JJ ABRAMS Enterprise

No, not really. The idea that majority opinion on a film is some sort of magical, elusive, hopelessly subjective randomness is only believed by studio executives running focus groups, and people who don't make their living exploiting the opposite truth in jobs like marketing. We can hit and sell to a specific demographic with a high rate of accuracy because people - and their opinions - are very predictable. This ability is true for anyone who has consistently high performance in any artistic/commercial field. Spielberg didn't make ET or Raiders or Jaws or Schindler's List by accident, any more than the Beatles "lucked" into hit after hit. There are a billion things which may thwart a creator's throughline and compromise the result, but that doesn't mean the best filmmakers don't know damn well what most people are going to like in their work. Ditto musicians, painters, etc. More often than not, great filmmakers with "failed" films admit to deliberately trying things they weren't sure the results of; experimenting on the job; not doing what they knew would be the easy sell. And no matter what he might say to the press, there's no way Spielberg was at home after wrapping KOTCS, scratching his head in bewilderment asking, "I don't understand why they don't love it!" He knows exactly why. Generally speaking, there's about an 80-90% consistent profile inside of any demographic. If your target is 18 year old girls, there's a way to reliably satisfy about that percentage of them, commerically/artistically. Some people hit that target randomly; the best creatives know exactly how to, and can do so on command.


_Mike
 
Last edited:
That 'stripe' is, according to my buddy in the film, a ribbed detail like a reinforcement. If you look at a pair of BDU trousers there is a reinforcement in the same location
 
_Mike -- it is fine for you to express your opinion -- it's subjective after all -- but you have no right to invalidate the opinions of others. By trying to use statistics (interpretation of which can also be subjective) to back up your argument, you disprove your own point.

In my opinion, which I won't change based on yours, I like what I am seeing and hearing in terms of both style and story. I have seen enough to know that I will enjoy this movie immensely, regardless of how anyone else receives it.

As to what it will ultimately mean for the franchise, that's not something I can opine on, since it will be *objectively* proven by the amount of cash it brings in (since a franchise is after all a business concept, not a creative one).

I think it is ironic that the more a particular "mass" media offering succeeds, the more it becomes a target for people to knock. It's simply trying to be what it is. If you want something custom tailored to your own preferences, well, you can dream, can't you?
 
The more I watch this trailer, the more I look forward to the flick. I a haven't been this excited for a Trek movie since the Search for Spock!!

I see about as much resemblence to Galaxy Quest as I do to GQ and the old Trek revisions. All this comparison to GQ is still nitpicking whining and just silly.

Sure the Enterprise and the crew and the props look different... isn't that point?? At least they didn't remove the big squid.
 
Somebody needs to merge the Trek threads and make it a sticky or something so folks stop making new ones. Just a suggestion. ;)

Anyway, Aintitcool has an article up about someone who watched 26 minutes of the film.

Lots for the haters to grab onto here:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39137

I know Harry was there, but in case you want some outside opinions, here is one! Wasn't sure who to send it to.

If you use this, call me LoquaciousMuse.

Well, I'm sold.

I was mad at Star Trek earlier this year for not having a real presence at Comic Con. Because that's how I roll. But I can't deny the truth that JJ just knocked my socks off.

There was a screening tonight on the west side of NYC of four scenes from the new Trek film with JJ Abrams on hand to talk a little about the film and present each scene.

Things got started with the President of Paramount Film Group, John Lesher. He introduced the trailer, then JJ.

After joking around for a second with Lescher, JJ came right out and said it - "I've never been a fan of Star Trek"

Someone in the back booed (but a good natured boo) to which JJ responded that he knows, he just never quite got it and that's the truth. He had a friend in elementary school who tried to pull him in, but it didn't work. He always felt like he wasn't really Kirk, but he wasn't really Spock either - that he was just an observer who couldn't relate to these characters.

But when the studio asked him to produce a new Star Trek film, he found himself saying yes, albeit without really knowing why - he didn't even know there were numerous Trek films already made, but he said yes nonetheless.

He got together with his usual suspects including Damon Lindelof, Alex Kurtzman, Robert Orci, a huge Trekker, and Bryan Burk, who had never seen a piece of Trek in his life. Together, they came up with a story they all loved.
When JJ read the script by Orci & Kurtzman, he saw in it the reason he got into making movies in the first place and was jealous of whoever got to direct it. Naturally one thing led to another and JJ says that now, thanks to this experience, he does consider himself a Trekker. He was excited to make a Trek that felt real, legitimate, & relatable, grounded in the reality of our world, and that the amazing cast really pulls it off. Then the scenes began . . .
Click to expand...

From there, we have some spoilers and scene descriptions I didn't want to post here.

What got me was JJ saying he wasn't a trek fan, but taking the job anyway.

Before we start going OFF, lets ask ourselves how many of the film directors were fans of the show, or the previous films?

I'm fairly certain that none of the directors were fans, including Shatner.
 
konar said:
_Mike -- it is fine for you to express your opinion -- it's subjective after all -- but you have no right to invalidate the opinions of others. By trying to use statistics (interpretation of which can also be subjective) to back up your argument, you disprove your own point.

In my opinion, which I won't change based on yours, I like what I am seeing and hearing in terms of both style and story. I have seen enough to know that I will enjoy this movie immensely, regardless of how anyone else receives it.

As to what it will ultimately mean for the franchise, that's not something I can opine on, since it will be *objectively* proven by the amount of cash it brings in (since a franchise is after all a business concept, not a creative one).

I think it is ironic that the more a particular "mass" media offering succeeds, the more it becomes a target for people to knock. It's simply trying to be what it is. If you want something custom tailored to your own preferences, well, you can dream, can't you?
Click to expand...

QFT :thumbsup :lol
 
Change was inevitable. The action of the Flic looks intense. The ship may fit in during motion.

It has to be accepted to continue Star Trek on Film and TV.

Accept it for the sake of Star Trek.

SGT
 
No one is going to be happy with this "reboot" to bring the Star Trek Universe back into the $$$$$$$$$$$$$ moneymaking process.

True ST fans are going to hate it and new ST fans will probably love it. Abrahm's is going after the new fans and trying to create new fans in order to bring the franchise back. Unfortunately he also may loose a few in the process.

Knowing that the "space-time continuum" is a major part of the plot I don't think it is going to do very well. ST script writers fall on that concept / idea way too many times in the ST Universe. Wouldn't it be nice to just simply have some villain / threat that doesn't time travel???? Even in the original series they didn't time travel all that much but in all the other series it seems to be the "plot of the week." Even ST3 was about time travel and so was ST-TNG First Contact (good movie but again time travel). Stick in the present day universe, use the ideas from Wrath of Khan, and you will have a great movie that makes everyone happy!!!
 
Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure used time travel quite effectively. I see no reason for Star Trek to continue to address this issue cinematically, it's been covered.

And now I just have to remember to go back in time and leave myself a Ferrari in the driveway so I can go outside and drive it now.
 
The idea that changing up the shape of the space ship and sets and uniforms and then making it an action-driven flick (often referred to as "popcorn movies" for their obvious lack of meaningful plot) is somehow going to bring more fans to the franchise is ludicrous. Sounds more to me like an excuse than anything else.

Whether we realize it or not, Science Fiction has been always on the edge of acceptable viewing by the majority of audience goers. That's just the way it is. And it will continue to carry that stigma forever.

Yes, there is a very large sci-fi watching community out there. I don't deny that. But we are small compared to the rest of the world audience.

That's why Titanic buried every money making record in the book.

It doesn't matter how much money you shove up the Jeffries Tube, it doesn't matter how much foam latex you plaster to a Klingon's head, it doesn't matter whether Kirk is played by a young guy or Shatner in a truss and a toupee'... you aren't going to make Star Trek more palatable to my brothers who'd rather be listening to The Statler Brothers on 8-track tape and watching Nascar. They just aren't going to care.

-Gordon
 
spcglider@aol.com said:
The idea that changing up the shape of the space ship and sets and uniforms and then making it an action-driven flick (often referred to as "popcorn movies" for their obvious lack of meaningful plot) is somehow going to bring more fans to the franchise is ludicrous. Sounds more to me like an excuse than anything else.

Whether we realize it or not, Science Fiction has been always on the edge of acceptable viewing by the majority of audience goers. That's just the way it is. And it will continue to carry that stigma forever.

Yes, there is a very large sci-fi watching community out there. I don't deny that. But we are small compared to the rest of the world audience.

That's why Titanic buried every money making record in the book.

It doesn't matter how much money you shove up the Jeffries Tube, it doesn't matter how much foam latex you plaster to a Klingon's head, it doesn't matter whether Kirk is played by a young guy or Shatner in a truss and a toupee'... you aren't going to make Star Trek more palatable to my brothers who'd rather be listening to The Statler Brothers on 8-track tape and watching Nascar. They just aren't going to care.

-Gordon
Click to expand...

And yet I'd bet those Nascar fans saw Star Wars. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Crewman 6
Here is my EM-33 Plasma Pistol
Replies
0
Views
167
Crewman 6
Crewman 6
LimeyBuilds
Enterprise Phase Pistol Re-imagined.
Replies
5
Views
1,482
DamnYankee123
D
13doctorwho
Enterprise Wrath Of Khan Viewscreen
Replies
1
Views
983
13doctorwho
13doctorwho
Jameel Ur
Star Trek: Enterprise S-2 Excursion Tan Color uniform!
Replies
2
Views
622
peter1701
P
TheRealCatjuju
Blade Runner 2049 Officer K Blaster - Tip Top Workshop
Replies
3
Views
578
tain669
tain669
Back
Top