The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > "All About the Benjamins" - the debate has changed
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-29-2008, 02:23 PM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default "All About the Benjamins" - the debate has changed

We're sitting here warring about canon, and it looks like canon is not the actual issue here. At least not anymore. The canon debate has almost been exhausted and we are seeing the symptoms of such exhaustion.

And now that one side seems to be coming to terms with the fact that canon revision has always been used in Star Trek, the true complaint comes out: Abrams and company is simply doing this to make a quickbuck.

This means that Abrams and the rest of the crew and including the cast are all lying. They're telling us that they want to make a Star Trek movie. But their true agenda is to help themselves to more of that pie in the sky.

The evidence to this: canon revisions.

EDIT: Let it be noted that I edited this post. I originally mistook "Dawson's Creek" for "Felicity". Sounds like a bad MadTV sketch. Thanks to kevin I've corrected myself. Anyway, yeah, I know "aren't they all the same f-ing thing?"
Apparently revising canon isn't Abrams' attempt to shape a Star Trek story to his vision. It's simply a device used to market it to the mainstream demographic.

They could give a rat's behind about Star Trek. Just slap on the label, put some characters in that apparently have the same names as characters created by some guy called Gene Raspberry - Razzleberry? Rogerferry? Turd Furgison! That's it! - and sell it. Right? (Have I correctly displayed the general feeling of those who we no longer need to call "canonites"?)

This is where conspiracy theory comes in. Yes, Abrams said "I'm more of a fan of Star Wars". This does not equal "I abhore Star Trek." By all accounts Abrams is a geek like us. He's into the scifi scene.

It's been made clear that he wants to take this story and make it his own. His style of drama can be spotted a mile away. Lost, Alias, Cloverfield, Mission Impossible III (as much as I wasn't a huge fan of that movie), even Felicity (ick, lucky I'm just typing it, I can't stand DC and can't even say it out loud), have one thing in common: Abrams' character driven drama. It's clear in terms of drama he cares about making the watcher identify with the characters and know their intimate details.

The point is that Abrams cares about drama. In all of his movies and shows it's quite apparent that he cares about the story.

Now, that all being said, is Abrams still using devices to market the movie to a broader audience? Um, are Vulans uptight?

Yes! Of course he's trying to market to a broader audience. He's said this much on several occasions.

Has Star Trek always done this?

I have yet to see a movie trailer, a Star Trek movie trailer at that, that doesn't try to throw at the audience the product's romance, explosions, suspense, and fight scenes in an attempt to draw in more audiences. Not even:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5vK8hCVrFg

Star Trek has always done things to try to widen its demographic:




And kick *** battle scenes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W64FL-l4FNM

Please... Star Trek is mainstream, it always has been.

While Abrams is obviously trying to market this movie to more audiences, it's clear that he also cares about making a good quality movie.

P.S. For those thinking that I'm tossing Abrams' salad, know this. My true fear about Star Trek XI is not canon or whether or not Abrams' is in it for the money. My fear is about the dialogue. So far from this trailer I've seen a lot of cliches: "buckle up" and what not that could actually ruin the movie.

Also, as much as I praise Abrams' drama, his style seems to be consistent, in that the characters seem to all be from the upper middle class to the extremely rich. They all seem to have the words I GOT IT MADE BUT DON'T HOLD IT AGAINST ME stamped on their forheads. From Felicity to Lost to Cloverfield, these characters are obviously not from my neighborhood. In fact, his casts are everything I hate about reality television. If he could try and attempt to put just a bit of blue collar element into his drama I'd identify with it more.

Don't get me wrong, I was a faithful Alias fan and am a faithful Lost fan. Most of his movies (MI:III was "eh") were great in my opinion. But he has a style that makes me hard to identify with his characters.

That's all.
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000

Last edited by MigueldaRican : 11-29-2008 at 02:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-29-2008, 02:31 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Abrams and his apparent decisions appears to indeed be becoming the biggest divisive factor. I find it interesting that to start with a great many people were quite enthusiastic about his involvement, but slowly and surely, things are coming to light they personally don't want and he becomes the devil incarnate. Not that there's hard evidence for everything he's being accused of, but when has that ever gotten in the way of a good witch-hunt. Anyway, we'll all see the results in May.

Although I don't recall Abrams being involved with Dawson's Creek', he did create 'Felicity' though.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-29-2008, 02:31 PM
lordisaiah's Avatar
lordisaiah lordisaiah is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 468
Default

Well, I guess I now know what about this movie has me so worried.

I haven't liked anything Abrams has done up to this point.
__________________
I have seen the darkness in my soul and shine brighter for it.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-29-2008, 02:35 PM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
Abrams and his apparent decisions appears to indeed be becoming the biggest divisive factor. I find it interesting that to start with a great many people were quite enthusiastic about his involvement, but slowly and surely, things are coming to light they personally don't want and he becomes the devil incarnate. Not that there's hard evidence for everything he's being accused of, but when has that ever gotten in the way of a good witch-hunt. Anyway, we'll all see the results in May.

Although I don't recall Abrams being involved with Dawson's Creek', he did create 'Felicity' though.
Ah crap, there goes my credibility. In any case, they're the same thing.

Anyway thanks for the correctiong.
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-29-2008, 02:43 PM
Digginonrand's Avatar
Digginonrand Digginonrand is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
We're sitting here warring about canon, and it looks like canon is not the actual issue here. At least not anymore. The canon debate has almost been exhausted and we are seeing the symptoms of such exhaustion.

And now that one side seems to be coming to terms with the fact that canon revision has always been used in Star Trek, the true complaint comes out: Abrams and company is simply doing this to make a quickbuck.

This means that Abrams and the rest of the crew and including the cast are all lying. They're telling us that they want to make a Star Trek movie. But their true agenda is to help themselves to more of that pie in the sky.




The evidence to this: canon revisions.

Apparently revising canon isn't Abrams' attempt to shape a Star Trek story to his vision. It's simply a device used to market it to the mainstream demographic.

They could give a rat's behind about Star Trek. Just slap on the label, put some characters in that apparently have the same names as characters created by some guy called Gene Raspberry - Razzleberry? Rogerferry? Turd Furgison! That's it! - and sell it. Right? (Have I correctly displayed the general feeling of those who we no longer need to call "canonites"?)

This is where conspiracy theory comes in. Yes, Abrams said "I'm more of a fan of Star Wars". This does not equal "I abhore Star Trek." By all accounts Abrams is a geek like us. He's into the scifi scene.

It's been made clear that he wants to take this story and make it his own. His style of drama can be spotted a mile away. Lost, Alias, Cloverfield, Mission Impossible III (as much as I wasn't a huge fan of that movie), even Dawson's Creek (ick, lucky I'm just typing it, I can't stand DC and can't even say it out loud), have one thing in common: Abrams' character driven drama. It's clear in terms of drama he cares about making the watcher identify with the characters and know their intimate details.

The point is that Abrams cares about drama. In all of his movies and shows it's quite apparent that he cares about the story.

Now, that all being said, is Abrams still using devices to market the movie to a broader audience? Um, are Vulans uptight?

Yes! Of course he's trying to market to a broader audience. He's said this much on several occasions.

Has Star Trek always done this?

I have yet to see a movie trailer, a Star Trek movie trailer at that, that doesn't try to throw at the audience the product's romance, explosions, suspense, and fight scenes in an attempt to draw in more audiences. Not even:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5vK8hCVrFg

Star Trek has always done things to try to widen its demographic:




And kick *** battle scenes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W64FL-l4FNM

Please... Star Trek is mainstream, it always has been.

While Abrams is obviously trying to market this movie to more audiences, it's clear that he also cares about making a good quality movie.

P.S. For those thinking that I'm tossing Abrams' salad, know this. My true fear about Star Trek XI is not canon or whether or not Abrams' is in it for the money. My fear is about the dialogue. So far from this trailer I've seen a lot of cliches: "buckle up" and what not that could actually ruin the movie.

Also, as much as I praise Abrams' drama, his style seems to be consistent, in that the characters seem to all be from the upper middle class to the extremely rich. They all seem to have the words I GOT IT MADE BUT DON'T HOLD IT AGAINST ME stamped on their forheads. From Dawson's Creek to Lost to Cloverfield, these characters are obviously not from my neighborhood. In fact, his casts are everything I hate about reality television. If he could try and attempt to put just a bit of blue collar element into his drama I'd identify with it more.

Don't get me wrong, I was a faithful Alias fan and am a faithful Lost fan. Most of his movies (MI:III was "eh") were great in my opinion. But he has a style that makes me hard to identify with his characters.

That's all.


Well said and great post. I hope he makes some bucks on this film. Something terrible may happen if he does . . . another film. OMG!!!!!! Taking on a ST film was a huge risk, and having done so, I have no doubt he wants to make the best film that he can that will appeal to the widest audience possible . . who wouldn't.

The look of the film and effects will be top notch, thus, lets hope the actors can pull off the essence of the characters they are playing. I think that is the wild card in this film.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-29-2008, 02:45 PM
LTJG Iferal's Avatar
LTJG Iferal LTJG Iferal is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 265
Default

I was under the impression that the trademark owners asked Abrams to do this. If Abrams had never intended to write a Star Trek movie originally, and this entire project was begun by request from Paramount, that would negate the "Abrams in it for the money" conspiracy theory. It would become "Abrams is doing what he was hired to do," which technically could be spun as "doing it for the money", but without the negative connotations.

Paramount is in it for the money. That's why any trademark owner owns a trademark. Trust me - they've not forgotten the faithful old guard; when this movie is released there will be plenty of brand-spanking new "real TOS" merchandise for those people to spend money on. Just yesterday at the drugstore, I saw a special set of TOS Pez dispensers with the likenesses of the seven TOS actors for sale.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-29-2008, 02:51 PM
lordisaiah's Avatar
lordisaiah lordisaiah is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 468
Default

Actually, according to the interviews I remember, Paramount came to Abrams and said, "We want you to direct our next movie." and Abrams said, "I want to do Star Trek, but only if I have complete creative control over it."

Paramount then said, "Okay, you've got it."
__________________
I have seen the darkness in my soul and shine brighter for it.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-29-2008, 02:54 PM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTJG Iferal View Post
I was under the impression that the trademark owners asked Abrams to do this. If Abrams had never intended to write a Star Trek movie originally, and this entire project was begun by request from Paramount, that would negate the "Abrams in it for the money" conspiracy theory. It would become "Abrams is doing what he was hired to do," which technically could be spun as "doing it for the money", but without the negative connotations.

Paramount is in it for the money. That's why any trademark owner owns a trademark. Trust me - they've not forgotten the faithful old guard; when this movie is released there will be plenty of brand-spanking new "real TOS" merchandise for those people to spend money on. Just yesterday at the drugstore, I saw a special set of TOS Pez dispensers with the likenesses of the seven TOS actors for sale.
I know he was asked. And I even know he's doing it for the money. It is his job. He's a movie director and producer. But as with any job, if you're in it just for the money, it's time to leave and do something you benefit from both financially and spiritually. (whatever you take that to mean)

He's also apparently been tasked with the seemingly improbable job of breathing new life into the fanchise. That means market. This isn't the 60's anymore. This is not a new thing just now being introduced. It's Star Trek. It's been around for a long time and is on life support. Some say pull the plug, others say give it a new soul. Abrams is attempting the latter.
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-29-2008, 03:02 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

The version I read was a little of both. Paramount was looking to re-energise Trek, and previously when Abrams had signed a production deal with Paramount he was asked what properties he was interested in. He said 'Mission: Impossible' and 'Star Trek'. He was given the first and made (IMO the joint best M:I film - joined with the first). So a bit later when Paramount were looking for someone to take Trek on, he was approached by them and he accepted, on the conditions he had final cut on the film, creative freedom (subject to some conditions by Paramount) etc. The deal was then done. That's the version I was aware of.

But obviously financial success is a factor, the film is being part funded by his production company so clearly he as well as Paramount will be looking for financial return. I can't count 'they're only in it for the money' as a specific to Trek criticism because at the end of the day that's why studios make films - to make even more money.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-29-2008, 03:05 PM
LTJG Iferal's Avatar
LTJG Iferal LTJG Iferal is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordisaiah View Post
Actually, according to the interviews I remember, Paramount came to Abrams and said, "We want you to direct our next movie." and Abrams said, "I want to do Star Trek, but only if I have complete creative control over it."

Paramount then said, "Okay, you've got it."
Well, Paramount always gives complete creative control to whoever they choose to produce any particular Trek movie or series. I have a feeling the board at Paramount does not particularly feel like sitting through and scrutinizing a bunch of technobabble-laden scripts that they don't understand anyway. But think about where they're coming from: under some particular person's creative control, the gold mine started to run dry, and the cost of digging began to outweigh the amount of gold that was being dug up.

Consider this new film a geological reassessment of the mine. Even if it fails, this movie SHOULD at the very least make its budget back. If it makes tremendous amounts of money besides - viola! New gold mine. If it makes no more than its budget, then Paramount will have lost nothing, and will know once and for all that the new television/film market for Star Trek is no longer solvent.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:32 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.