Will they go back to primeTrek after nuTrek finishes?.

[IrishNero]

Trek people are a curious lot among fans, and the lot is sprinkled here and there with zealots who champion one thing or another. If there is such a thing as a subculture of fandom, it would be found among us.

Trek is only as big as it is because of the very progress about which many hardliners complain. I, for one, would prefer another story with another crew and another ship. Enough with the reboots. There are plenty of ideas that can be explored without exploiting Kirk and Spock's popularity.

 

[Mudd]

Same with Star Trek. You can reboot it twice, three times, five times . . . whatever. As long as there's enough elements in common with the previous version for it to be recognizable as Star Trek, then Star Trek it is.

Exactly so.

And of course I care about the characters and events in Superman and Batman and Spider-Man movies - I wouldn't pay to see them, otherwise.

 

[mos6507]

And, honestly, I wish we could drop this whole elitist stereotype that the general audience (except for us, of course) is composed primarily of mindless masses who only care about sex, action, and explosions.

There's an international aspect of this, though.

A lot has been written of late that the movie studios aren't even really targeting the US market anymore. They're targeting China. DreamWorks has moved most of its animation facilities there recently, for instance, and is developing Kung Fu Panda jointly with China.

The success of films with cruddy critical ratings like Transformers is mostly attributable to the taste of the Chinese moviegoer, not America. This is really what is driving Hollywood towards a homogenous "pew pew" style of filmmaking (i.e. everything's a comic book) since it tends to cross cultural barriers better than, let's say, a thoughtful piece of sci-fi like Ex Machina.

So you can't deny that there's a demographic pull towards a certain style of filmmaking. A film can be panned by critics and bomb in the US and still make money hand over fist overseas just because the people there want something different from their entertainment than we do. It might be PC to think that everyone around the world wants to see a diverse range of cinema across the globe but just because we'd like it to be that way doesn't mean that's the way it is.

 

[Mudd]

The truth is that most of the world isn't interested in watching Americans talk to each other about Western anxieties for two hours. It's that, not some hypothesized Chinese fascination with "pew-pew" - suggesting, as "pew-pew" does, that foreign audiences are less intelligent or sophisticated than we - that drives the differences in approach to the international market.

The Fast & Furious movies are certainly not less smart than, oh, three-quarters of the Star Trek movies produced so far. They are, however, a lot less talky and more visually dynamic.

 

[Greg Cox]

Same with Star Trek. You can reboot it twice, three times, five times . . . whatever. As long as there's enough elements in common with the previous version for it to be recognizable as Star Trek, then Star Trek it is.

Exactly so.

And of course I care about the characters and events in Superman and Batman and Spider-Man movies - I wouldn't pay to see them, otherwise.

And I'm pretty sure people care what happens to Captain America in the new movies--even though there have been at least three previous live-action versions of Cap, not to mention nearly 75 years of comics set in yet another continuity.

(And, ahem, the occasional novel or two.)

 

[BillJ]

The success of films with cruddy critical ratings like Transformers is mostly attributable to the taste of the Chinese moviegoer, not America. This is really what is driving Hollywood towards a homogenous "pew pew" style of filmmaking (i.e. everything's a comic book) since it tends to cross cultural barriers better than, let's say, a thoughtful piece of sci-fi like Ex Machina.

What about films with solid critical ratings? Like, Star Trek Into Darkness? Critics seemed to like it (mostly), American audiences seemed to like it (mostly) and it was the most successful international Trek movie.

 

[Cyke101]

The success of films with cruddy critical ratings like Transformers is mostly attributable to the taste of the Chinese moviegoer, not America. This is really what is driving Hollywood towards a homogenous "pew pew" style of filmmaking (i.e. everything's a comic book) since it tends to cross cultural barriers better than, let's say, a thoughtful piece of sci-fi like Ex Machina.

So we have Yellow Peril to blame for Star Trek. What decade is this?

 

[RandyS]

...I wish we could drop this whole elitist stereotype that the general audience (except for us, of course) is composed primarily of mindless masses who only care about sex, action, and explosions.

I suspect that it's not so much that we have that view of the audience, but that we are insulted by the studio's cynical attitude about how that is what the audience wants and what earns the biggest profits. That said, I can't stand here with certainty that it's not true in selected demographics.

I've thought about this recently, and something occurred to me. I wonder if this "elitist stereotype" Greg alludes to isn't an unconscious act of revenge on the part of some fans. Think about it. for decades, we took shit from family members and "friends" simply because we like this stuff (and still do sometimes), that maybe this "elitist" attitude is simply a knee-jerk reaction to all the ribbing we took, which is where the whole "popcorn-eating-unwashed masses" thing comes in.

Not only that, but I've also noticed that the more passionate fans to engage in this behavior is usually the younger crowd, fans in their teens and 20's. It's less common in us older folks (although it DOES happen in us too now and then). I know I was certainly like that when I was younger, but I like to think I've mellowed with age Alot of the things I cared passionately about twenty years ago seem laughingly naive to me now.

Maybe I'm just talking out of my ass here, or maybe there's something to what I'm saying. I don't know.

 

[fireproof78]

I've thought about this recently, and something occurred to me. I wonder if this "elitist stereotype" Greg alludes to isn't an unconscious act of revenge on the part of some fans. Think about it. for decades, we took shit from family members and "friends" simply because we like this stuff (and still do sometimes), that maybe this "elitist" attitude is simply a knee-jerk reaction to all the ribbing we took, which is where the whole "popcorn-eating-unwashed masses" thing comes in.

Not only that, but I've also noticed that the more passionate fans to engage in this behavior is usually the younger crowd, fans in their teens and 20's. It's less common in us older folks (although it DOES happen in us too now and then). I know I was certainly like that when I was younger, but I like to think I've mellowed with age Alot of the things I cared passionately about twenty years ago seem laughingly naive to me now.

Maybe I'm just talking out of my ass here, or maybe there's something to what I'm saying. I don't know.

Well, I think I get what you are saying. If I may be so bold to attempt to illustrate it with a comic (in my opinion a great way to illustrate concepts )

I've been teased for liking various properties, including Star Trek. So, I get the knee jerk reaction to people climbing on board something that I have liked for years.

But, the struggle goes the other way. I can be kind of laid back about most things, but the disdain that I some times see for Abrams and his Trek films grates on me possibly for the same reason. It's something I like, and its being mocked.

RandyS, I think I get what your saying, but I think there are multiple layers to it as well. In any case, it isn't an easy thing to figure out, so, I'm with you on the

 

[-Brett-]

Good example. The Batman movies (as well as Spiderman etc) are certainly entertaining, but do I care about the story or what happens to the characters? I don't, because none of it will have happened when the next reboot is coming about.

Honestly, that's your problem. You're trying to care about fictional characters and settings. Don't.

 

[F. King Daniel]

If a film manages to make you care about it's characters within 2 hours, it's a win. Add in a sequel or two, and all is great. Not everything has to be a 50 year emotional investment.

 

[JWPlatt]

The reboot treadmill gets old. If a franchise manages to make you not care about it's characters because of the repetition, it's a fail.

 

[fireproof78]

If a film manages to make you care about it's characters within 2 hours, it's a win. Add in a sequel or two, and all is great. Not everything has to be a 50 year emotional investment.

Agreed. Personally, I'm emotionally on board with nuSpock and nuKirk in about 40 minutes in to Trek 09 and I have no problem with them in the next film, or being invested in them with there was no next film.

Contrariwise, I'm less invested in the BSG reboot because I feel no connection to those characters from an emotional point of view, and no amount of run time could get me there.

Reboots work fine for me if the characters are there for me to connect with.

 

[JWPlatt]

But that brings back the question of whether you would watch the same characters, for example, in an old Western context stripped of its science fiction.

 

[fireproof78]

But that brings back the question of whether you would watch the same characters, for example, in an old Western context stripped of its science fiction.

I would, but I know I'm odd

 

[RandyS]

But that brings back the question of whether you would watch the same characters, for example, in an old Western context stripped of its science fiction.

I would, but I know I'm odd

That's okay, so am I.

If we weren't, we wouldn't be Star Trek fans.

 

[F. King Daniel]

But that brings back the question of whether you would watch the same characters, for example, in an old Western context stripped of its science fiction.

Popular episodes like "The Inner Light" show that's kinda true.

 

[JWPlatt]

Kinda. It is interesting to see the same characters in a new situation, and sometimes the new situation is in a completely different context from their usual lives. But "The Inner Light" was still fully dependent on the context of an alien race of the past reaching out to the future, in space, to the captain of the Enterprise and his universe. The story needed the full support of what we know as Star Trek. To change that, I suppose you could have the probe land in the old west and have Daniel Craig find it.

 

[TRON JA307020]

The success of films with cruddy critical ratings like Transformers is mostly attributable to the taste of the Chinese moviegoer, not America. This is really what is driving Hollywood towards a homogenous "pew pew" style of filmmaking (i.e. everything's a comic book) since it tends to cross cultural barriers better than, let's say, a thoughtful piece of sci-fi like Ex Machina.

What about films with solid critical ratings? Like, Star Trek Into Darkness? Critics seemed to like it (mostly), American audiences seemed to like it (mostly) and it was the most successful international Trek movie.

But it didn't do as well nationally which is still the most important market. It did about 29 million less nationally than ST 09 and cost 50 million more to make. After expenses and marketing for the film it made about a 25 million dollar profit. A profit is good but it wasn't as good as the first. I would expect the next ST movie to get a smaller budget. Not a bad thing if they decide to spend a bit more time on some dramatic scenes instead of to much eye candy.

 

[Ithekro]

What's the point in going back, Grace is gone.