We're probably going to get a watered down nostalgic homage character study with lots of action and no real concept or premise other than fixing a time travel conundrum or just relying on the backdrop of the ship and universe as science fiction enough to entertain the kiddies. Well I like meat in my bland soup at least and the action to have meaning beyond making Kirk out to be clever or sneaky. Soups are the purvue of James Bond and Star Wars anyway.
"Why The New Star Trek Must Ignore The Trekkies..."
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
Bigger things? Like what? The budget?
Ever have real Mexican food? I mean a real carne asada or veal tongue taco in a grilled soft tortilla, with diced onions, cilantro and picante sauce, preferably with a real Mexican beer (not Corona--something like Pacifico or Negra Modelo) to wash it down the gullet. That's what I want from Trek, not "macaroni and cheese"--it's what I got from TOS. I won't know for sure till Dec 08, of course, but this project has Taco Bell written all over it. Taco Bell can be okay--most DS9 rarely rose above it--I'm just kinda sick of it. (By contrast, most Bermaga/TNG Trek was taco day in the McKinley Elementary School cafeteria/all-purpose room.)
It seems to me that we have roughly five main camps of Trekkies here. (I said roughly, dammit.
This is not all inclusive!)1. We have the fans that are sure that Abrams and Co. are going to make sweeping changes, and this camp is very much looking forward to that.
2. We have the fans that are sure that Abrams and Co. are going to remain very faithful to the original series, and this camp is very much looking forward to that.
3. We have the fans that are deathly afraid that Abrams and Co. are going to make sweeping changes, and this camp is very much horrified by that.
4. We have the fans that aren't sure what the movie will be like, but are optimistic (often cautiously) that the movie will entertain both themselves and others, and revitalize the franchise at the same time.
5. Indifferent.
What fascinates me the most is those fans that are sure about what kind of movie we are going to get. We have very little information about anything.
We have a rough time period. We have one leaked, vague (and questionably accurate) plot spoiler. And we have a cast of mostly unknown actors, with no clue as to how they are going to be instructed to portray our familiar characters.
In other words, we got next to nuthin'.
Yet we are all experts on not only exactly what this movie is going to be, but also the exact formula of what will and won't work in a Star Trek movie. We are all just too damned smart for our own good.
I would venture that just about every Star Trek movie ever made had the agenda of appealing to as many people as possible, while still appealing to the fan base. Why would they do otherwise? "Listen, Paramount, my plan is to minimize profit on this one by catering to the narrowest audience we possibly can. Are you with me?"
And while every movie has thrown in touchstones and "canon" references, every movie has also made sweeping changes to some aspect of the mythology and/or the design elements. The only time I ever felt like TPTB had decided to just crank out a cookie-cutter product that was the same every week was with "Voyager" and "Enterprise" (others will disagree, settle down). And even those series made sweeping changes in design and premise and character.
We do this same dance every time a new Trek product is being made. We project our hopes and desires onto it. We project our optimism or our pessimism onto it. We project our independence; our clinginess; our expectations; our demands; our deference; our trust or distrust onto it.
Then we do it all over again when the next product starts to materialize.
This one is no different. The major variables here are the new creative team and the new cast. But there is nothing inherent in those variables or their combination that guarantess success, failure, or mediocrity. The key here is how closely Abrams and Co. have their finger on the pulse of today's audience. That's all the success of any movie of any genre really comes down to. And only time will tell on that one.
But every movie has tried to be a success. Every moive has tried to appeal to the Trekkies. Every movie has tried to be as successful as possible. Every movie has tried to keep the flame or revitalize the franchise. No movie has ever been a slave to the "hard-core fandom." To do so is an impossibility. There is no consensus among that group, however you choose to define it.
Star Trek XI is no different in those respects.
And when any of us says "they should ignore the Trekkies," we are really only saying "they should make the movie that I want, not what others might want, nevermind that I'm a Trekkie, too."
We are saying: "Keep the stuff I like the same. Change the stuff I don't like (but change it in the way that I wantit to be changed!) Those who disagree with me are backwards (or radical) dirty, flthy Trekkies. But I'm not one of those. I have a star on my belly."
I now return you to our human predictability, already in progress...
Well then, if we know they will change just as much or just as little as they have changed before, they will fail just as badly as they have failed before.
I suppose.
I guess I'm in the fourth camp.
I suppose.
I guess I'm in the fourth camp.
I'm not sure I fit any of those categories, Cogley. I'm mildly pessimistic about the movie, frankly unconcerned about its adherence to canon (quality being another matter) but am reserving judgement until, well, I've got a movie to judge.
Anyway, I think the idea is generally right. Abrams shouldn't listen to me, I know nothing. I just wasted a lot of my life watching a television franchise. If they should listen to anybody... they should listen to their peers in the film-making community. The good ones, the kind of skilled craftsmen who can make epic films both intelligent and popular.
Anyway, I think the idea is generally right. Abrams shouldn't listen to me, I know nothing. I just wasted a lot of my life watching a television franchise. If they should listen to anybody... they should listen to their peers in the film-making community. The good ones, the kind of skilled craftsmen who can make epic films both intelligent and popular.
I'm going to add another category ("Indifferent") just for you. Not that you fit it exactly, but you sound closer to that camp than the others.
"Just make the movie. Maybe I'll watch it. Maybe I won't. And then I'll decide."
I'd say I'm vocally and pessimistically indifferent. We have enough to go on (creative team, design team, cast, rumors of plot elements) to decide whether to be an optimist or a pessimist--as we get more, we'll solidify in our views or change them accordingly. In the past week or so, I've found myself becoming more and more pessimistic.
But that's me. To me, the glass is always half full. It's just half full of urine.
But that's me. To me, the glass is always half full. It's just half full of urine.
Sounds like that's a problem that someone other than Abrams is going to have to fix.
Insensitive bastard!
Right on James!
I see a lot of Pollyannas here saying they hope TREK XI makes five billion dollars opening weekend. Sorry kids but it AINT gonna happen.
To the great unwashed, Trek is ALWAYS going to be Trek and it's something the small town football player would NOT be seen DEAD taking his girlfriend to on a Saturday night.
I think within the safe confines of the TREKBBS, cut off from reality, a lot of posters here have forgotten that.
Face it people, we are seen as uber geeks and so is ST.
To make matters worse, by spending sych a HUGE amount of money on this film, they have virtually guaranteed it will NOT succeed. For this film to be considered succesfull, it has to make back around $400m.
Aint gonna happen kids.
JJ is destroying ST just as much as B&B did.......he's just doing it in one fell swoop.
But he will take her to dumb-ass drek like Transformers. That's the thing we tend to forget: SF doesn't go over with the masses, sci-fi does, the dumber, the better. Do we really want more dumb Trek?
(Nimoy's enthusiam means precisely nothing--in fact, it only makes it worse: he headed up one of the dumbest Trek outings in TVH--not coincidentally, the most popular as well.* So long as "the Spock character" is properly fellated, he's there, I'm sure.)
*I know TMP made far more money but that was off people expecting a nostalgic romp and Star Wars action. When they fopund out they'd actually have to think a little, they screamed bloody murder and so the odd/even canard was born.
Samuel T. Cogley said:
That just about covers it, yeah.
And the "glass is half full/half empty" thing has always been a false choice, too.
The glass is both.
Very good. 
Now explain to us why a peanut isn't really a nut.
(In other words, I was making a joke. Love the new sig, btw; it really puts those whiny battered women in perspective. They are an awful lot like a creatively exhausted franchise and the spoiled show-biz brats who run it. After all, they too have squeezed untold billions out the public in the form of tchotckes, novels, videocassettes, DVDs and advertising revenue. Now I'm sorry I once jumped out of a still-moving car to stop some guy from waling on a woman.
)
Now explain to us why a peanut isn't really a nut.(In other words, I was making a joke. Love the new sig, btw; it really puts those whiny battered women in perspective. They are an awful lot like a creatively exhausted franchise and the spoiled show-biz brats who run it. After all, they too have squeezed untold billions out the public in the form of tchotckes, novels, videocassettes, DVDs and advertising revenue. Now I'm sorry I once jumped out of a still-moving car to stop some guy from waling on a woman.
)
Hello? What do Transformers and the next Star Trek movie have in common?
A writing team with the initials of O. & K. perhaps?
If they could make the Transformers a popular hit, maybe it'll work again. It's their track record of the intellect front that gives me my mild pessimism, though...
Something I've often thought. Honestly, I think TVH is my least favourite of the TOS movies. TFF is simply tepid.
"The Voyage Home" didn't punch my trekkie buttons like some of the other Trek films - TWOK, FC - but it was a better movie and I did enjoy it a great deal. It certainly wasn't the crapfest that TFF or TUC turned out to be.
The fact that many trekkies diss TVH is just another demonstration that the guy who wrote this article knows what he's talking about. :thumbsup:
The fact that many trekkies diss TVH is just another demonstration that the guy who wrote this article knows what he's talking about. :thumbsup:
Hey, if the GP wants Trek in the image of today's average hollow, poorly scripted, overdone cgi-up-the-ass-and-out-the-nose blockbuster, they can have it. With my blessing.
I'll stay home and watch The Sopranos, I, Claudius, The Wire and Mad Men. Or I'll read Varley, KS Robinson, Pohl, Lem, Haldeman, Tevis, Herbert, Gibson and Saint Philip of the Pink Laser.
Less than 125 posts to go!
As I've said before, as long as its got a captain named Kirk, a Vulcan named Spock, a doctor called Bones and a ship named Enterprise, I look forward to it. If it isn't all that I hoped, at least there is still the original to watch over and over again.
It's the same attitude that I take with any new Superman production or comic book.
It's the same attitude that I take with any new Superman production or comic book.
Similar threads
- Locked
