Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)

Shadow345 said:

A person that likes movies.

Click to expand...

But do movie fans like all movies? If that’s the case, why wouldn’t they like a movie made for Star Trek fans? Or do they just like movies that are original? That can’t be the case because this movie is a sequel to a movie based off of a TV series. Is it because movie fans don’t want to be hindered by anything that requires previous viewing? If that’s the case, why do a lot of sequels that continue the events of the last movie manage to gross more than the previous one did? Are movie fans the type of fans who prefer to be entertained? Why can’t a trek movie made for the fans be entertaining?

Why couldn’t JJ just say “I want to make a good movie set in the Star Trek universe” rather than being so upfront about not giving a crap about Star Trek fans? Does JJ think that Star Trek fans prefer their movies to be bad? If that’s the case, why did Star Trek V and Nemesis bomb? Nemesis was practically built with the intention of making it more mainstream and it was still panned by movie and star trek fans alike.

…………What if a Movie fan is a Star Trek fan?

Why is my name red?

Jeyl said:

Nemesis was practically built with the intention of making it more mainstream and it was still lauded by movie and star trek fans alike.

Click to expand...

Um....

Solo4114 said:

Um....

Click to expand...

Well, I thought it meant something bad. I now know what lauded means, but I still don't know what a movie fan is.

Jeyl said:

But do movie fans like all movies? If that’s the case, why wouldn’t they like a movie made for Star Trek fans? Or do they just like movies that are original? That can’t be the case because this movie is a sequel to a movie based off of a TV series. Is it because movie fans don’t want to be hindered by anything that requires previous viewing? If that’s the case, why do a lot of sequels that continue the events of the last movie manage to gross more than the previous one did? Are movie fans the type of fans who prefer to be entertained? Why can’t a trek movie made for the fans be entertaining?

Why couldn’t JJ just say “I want to make a good movie set in the Star Trek universe” rather than being so upfront about not giving a crap about Star Trek fans? Does JJ think that Star Trek fans prefer their movies to be bad? If that’s the case, why did Star Trek V and Nemesis bomb? Nemesis was practically built with the intention of making it more mainstream and it was still panned by movie and star trek fans alike.

…………What if a Movie fan is a Star Trek fan?

Click to expand...

I think that you hit upon a very good point here, why is that TV and movie producers can't make a show that's based on a popular genre or IP that's appealing to both a general audience and the fan base audience? Too often we hear how studios want to change things in order to make "more appealing" to a broader audience and in the process dumb the movie or show and alienate not only the fans but the "general audience" that they're so desperate to court and then the show gets canceled or we get no sequels or a crappy reboot because they think the premise wasn't sound when it was their dumbing down that made it fail. I don't know why more studios don't take a look at Lord of the Rings, the Harry Potter movies, and Game of Thrones as examples of how you can make a genre film or show that's appealing not only to fans of the IP but to general audiences as well.

As a friend of mine puts it, if you can please the die-hard fanbase of any IP when making a film or show then you will be able to please all of the non fans. Non-fans don't care about nitpicky stuff like how Kirk & Spock meet, the ins and outs of transporters but us fans do and what does it hurt to get those things right since it will please the core fan base and won't do anything to deter non-fans from watching and enjoying movie or show?

Jeyl said:

Why is my name red?

Click to expand...

It's purple now.

JBReplicas said:

The ship that crashes into the sea in the trailer looks like the Enterprise, but I think it looks much more like a TOS constellation class than the new Enter-prius. Has anyone got any good high res shots of that moment?

Click to expand...

Enter-prius :lol

What if movie fans that liked TOS Star Trek because it made them think in an entertaining way expect a film based on it to deliver same?

Well were well buggered on that and far from home.

Jeyl said:

JJ had this to say about the film's villain.

"The whole thing, not just his backstory, but his agenda, his plan, his secret, all that is what, for me at least, makes him such a frightening and cool villain," Abrams said. "Also, the real villains — when they’re not just two-dimensional, angry vengeful types — don’t see themselves as the bad guy.

Click to expand...

"Two-dimensional, angry vengeful types." You mean like Nero, JJ?

Riceball said:

I think that you hit upon a very good point here, why is that TV and movie producers can't make a show that's based on a popular genre or IP that's appealing to both a general audience and the fan base audience? Too often we hear how studios want to change things in order to make "more appealing" to a broader audience and in the process dumb the movie or show and alienate not only the fans but the "general audience" that they're so desperate to court and then the show gets canceled or we get no sequels or a crappy reboot because they think the premise wasn't sound when it was their dumbing down that made it fail. I don't know why more studios don't take a look at Lord of the Rings, the Harry Potter movies, and Game of Thrones as examples of how you can make a genre film or show that's appealing not only to fans of the IP but to general audiences as well.

As a friend of mine puts it, if you can please the die-hard fanbase of any IP when making a film or show then you will be able to please all of the non fans. Non-fans don't care about nitpicky stuff like how Kirk & Spock meet, the ins and outs of transporters but us fans do and what does it hurt to get those things right since it will please the core fan base and won't do anything to deter non-fans from watching and enjoying movie or show?

Click to expand...

Exactly.

These kinds of things beg the question:

"If you're gonna license the IP in the first place, why are you then removing all the identifiable characteristics of the IP except the most superficial ones when you make your final product?"

And the simple answer always seems to be:

"Because branding, dummy."


Producers are all about marketing now. They know that a recognizable name with some recognizable imagery is more reliable at putting asses in seats than a product with no recognizeable name.

They also, I suspect, assume that if the deeper stuff about the franchise were all that wonderful, then everyone would be a fan. But everyone isn't a fan, and only a niche of people care about that stuff, so why pay attention to it? Focus on what they know sells.

It's ALL about marketing. Obviously, the distinguishing features are no so wonderful or everyone would already love the product, right? So focus on the things that they know everyone loves like boobs and f/x. You can have the thin veneer of the original IP, but that's just whatever the window-dressing is. Past that, who cares? Why put the effort in? Get that guy who did LOST on board and we'll sell some more tickets based on his name. Get some attractive young leads, so they won't be old by the time their 3-film contract ends and we reboot the whole series again.


This is the business model now. Do a trilogy, reboot the franchise, and trust in the durability of the name. It's intellectual property strip-mining. But they've learned that well-established brands can withstand just about anything. If Nemesis didn't kill Star Trek, that's a brand name that has proven durability. So, why waste effort trying to please the fans? Take that script we got a few years back about that angry kid who wants to join the navy, and ends up saving the U.S. fleet from a chinese invasion, and slap the Trek IP overtop it. Get someone to do a treatment of that script to shoehorn in the IP stuff, and we're golden. It'll print money. And we haven't even gotten to the merchandising side of it yet.

SmilingOtter said:

"Two-dimensional, angry vengeful types." You mean like Nero, JJ?

Click to expand...

Solo4114 said:

Exactly.

These kinds of things beg the question:

"If you're gonna license the IP in the first place, why are you then removing all the identifiable characteristics of the IP except the most superficial ones when you make your final product?"

And the simple answer always seems to be:

"Because branding, dummy."


Producers are all about marketing now. They know that a recognizable name with some recognizable imagery is more reliable at putting asses in seats than a product with no recognizeable name.

They also, I suspect, assume that if the deeper stuff about the franchise were all that wonderful, then everyone would be a fan. But everyone isn't a fan, and only a niche of people care about that stuff, so why pay attention to it? Focus on what they know sells.

It's ALL about marketing. Obviously, the distinguishing features are no so wonderful or everyone would already love the product, right? So focus on the things that they know everyone loves like boobs and f/x. You can have the thin veneer of the original IP, but that's just whatever the window-dressing is. Past that, who cares? Why put the effort in? Get that guy who did LOST on board and we'll sell some more tickets based on his name. Get some attractive young leads, so they won't be old by the time their 3-film contract ends and we reboot the whole series again.


This is the business model now. Do a trilogy, reboot the franchise, and trust in the durability of the name. It's intellectual property strip-mining. But they've learned that well-established brands can withstand just about anything. If Nemesis didn't kill Star Trek, that's a brand name that has proven durability. So, why waste effort trying to please the fans? Take that script we got a few years back about that angry kid who wants to join the navy, and ends up saving the U.S. fleet from a chinese invasion, and slap the Trek IP overtop it. Get someone to do a treatment of that script to shoehorn in the IP stuff, and we're golden. It'll print money. And we haven't even gotten to the merchandising side of it yet.

Click to expand...

The sad thing is that it's been shown that you can take an IP, stay fairly true and faithful to the original source material and still have it be hugely successful. Like I said in my previous post, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Game of Thrones are 3 shining examples of taking an existing IP and adapt them for film and TV that appeal to not only the existing fan base but also draw in general audiences. Game of Thrones, in particular, is practically the poster child of a genre piece that is appealing all sorts of people including people who aren't normally even fans of the genre much less the books the show is based on. This show has done it so well that one of my co-workers who not only is not into the genre, is not into anything on TV that doesn't keep score (basically sports) watches and likes Game of Thrones.

Now why can't more studios follow the examples of New Line, Universal, and HBO and realize that they can take an IP and make a movie out of it that will be appealing to both the fans and general audiences alike and make huge money at the box office?

Solo4114 said:

Click to expand...

Thank gawd I decided to work remotely today instead of in the office otherwise they'd all be wondering why I just started scream-laughing so loud. THAT...IS...AWESOME!!!!

Solo4114 said:

...Take that script we got a few years back about that angry kid who wants to join the navy, and ends up saving the U.S. fleet from a chinese invasion...

Click to expand...

Hey, I'd like to see that! :lol

Now my name is red, what up :confused

Riceball said:

The sad thing is that it's been shown that you can take an IP, stay fairly true and faithful to the original source material and still have it be hugely successful. Like I said in my previous post, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Game of Thrones are 3 shining examples of taking an existing IP and adapt them for film and TV that appeal to not only the existing fan base but also draw in general audiences. Game of Thrones, in particular, is practically the poster child of a genre piece that is appealing all sorts of people including people who aren't normally even fans of the genre much less the books the show is based on. This show has done it so well that one of my co-workers who not only is not into the genre, is not into anything on TV that doesn't keep score (basically sports) watches and likes Game of Thrones.

Now why can't more studios follow the examples of New Line, Universal, and HBO and realize that they can take an IP and make a movie out of it that will be appealing to both the fans and general audiences alike and make huge money at the box office?

Click to expand...

No argument here. But I'd also say that's due to three things:

1.) Careful selection of the optioned IP. These all had BIG followings to start with, as far as genre works go. Likewise, the IP itself in all of these cases has broad appeal for a reason: it's not just about elves and dwarves and magic and stuff. It focuses on bigger themes, personal relationships, has engaging characters, in addition to just "It's a wizard school and they play a game with a funny name! Kids are gonna love it!" These are stories written by authors who are taking care with their characters, not just using them as vehicles to get to the next big scene. Harry Potter isn't just "Spy Kids With Wizards." There's depth to all of these works you've mentioned.

2.) Careful treatment of the optioned IP. The material is stuck with closely. The authors are consulted to greater or lesser degree, and there's some attempt to really try to bring the world created by the author to light, rather than an attempt to genericize it. The films are also made by people who WANT to stay true to the source because they appreciate the source and recognize it for what it is. To the extent they add to it, they do so in the same general vein as the source material. To the extent they take away, it's usually to make the source material more screen friendly while still keeping it true to the source.

3.) Solid budgets. You can make a "faithful to the book" version of a work, but if you give it a crappy budget, it won't matter. These kinds of works need a big budget, and when they get them, they pay off. Game of Thrones is particularly interesting because while it's big budget for a TV show, it's still extremely efficiently run from what I gather from the behind-the-scenes stuff. It's made by craftspeople who care deeply about their work, but who know how to do it efficiently.

Ultimately, though, I think these are works that require the faith of the studio in the concept itself. Far too much of Hollywood is just flat-out lazy. They don't really care about "Star Trek." They just know that it's phasers and photon torpedos and Kirk sleeps with green chicks and he can't hear you over the sound of how awesome he is and stuff.

greatwazoo42 said:

Thank gawd I decided to work remotely today instead of in the office otherwise they'd all be wondering why I just started scream-laughing so loud. THAT...IS...AWESOME!!!!

Click to expand...

Glad you got a kick out of it. Roflbot lets you make those yourself, so I just pulled that one together.

JJ Abrams said:

"The whole thing, not just his backstory, but his agenda, his plan, his secret, all that is what, for me at least, makes him such a frightening and cool villain,"

Click to expand...

Wait, I just noticed this. Was he trying to imitate William Shatner there?

Why not, he's imitating Star Trek, poorly.

TheDoctor said:

Arthur C Clark would slap you silly if he heard the context of the argument that you're using that particular quote. That quote gets used and abused so much it's not even funny. The point he was trying to make is the relation between a person who understands science and technology and one who doesn't - not to pass off poor, lazy writing and saying it's passible because "we just don't understand it".

The whole point of "Science Fiction" is to foster an interest in "Science". Lots of people walk away from the older Treks inspired (to be an engineer, scientist, leadership role, etc.). Nobody is going to walk away from an 'Abrams Trek' inspired by anything.

To add to it, the whole point behind the 'Old' Trek wasn't the space and the technology - that was window dressing for the story of humanity and how we progressed as a species. The central point of Star Trek is to better ourselves, better humanity as a whole, and learn to work together for the betterment of ALL. I just don't see that in the new Trek.

Click to expand...

I feel like we're on the same 'com-link', Doctor! :lol

BOOOOOORING. What about the SPLOSIONS?!?!