The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > I come as an Emissary to canonistas and revisionists...
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 12-03-2008, 05:06 PM
LTJG Iferal's Avatar
LTJG Iferal LTJG Iferal is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
But to answer the latter -- to put it in the coldest, least emotionally-invested light: appealing to an entirely new and different fan-base at the risk of possibly losing the original one is playing a long shot, as opposed to keeping the original fan-base, which would be playing a safe bet.
Keeping the original fan base is a safe bet only if the object is to lose money, for reasons explained in this thread. With the returns from Star Trek films aimed at the "original fan base" having dropped more than 90% in six years, any Paramount executive who suggested another film aimed at the same exact audience would've been reassigned to the mail room.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 12-03-2008, 05:41 PM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

That's based on the premise that the last two films were, in fact, aimed at the original audience. If they had been, I'd agree. But let's look at Nemesis. A superfluous "car chase" scene which served no purpose other than the "cool" factor. Adding a double for Data, then having the crew assemble, activate and interact with it as if they'd completely forgotten about another double of Data that was, to put it mildly, a homicidal maniac with superhuman strength, speed and intellect. A villainous double of Picard which was not only a glaring contrivance but a really, really badly executed one. These things, to me, say that they were not, in fact, aiming Nemesis at people who were already savvy on the Star Trek story.

And all of these bad ideas...

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

...were right there in the trailer. Hence, fans who had had nearly enough with Insurrection and its unintentionally comical one-liners ("Saddle up! Lock and load!" -- What, was Data having a flashback to the time when he got infected by an Old West holodeck program?) and fluff action were turned off, while the casual prospective viewer was turned off by some of the worst and longest-running example of TNG's preachy moralizing.

And those deficits, too, were also in...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg43U_kySLo

...the trailer.

So no -- the last two films were not, in fact, geared toward long time fans. And long time fans knew it both times without having to see the films in question. Those problems, in both cases, were clear and present in their respective trailers.
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 12-03-2008, 06:32 PM
LTJG Iferal's Avatar
LTJG Iferal LTJG Iferal is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
So no -- the last two films were not, in fact, geared toward long time fans. And long time fans knew it both times without having to see the films in question. Those problems, in both cases, were clear and present in their respective trailers.
Yes, they were. The target audience was that set of people who know Star Trek. You guys. You've given all the reasons the movie was a bad movie, not why "it wasn't geared toward" long time fans. That's ALL the movie was geared towards. Think about it: there's no character exposition at the beginning of the movie. Why? Because everyone in the theater is already supposed to know who these people are, what their place in the setting is, what their motivations and desires are. There's absolutely no chance anybody who was NOT already familiar with Star Trek would be able to walk into Nemesis and have any clue whatsoever what was going on.

Maybe you feel as if the writers insulted your intelligence, and they may well have - but trust me, you guys are exactly the people they had in mind when they made Nemesis.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 12-03-2008, 06:33 PM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

Well, I guess we're just going to disagree on that. Taking your point of view for a moment, though -- if Nemesis was geared toward people who knew TNG, I can only conclude it was written by people who, from start to finish, didn't.
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 12-03-2008, 06:46 PM
LTJG Iferal's Avatar
LTJG Iferal LTJG Iferal is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
Well, I guess we're just going to disagree on that. Taking your point of view for a moment, though -- if Nemesis was geared toward people who knew TNG, I can only conclude it was written by people who, from start to finish, didn't.
...which is completely true. The screenplay was written by John Logan, and the film was directed by Stuart Baird, neither of whom had ever worked on or had anything else to do with a Star Trek project, ever. Of course, they were running off a story by Rick Berman, which was probably the first and last nail in the coffin for that movie.

As bad as Rick Berman was, he at least thought he was Mr. Trek, and I seriously doubt he would've attempted to gear a TNG movie towards anything but a TNG audience.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 12-03-2008, 06:46 PM
lordisaiah's Avatar
lordisaiah lordisaiah is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 468
Default

The biggest problem that this movie has to overcome, and in fact, what was responsible for the falling revenues, is the fact that the real majority of Star Trek's fan base are folks who don't come to boards like this, who don't look up every major detail about each movie coming out and who don't even go to conventions. They are the average viewers who like Star Trek for a diversionary entertainment, but nothing really more. They can tell you who the main characters are, even maybe remember the basic jist of one or two episodes, but are flabbergasted when you mention something in a movie and they say, "That was number three right?" and you respond, "Um...no, that was number 9." And that is the problem, it's all run together for them. I know several folks that thoroughly enjoy Star Trek, but they don't have the foggiest clue about any of the details that I routinely bring up. They were surprised when I told them that there was 3 spin-offs after TNG, and when I described them, they said, "Yeah, I watched some of those shows, but I thought it was still TNG, that they had just replaced the crew."
Some of these folks didn't even know there had been any TNG movies...they just assumed that all 10 movies were TOS movies, because, "That's what Star Trek is."

That's who Paramount is counting on whooing back to the theaters, not brand new fans to obsess over every little detail, not old fans who were suffering "Berman Fatigue", they want to get back the average movie goer who normally looks at a Star Trek Poster (not a trailer, a poster) in the Theater lobby and goes, "Oh jeez, another one? How much longer is Shater going to be alive? Can't he just let it go?" The other two camps are purely icing on the cake if they get them.
__________________
I have seen the darkness in my soul and shine brighter for it.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 12-03-2008, 06:53 PM
Damage75's Avatar
Damage75 Damage75 is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,593
Default

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
I don't recall implying the odds were 50/50. There are two minority camps in the equation, one minority camp really, really dislikes what's being done with continuity, the other minority seems to really relish it (which led to my original confusion as to what it was they actually do like about the original in the first place) and the majority of the board seems to be casually optimistic with or without disappointments about some aspects of the thing.
"And when there are as many people here, if not more, practically deifying the creative team for throwing out most of Star Trek...."

You're right. You didn't imply the odds were 50/50...you said that they were more. Using your descriptions along with poll results (again, not official, but does take the pulse of this forum) the minority camp (10%) are the one's that "really, really dislikes", the major-minority (20%) seem "casually optimistic", and the the majority (70%) seems "to really relish it".

Again, it is OK if you don't like what you have seen of the movie so far....but please don't make up statistics to support your opinions.
[quote]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
Actually they are dumbing it down. If you can't see that they you're on the blind side. People don't get the trek tech and babble. Dumbing it down was mission one on this movie...
I type on my braille keyboard, because I don't see how you think they are "dumbing it down".

Tell you what, wait till the movie comes out, then present your arguments as to why they dumbed down this movie. Then we can take you seriously.
Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTJG Iferal View Post
So what does your authority have to say about the aerospace design, vehicle symmetry, and mass balance of this monstrosity:

It is hideous. But it got the job done. NASA didn't care what the thing looked like, so long as it served to get the mission complete. Things in space float around in zero-gravity. They don't have to worry about "balance" or "symmetry".
Very nice reference and rebuttal!

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
So no -- the last two films were not, in fact, geared toward long time fans. And long time fans knew it both times without having to see the films in question. Those problems, in both cases, were clear and present in their respective trailers.
I'm a long time fan, and I don't believe that's right. Please don't speak for all of us...if you'd like to say YOU didn't see it from the trailers, then fine.
__________________


You people have ruined "Star Trek The Next Generation" for me. You are absolutely the most insufferable group of jackasses I have ever had the misfortune of spending an extended period of time with. I hope you all f@*#! die. - Stewie after spending the day with the TNG cast.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 12-03-2008, 07:07 PM
WildGunsTomcat's Avatar
WildGunsTomcat WildGunsTomcat is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
So no -- the last two films were not, in fact, geared toward long time fans. And long time fans knew it both times without having to see the films in question. Those problems, in both cases, were clear and present in their respective trailers.
Wow that's a very arrogant statement. Even for you Saint.

Don't presume to speak for other people dude.

You act like people that don't think like you can't even call themselves Trek fans.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 12-03-2008, 07:11 PM
lordisaiah's Avatar
lordisaiah lordisaiah is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 468
Default

There has NEVER been exposition on ANY Star Trek movie "freshly introducing" the characters, because the generic theory was not "Only Star Trek fans are going to watch this movie." it was "Anyone who doesn't know who Kirk & Spock (Or Picard & Data, take your pick)is has been living in an underground bunker since 1964.

Bad move, perhaps.

This new movie is intended to be an introduction to get people back in, (and perhaps those whom truly never have seen Star Trek.) but the question still out there is...will it succeed in that. There are many folks who won't because this movie is "Star Trek". The will never go see a movie called "Star Trek" because no matter what they see in a trailer, or hear from their friends...Star Trek is for nerds, and they don't consider themselves nerds.

And to some of the folks out there that are thinking this new movie will suddenly make it "cool" to be a Star Trek fan. It's doubtful, as despite that large numbers of World of Warcraft players, and the ads on TV, the majority of folks whom don't play WoW, still think that only overweight kids and young adults with no life play WoW. The same will continue with Star Trek, even if, by some miracle of miracles, this movie becomes the Highest Grossing Movie of all Time, Star Trek Fans will still be perceived to be adults living in their parents basement, because when you point out to someone, "I though you said you really liked that movie." they're just going to go, "I do, but I'm not a Star Trek fan."
__________________
I have seen the darkness in my soul and shine brighter for it.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 12-03-2008, 07:18 PM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
So no -- the last two films were not, in fact, geared toward long time fans. And long time fans knew it both times without having to see the films in question. Those problems, in both cases, were clear and present in their respective trailers.
Yet many fans like what they see in this trailer, and indeed people here liked the prospects for the film better AFTER they saw the trailer. So maybe the important difference is that this film is being geared toward long time fans who have different opinions on TREK than you?

And again, to compare the effort Stuart Baird (didn't) put into directing NEMESIS versus what Abrams and Paramount are putting into this TREK is just wildly unsupported by the facts already available, let alone your prefab opinion of the results yet to be shown. You don't even have to take my word for it, take Nimoy's if you want to talk the definition of "long term TREK."

He knows a thing or two about it.
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
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 02:12 AM.


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.