuster, but what would they have made without them? 15 million dollars?
Also his argument doesn't make sense. It's supposed to be a Star Trek movie yet not be a Star Trek movie?
So what is it? Battlestar Galactica? Babylon 5?Thirdly his list of recent Star Trek movies means nothing except if you make sucky movies less people go to watch them. Sure Trek fans can't turn a sucky movie like Nemesis into a blockbuster, but what would they have made without them? 15 million dollars?
Brolan said:
I reject his whole approach to the article. You can please the fans and a wider audience at the same time. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.
Also his argument doesn't make sense. It's supposed to be a Star Trek movie yet not be a Star Trek movie?
Thirdly his list of recent Star Trek movies means nothing except if you make sucky movies less people go to watch them. Sure Trek fans can't turn a sucky movie like Nemesis into a blockbuster, but what would they have made without them? 15 million dollars?
Well, I think their half-right, which also means half wrong. I think the target should be science fiction fans. Trekkies are a part of that, but so are b5ers, bsg fans, sg1 fans, star wars fans, firefly fans, farscape fans, etc. There are a lot of people who'd see a good science fiction movie, and I think that should be the target audience, because I can't imagine someone totally uninterested in science fiction looking at the movie listings and deciding that Star Trek sounds like an interesting movie.
But Trekkiedom is a bit disfuntional at times
And behold, out of the roiling sea of fannish bickering and fannish self-hatred and fannish denial, there sounded one still, small voice speaking truth.
It appears I grok igrokbok.
Similar threads
