The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Well, he said it again, "not for Trekkies"...
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-25-2009, 06:46 AM
starbase63's Avatar
starbase63 starbase63 is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 1,727
Cool Well, he said it again, "not for Trekkies"...

http://trekweb.com/article....s.shtml

Once again, JJ has reiterated that the movie really isn't for us: " 'We made this film not for Trekkies but for future fans of Star Trek,' Abrams said," should we read that as fans of Trek in general or fans of his interpretation of Trek?

Chris Pine even is quoted as saying "JJ's prescription for realizing the role and this goes for all of us- was to create our own and not worry too much about obeying the laws of the original Star Trek world."
__________________
Never keep a Vulcan waiting...
Admin, sb63's Star Trek Logs, member of the Trek Webmaster Program
STL is now also on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/StarTrekLogs
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-25-2009, 06:54 AM
williamLX's Avatar
williamLX williamLX is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 312
Default

Good thing if you ask me! The laws of the original Trek were strangling the films and greatly reducing the audience. The failure of Insurrection and Nemesis clearly show that there are not enough die hard trekkies who will pay to see any Trek movie to make a film a lucrative enough product for Paramount. Something had to change, as simple as that. They may not be identical but I still think there is far far more potential for Kirk et al than there ever has been for Picard an co.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-25-2009, 06:57 AM
jtrek79's Avatar
jtrek79 jtrek79 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Athens,Greece
Posts: 3,330
Default

trek needs new people,i ll welcome them all
__________________
B E H O L D T H E N A R A D A
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-25-2009, 07:00 AM
starbase63's Avatar
starbase63 starbase63 is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 1,727
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by williamLX View Post
Good thing if you ask me! The laws of the original Trek were strangling the films and greatly reducing the audience. The failure of Insurrection and Nemesis clearly show that there are not enough die hard trekkies who will pay to see any Trek movie to make a film a lucrative enough product for Paramount. Something had to change, as simple as that. They may not be identical but I still think there is far far more potential for Kirk et al than there ever has been for Picard an co.
How were the "laws" strangling Trek?

You don't think it was more an issue of writers not turning in Trek quality stories than some notion that they couldn't work within canon...which I think is bunk...
__________________
Never keep a Vulcan waiting...
Admin, sb63's Star Trek Logs, member of the Trek Webmaster Program
STL is now also on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/StarTrekLogs
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-25-2009, 07:07 AM
RedShirtWalking's Avatar
RedShirtWalking RedShirtWalking is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,020
Default

See, when I read that I take from it that it's not specifically for Trek fans.

This film needs to appeal to a wider audience and the studio knows it. The past several films were supposedly for fans, and look how well they did.

I think we've had enough comments from Orci and Kurtzman that they were faithful to canon to not have to worry about a throwaway sentence by JJ.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-25-2009, 07:16 AM
williamLX's Avatar
williamLX williamLX is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 312
Default

Simple as this Trek canon was so complicated (and often contradictory) that just about any film will break it in some way (they all have to date). Many Trekkies (the really really sad nerd ones who make Trek so unfashionable, such as The Saint on this forum) kick up such a fuss about all such infringements that they generate a negative vibe about the film/series (look to the demise of ST: Enterprise) that essentially making a film for Trekkies is a no win scenario for Paramount. Therefore in making a new film designed to have a wider appeal (and therefore to make money) the best option was to totally not worry about canon at all, and in doing so bring the look up to date and make the film generally more appealing.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-25-2009, 07:23 AM
starbase63's Avatar
starbase63 starbase63 is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 1,727
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedShirtWalking View Post
See, when I read that I take from it that it's not specifically for Trek fans.

This film needs to appeal to a wider audience and the studio knows it. The past several films were supposedly for fans, and look how well they did.

I think we've had enough comments from Orci and Kurtzman that they were faithful to canon to not have to worry about a throwaway sentence by JJ.
Thing is, this isn't the first time he's said it.

And now that we know the bulk of the movie is in an alternate timeline, we know how they say they respect canon...by completely side-stepping it!

You realize of course, if the movie underperforms or even fails and Paramount reverts to form, who are they going to blame for the bad showing at the box office? You don't think they'll blame the general public, do you?
__________________
Never keep a Vulcan waiting...
Admin, sb63's Star Trek Logs, member of the Trek Webmaster Program
STL is now also on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/StarTrekLogs
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-25-2009, 07:26 AM
starbase63's Avatar
starbase63 starbase63 is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 1,727
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by williamLX View Post
Simple as this Trek canon was so complicated (and often contradictory) that just about any film will break it in some way (they all have to date). Many Trekkies (the really really sad nerd ones who make Trek so unfashionable, such as The Saint on this forum) kick up such a fuss about all such infringements that they generate a negative vibe about the film/series (look to the demise of ST: Enterprise) that essentially making a film for Trekkies is a no win scenario for Paramount. Therefore in making a new film designed to have a wider appeal (and therefore to make money) the best option was to totally not worry about canon at all, and in doing so bring the look up to date and make the film generally more appealing.
The thought that canon is complicated is hogwash.

Is it contradictory? Yes, at times. Put together a franchise with over 700 hours of material and some things won't add up perfectly, but overall Trek canon works pretty well at the core.

Main problem is no one takes the time to do a little research. Is it just laziness or apathy?
__________________
Never keep a Vulcan waiting...
Admin, sb63's Star Trek Logs, member of the Trek Webmaster Program
STL is now also on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/StarTrekLogs
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-25-2009, 07:27 AM
CAPTAIN MOUSE's Avatar
CAPTAIN MOUSE CAPTAIN MOUSE is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Placerville,CA
Posts: 2,564
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by williamLX View Post
Simple as this Trek canon was so complicated (and often contradictory) that just about any film will break it in some way (they all have to date). Many Trekkies (the really really sad nerd ones who make Trek so unfashionable, such as The Saint on this forum) kick up such a fuss about all such infringements that they generate a negative vibe about the film/series (look to the demise of ST: Enterprise) that essentially making a film for Trekkies is a no win scenario for Paramount. Therefore in making a new film designed to have a wider appeal (and therefore to make money) the best option was to totally not worry about canon at all, and in doing so bring the look up to date and make the film generally more appealing.
Well stated post!
__________________
CAN YOU CATCH SECOND HAND STUPIDITY? OR SHOULD I BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER HERE? - JEFF DUNHAM
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-25-2009, 07:28 AM
williamLX's Avatar
williamLX williamLX is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 312
Default

700 hours in not a little time, and even watching all 700 hours would not be enough as human memory being as it is, by the time you are a few hours into this mountain you will have forgotten some of the little details that sad nerd trekkies hate to see ignored or contradicted.
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 05:28 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.