"Why The New Star Trek Must Ignore The Trekkies..."

[Balthier the Great]

Either of those could work (though I'd prefer the first). The nightmare scenario would be hanging the plot on elements that require a fan's knowledge of the franchise (alienating the general audience) while changing perhaps minor but still very familiar elements of the overall Star Trek 'feel' with an eye to broader contemporary appeal (alienating the fans). But they wouldn't do something that dumb. Right?

This is Hollywood. They're generally known for being idiots. Besides it's probably easier to do a continuity pr0n with a contemporary look than a substantive storyline that hints at continuity without requiring the audience to read the tech manuals before seeing the movie.

Sure, Marvel can do it. But remember Marvel has Stan Lee to kick the movie producer's arse if they aren't true to his idea of storytelling. Trek has who? Nimoy? Barett? I don't think either one of them can change JJ's mind about how the movie should be.

 

[FordSVT]

Zuni Fetish Doll said:
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.

I couldn't disagree with your interpretation of his article more. He didn't say it was the responsibility of the fans to get new "members", he simply implied that "Trekkies" are a dwindling fan base with no new product.

I also have no problem with him likening "us" with a club. It's a loose analogy, a generalization that is applied to all kinds of fan bases quite often. No need to take it so far. Plenty of Trekkers/ies do feel like they're a part of some kind of movement, we see examples of it on this forum often. Go to a convention! And "Paramount owes us something" is not an uncommon argument around here, and that talk comes up any time a new movie or show appears on the horizon. He talked about the "fans" who will settle for nothing less than TOS-replica sets, these people exist!

I think this article hits the nail on the head. Don't deliberately insult the hard-core fans, but don't be a slave to them. The Star Trek club needs to give them a bit of leeway. As long as they don't directly contradict established continuity I think they'll be fine.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

FordSVT said:Don't deliberately insult the hard-core fans, but don't be a slave to them. The Star Trek club needs to give them a bit of leeway. As long as they don't directly contradict established continuity I think they'll be fine.

I think the overwhelming majority of folks here, or elsewhere for that matter, would agree with this sentiment.

I think that the reason that this article, and similarly-worded comments made on THIS board, rankle people (myself included) so much is that the way that the article, and those comments, are phrased seems to say something much different than what YOU just said.

There's a tendency to attempt to BELITTLE "everybody else" among certain elements of fandom. There's no doubt that the writer of this article considers himself (herself?) a fan. But he considers himself to be a "better, more balanced, more adult form of fan," it seems. He, "unlike the rest of us," is somehow more aware.

That's what rankled me. If the guy simply said that "The filmmakers must just try to make a good movie and not be beholden to the fans or the canon where these things are in conflict." If he'd said that... we'd all be happy enough.

But he was pretty clear that he felt that it's "the fans" (or rather, all the OTHER fans... not HIM obviously!) who are dragging things down. Which is just patent bull and is annoying without being remotely helpful.

We all know what's wrong with Trek-dom today. It's not that "the fans keep getting what they want." If that was the case, "the fans" would all be happy, and it would only be the REST of the audience that would be unhappy. Such, clearly, is not the case (a brief perusal of this board is enough to tell you that!).

The fans want what the general audience wants... good storytelling with compelling characters and believable situations. We simply have an ADDITIONAL, and not particularly contradictory, wish... to make it fit with what we already know.

This "fits with what we already know" bit is soooo often mischaracterized by the "I'm a better fan than you are" crowd. That's NOT to say, as they sometimes try to imply, that we think that the movie must acknowledge every hint of 40+ years of canon history. Just that the film must avoid unnecessarily CONTRADICTING any of that.

We live on just one tiny little planet. Yet in "real world" storytelling, nobody seem to have a problem with that. In the world of Star Trek, which is unbound by current reality AND is a much larger canvas anyway, we tend to assume that the entire world is defined by the little tiny bit we've seen on screen.

It's a BIG GALAXY. It's going to be easy to AVOID contradictions. All it takes is caring about what you're doing.

 

[Steven Of Nine]

DeafPoet said:

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 .

Blashphemer!!!!!

 

[xortex]

It's a huge canvas. That's why I think it's funny when writers like Jeri Taylor say the universe is getting too crowded in the alpha quadrant to tell good stories anymore and people like Ira stevens Behr who come out and disagree with what the fans want. I think in a general sense we know what we want and don't want.

 

[number6]

xortex said:
I think in a general sense we know what we want and don't want.

Most of the posts on this BBS seem to prove otherwise.

 

[Mordock]

Number6 said:

xortex said:
I think in a general sense we know what we want and don't want.

Most of the posts on this BBS seem to prove otherwise.

I could go with this. The best end for the filmmakers to aim for is not necessarily to provide me with what I've decided I want, but to convince me through their passion and their craft that I want what they have to offer.

 

[siskokid888]

I think we sometimes forget that making movies (and TV shows) is first and foremost a BUSINESS, and that the bottom line must be met. We have seen this time and again in Trek - when TMP came out, I remember that most non-Trekkers (and some fans) that went to see the film wanted to see Kirk banging babes and blasting Klingons. I remember that a cheer went up in the theater when Vjer destroyed the Klingon ships. Blasted Klingons, woo hoo! Then what they got was (or at least an attempt at) true serious science fiction. And many were disappointed. And since Paramount did not get the return they wanted, STII and beyond went the western in space Star Wars route, made money, and made Trek into sci fi lite - financially viable but critically lame. The creators of the new film will have to get a return on Paramount's investment, so they are not going to be risky or controversial. TMP had a big budget, and an iconic director (the great Robert Wise), and was still watered down and rushed into theaters. Can you imagine the bru-ha-ha if Roddenberry's "The God Thing" had been left intact? Wise would have done wonders with it, but Paramount wanted bottom line return. This is why I like the fan films and even the straight to video ideas - great sci fi writers could get involved again with Trek and not have to worry about having their work butchered by corporate bottom lines. The guys making the new film have a strong tide to swim against - I wish them luck.

 

[xortex]

This is not going to be traditional sci-fi which in some sense is a good thing - it stirs everything up while still retaining that tight hold on the details and the vision. I too will miss serious sci-fi. Notice how similar TMP was to 2001. It's eerie. 2001 was about the big questions - Q's. We're not even gonna get science fiction - more like space melodrama shoot 'em up cotton candy sci-fi. 'Die hard' in space - kewl low brow/mind twist convoluted mystery character study with explosions. Bold in a brutal sort of way , not cerebral, not provocative or thought provoking. In fact there probably won't be any time to think.

 

[siskokid888]

^I think you hit it on the nose. Unfortunately, that sells tickets in this country of ours, so I have a feeling that is what we will see. I will give them the benefit of the doubt until the film is made, but I don't have high hopes.

 

[T'Cal]

Why is it necessary to ignore the fans who have stayed with the franchise for years, over forty for some? While a lot has been told in the series and movies, so much was left unsaid especially about the era that will be portrayed in this movie. With so little to constrain the writers, why purposely write something that violates a "history" that so many enjoy? Why would you intentionally piss off your built in audience? It's not as if placating them will ruin them movie. Quite the contrary. A good story will attract the old fans and a whole lot of new ones alike.

 

[-Brett-]

Starship Polaris said:"Why The New Star Trek Must Ignore The Trekkies..."

Because that worked so well for Enterprise?