"Why The New Star Trek Must Ignore The Trekkies..."
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
Oh, screw him.
He's dead.
He'll never pay.
I'll agree that Superman wasn't the best, especially when they decided that the 4 year old asmatic kid was not only superman's kid, but was capable of throwing pianos across the room. But I'm not sure if every movie has to be a bad knock off. The first two X-men movies were great, and the third one was pretty good too, though probably a step down.
Yes and no. I've seen just as many detractors argueing about nacells, the look of the sets, and whether or not this or that minor character should be in there, besides all the debating between the rebooters and the canonists.
I've only seen a small number saying that they want an entertaining movie. Count the posts yourself. And when you come to the idea of boycotting the movie, almost nobody wants to boycott because they think the movie won't entertain them. It's about stuff like the ship not being made of fiberglass and blinking lights; Shatner being in or out; some minor character in or out. It's not the script, and it's not the actors. It's trivia, things that for most other movies wouldn't even make a good Jepardy clue.
Yeah, and so should the naysayers actual comments.
Absolutly they should ignore Trekkies, including the ones who cry reboot everytime a new topic about Star Trek XI is posted and think that somehow they are outside of the "wife beating camp".
But lets all remember this movie is written by Trekkies. We've already won. Muahaha!
But lets all remember this movie is written by Trekkies. We've already won. Muahaha!
Yay! Just like "Nemesis"! Yay!!
Funny. I simply think that they just made a bad television show on a core level (bad writing, primarily), regardless of how close or not close it was to any of the previous series. I don't think people tuned out because of the way in which it differed from the previous spinoffs.
Don't try to argue with Dennis ("Starship Polaris"). He's dedicated himself to the idea that all Trek fans but him aren't REAL fans... and that only he actually "gets it." He created this thread just to keep stirring up that same pot... telling us all that we're not important, but that HE "gets it" whereas we don't.
Sorry, doesn't meet the smell test.
Once again, the issue is being raise as to how "giving the fans what they wanted was what killed this or that" which is then posed as a justification for telling the "lesser fans" that they need to just shut up and let the "better fans" have things the way that they want.
This entire argument falls flat on its face, however... no matter how many times Dennis or other folks here post in favor of it. See, the shows that failed didn't fail because "the fans got what they wanted." If that had been the case, the percentage of "hard core fans" watching would have gone UP, if anything... even if the overall numbers fell off. But the reality is that the "hardcore fans" left in droves.
The REAL POINT, which some folks would like to ignore, is that GOOD ENTERTAINMENT WINS AUDIENCES, and POOR ENTERTAINMENT LOSES AUDIENCES. There's nothing more you need to know about why latter-day Trek went downhill. Trying to blame it on something else... ANYTHING else... is just flailing at the wind.
Give the fans what they ACTUALLY WANT. What's that?
1) GOOD STORYTELLING
2) GOOD CHARACTERIZATION
3) GOOD VISUALS
4) SET IN A FAMILIAR UNIVERSE
Are there ANY other points that any of you see that you'd like to add?
Given that... is there any pair of items in that list that are inherently contradictory? In other words, for instance:
"Having it set in the familiar universe means you can't have good visuals." (I don't agree with that, I'm just tossing it out to illustrate the sort of argument that someone could attempt to make that might actually MEAN SOMETHING).
If someone makes a point like that, we can discuss it and even resolve it.
But if someone just makes the point, over and over, that "I want all the other fans to shut up and accept that what they want is not what I, PERSONALLY, think that they should get"... the person making those points needs to actually DEFEND HIS POINT WITH LOGIC (instead of just making fun of those who disagree, following on with a
or something).
What did Berman make Logan do that Logan didn't want to do?
It is actually possible to run the franchise entirely focused on Trekkies. Straight-to-DVD movies is the answer, (along with making movies downloadable from the web). This will remove the TV constraints of having to make enough episodes for syndication etc. You could have 2 or 3 really impressive episodes in a straight to video release. I know what the objections to all this are, but ultimately, I'm not convinced the general public is even interested in the whole Trek concept anymore (here in the UK Trek is even less popular). Maybe in America Trek XI will do the numbers (although without much star power in the cast I can't see the incentive) but I don't think Trek will ever recover in the UK. Especially with the Dr. Who resurgence. But then again the Uk doesn't really matter all that much as a market compared to the USA anyway, so... um.. yeah.
The difference between Berman and O&K is that there's a lot in Berman's resume I actually like - his period of executive producer on TNG and DS9, his co-creation of the latter show... that's more than I can say for the new guys.
So while Berman was obviously running out of ideas and steam years before the end, I wouldn't cast him as some demonic force of evil.
K
ktanner3
Guest
Star Trek 5 was a piece of shit.The Undiscovered country and Generations did well for their respective time. Remember, 70 million dollars meant a lot more back then than it does now. First Contact almost hit 100 million and was an awesome movie.Had they kept going in that direction with maybe a Dominion movie you would have seen a huge audience for that war to be seen on the big screen.Insurection stole the thunder that was ignited with First Contact and that carried over to Nemesis, which didn't help itself.As someone already mentioned, if you make shitty product don't expect your consumers to keep buying shit just because you slapped your fancy label on it. If paramount wants someone to blame for the dwindling fan base they need to only look in the mirror. We the fans DIDN'T ask for the shitty assembly line crap that they have been cranking out.
If by breaking away from what the trekkies want means making another shitty product, don't bother. The powers that be have already been doing that quite nicely eg:Voyager,Enterprise,Insurection,Nemesis etc...I don't remember Trekkies asking for a movie pitting Picard against his clone or for television series that violated canon at every turn(Klingon warbirds anyone?)or a temporal cold war series before KIrk. I've seen ideas floated on this board that are ten times better than the tripe that ended up on screen.As far as I can see, we trekkies haven't been listened to ONCE.All the Trekkies have been asking for is a good solid movie or T.V series that doesn't insult our intelligence. You already tried to appeal to the An't it kewl Gen X kiddies with cool looking effects and half naked women and it didn't work. How about making something solid for a change?
Apology accepted. In fact, I agree that the last Superman movie had it's fair share of problems even though I enjoyed it a great deal, even Brandon Routh's performance. I do agree that Lex Luthor was misused, as he also was in the Donner films, and that Bosworth was not a good Lois.
Actually, if that's what they did to appeal to gen X, they got exactly what they deserved. As a member of gen X, I think they took out the only parts remotely interesting. You know, like content. I like TOS and TNG better (some DS is good), because it didn't seem to think we drool on ourselves.
I hate that kind of crap. Take something that really would make a decent kiddie show, throw in random sex and cussing and pretend we'll think the results are kewl. It only works on 12-year old boys who don't know better. Anybody older looks at it as a joke. Or at least I do.
The trick with B&B-era Trek is that it became FORMULAIC to a nauseating degree. I mean, can any of you even think of a single latter-series episode which didn't have and "A" story and a "B" story? It's like they were LOCKED INTO THAT STRUCTURE.
Virtually every alien looked like a Southern Californian with bad forehead acne, acted like a Southern Californian.
The makeup, the music, the effects, the writing, the acting... it all became ROUTINE. It became BORING as a result.
Enterprise tried a few times to shake things up (alien cellophane wrap, for instance) but it just felt "forced." Why? Because in the end the crew was able to talk to the alien life for and come to an underestanding with it... it wasn't so alien after all... (sigh)
I want NO Michael Westmore. No Robert Blackman. No Mike Okuda. No Rick Sternbach. No John Eaves. No ANYONE involved in the TNG-and-later series.
The most creative thing that they can do is to abandon, not "the Trekkies" but instead the FORMULA. The "Trekkies" don't want the formula... we never did. ESPECIALLY since "the formula" is totally inconsistent with what Star Trek (the first, the ORIGINAL) was like.
You can do something totally daring, something totally new... or you can go back to what worked originally. What you have to do is abandon what didn't work. Which was "the formula" that we all came to despise.
I have no problem with half-naked women... if they're there for a reason. I DO have a problem with soft-core "decontamination" procedures that, honestly, don't seem particularly hygenic. I have a problem with each ship having a large-breasted, slender, long-legged catsuit-chick. I have nothing against women like that, trust me... but I have a HUGE problem with them being tossed in for no other reason than for prurience.
That's what people keep saying was "for Gen-X" but honestly, it wasn't... it was an attempt to appeal to the "Girls Gone Wild" buying market. I don't see that as being particularly specific to "Gen-X," do you?
Virtually every alien looked like a Southern Californian with bad forehead acne, acted like a Southern Californian.
The makeup, the music, the effects, the writing, the acting... it all became ROUTINE. It became BORING as a result.
Enterprise tried a few times to shake things up (alien cellophane wrap, for instance) but it just felt "forced." Why? Because in the end the crew was able to talk to the alien life for and come to an underestanding with it... it wasn't so alien after all... (sigh)
I want NO Michael Westmore. No Robert Blackman. No Mike Okuda. No Rick Sternbach. No John Eaves. No ANYONE involved in the TNG-and-later series.
The most creative thing that they can do is to abandon, not "the Trekkies" but instead the FORMULA. The "Trekkies" don't want the formula... we never did. ESPECIALLY since "the formula" is totally inconsistent with what Star Trek (the first, the ORIGINAL) was like.
You can do something totally daring, something totally new... or you can go back to what worked originally. What you have to do is abandon what didn't work. Which was "the formula" that we all came to despise.
I have no problem with half-naked women... if they're there for a reason. I DO have a problem with soft-core "decontamination" procedures that, honestly, don't seem particularly hygenic. I have a problem with each ship having a large-breasted, slender, long-legged catsuit-chick. I have nothing against women like that, trust me... but I have a HUGE problem with them being tossed in for no other reason than for prurience.
That's what people keep saying was "for Gen-X" but honestly, it wasn't... it was an attempt to appeal to the "Girls Gone Wild" buying market. I don't see that as being particularly specific to "Gen-X," do you?
For the second time in one thread i find it necessary to Quote You For Truth (tm). You are absolutely right. 'Listening to the Trekkies' is something they should have been doing for years - yes, we have a tendency to ask for continuity minutiae which is very fanboyish, but that's just cos we care about the show enough to be interested that much. That bit can be ignored if they wish. At the core though, what Trekkies want is precisely what you said - a break from the mind numbing formulaic years of Voyager and Enterprise.
The stupid thing is, they tend to listen to our requests for continuity porn and ignore our shouting about 'same old, same old' storytelling, characters, aliens and ships. they insist on clinging to this formula while at the same time gradually shedding everything about the shows which preceded them which made those shows interesting. The script to Broken Bow even comes with a number of completely BS swipes at the earlier shows.
I suspect that was more of an appeal to Braga's own desires than it was to anyone else's.
If Paramount are hoping Trek XI will be a mainstream success, as in enough non-Trekkies will see it to make back its scarily large budget, there are two ways they can go:
1: Play on the fact that Joe Public doesn't remember much about Star Trek beyond Captain Kirk, Mr Spock, those other guys, the starship Enterprise and "Beam me up, Scotty!" and use that hook to tell a rousing action-adventure story about their first mission that hints at the continuity the fans know exists, yet requires absolutely no knowledge of it whatsoever for the wider audience to enjoy the story.
2: Play on the fact that Joe Public doesn't remember much about Star Trek beyond Captain Kirk, Mr Spock, those other guys, the starship Enterprise and "Beam me up, Scotty!" and use that hook as a way to tell a rousing action-adventure story about their first mission that completely reinvents the old show for the big screen with a Casino Royale-style reboot, yet still has enough familiar elements to assure the fans that this really is still Star Trek.
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?
1: Play on the fact that Joe Public doesn't remember much about Star Trek beyond Captain Kirk, Mr Spock, those other guys, the starship Enterprise and "Beam me up, Scotty!" and use that hook to tell a rousing action-adventure story about their first mission that hints at the continuity the fans know exists, yet requires absolutely no knowledge of it whatsoever for the wider audience to enjoy the story.
2: Play on the fact that Joe Public doesn't remember much about Star Trek beyond Captain Kirk, Mr Spock, those other guys, the starship Enterprise and "Beam me up, Scotty!" and use that hook as a way to tell a rousing action-adventure story about their first mission that completely reinvents the old show for the big screen with a Casino Royale-style reboot, yet still has enough familiar elements to assure the fans that this really is still Star Trek.
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?
Similar threads
- Locked
