ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

J.J. Abrams Proves Himself as the Saviour of Star Trek!

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 20 2013, 9:05 pm

From a business standpoint, if Paramount makes a profit from STID, which it is set to do, then they will be just fine.


Seriously, NuTrek will not fail because it resonates with more people than it disappoints. It resonates on multiple levels and is not bad Trek, no matter how much people try to paint it in to a corner.


Trek fans have been spoiled because Trek was formulaic. VOY followed TNG's model to a T, to the point that their actual episode numbers just continue TNG's numbering. DS9 tried to break the mold and is a better series for it, in my opinion.


In addition, Trek fans did not "suffer" without new material for 4 years. Between fan productions, Stat Trek: Vanguard and other novels, Star Trek: Online and other such materials kept it going. But, it was still formulaic. Why not something new?


 

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this May. 21 2013, 1:24 am

Quote: Vger23 @ May. 20 2013, 6:23 am

>

>In essence, there are two types of fans: Those who DON'T want Star Trek to be cool and those who do.

>


...And a third.


Those who don't care if it's cool or not, but just want to enjoy it.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 21 2013, 6:56 am

Quote:

From a business standpoint, if Paramount makes a profit from STID, which it is set to do, then they will be just fine.


Both Forbes and BoxOfficeMojo have termed STID's box office as "disappointing" and that's the first weekend. Meaning, they expected a LOT more.  This weekend will be key.  


JJ Abrams has yet to prove he can deliver Marvel-level entertainment that will have fans running  to see his films two and three times.  Joss Whedon had proved that he can make awesome movies that perform.  The souce material has nothing  to do with the quality of the film.  It's how you interpret it. Whedon makes good movies.


Abrams also shot himself in the foot with the Khan secrecy, in more ways than one.  Set aside the fact that Khan's role was whitewashed thanks to Hollywood racism, but he had the chance to promote the hell out of it and failed. Had he properly cast the role and promoted it, it might have been a different story.


One of the leading reasons The Dark Knight did so well was the build-up for the Joker.  Granted they got a lot of free press because Ledger died, but that doesn't change the fact that they allowed glimpses of the most iconic villain in comic books, who was previously played by Jack Nicholson of all people. How can he top NIcholson? is what a lot of people asked.  They showed you samples and whetted your appetite to get peoplel into the theaters.  That's good marketing.


Numbers don't lie.  We'll see what resonates more with fans, Hangover III or NuTrek


Quote:

In addition, Trek fans did not "suffer" without new material for 4 years. Between fan productions, Stat Trek: Vanguard and other novels, Star Trek: Online and other such materials kept it going. But, it was still formulaic. Why not something new?


New? NEW?! I like new! Is there actually new Star Trek around??  Really?! I'd like some fresh, new innovative Star Trek!


Maybe I should forward this idea to JJ Abrams so he'll stop rehasing old plots badly!


And tell all the other fans who are bemoaning "Star Trek was dead before Abrams came along. I've been arguing that all along, that Star Trek never died and we had plenty of material.  But they went without it on TV for four years and paint it like a tragedy.  

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 21 2013, 9:21 am

New? NEW?! I like new! Is there actually new Star Trek around??  Really?! I'd like some fresh, new innovative Star Trek!


 


Maybe I should forward this idea to JJ Abrams so he'll stop rehasing old plots badly!


 


Yes, new. I would argue that Trek 09 is new and I enjoyed it as such.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this May. 21 2013, 11:10 am

yeah, it's not like voyager and enterprise used to do the exact same plots or anything 


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this May. 21 2013, 1:15 pm

Quote: bunkey @ May. 20 2013, 5:17 pm

>

> And we may never get more Star Trek.  But better there be no Star Trek than bad Star Trek.

>


Delusions of grandeur.


And that's why selfish fans like you get so much flak from the rest of us. No one died and made you the effing Gatekeeper, Arbiter and Sole Decision Maker on what's good or bad ST. Or what's worthy to carry the ST name.


I don't like ENT or VOY. I think the Riker character was a pompous ass that was a very weak attempt to replicate the rugged, sexy, take action Kirk persona. I think every TNG movie except for First Contact was trash. I find the official ST books laughable. But I understand many fans love every bit of those things and I would never presume that MY personal tastes should set the standard for what other people enjoy.


No one is forcing you to love, like, watch or support nuTrek. But wishing for failure because you don't like it is ridiculous. OTHER people do and their like is just as valid as your dislike.


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 21 2013, 1:34 pm

Delusions of granduer? Overdramatic much?  


I'm voicing my opinion.  The problem is no one likes it.  Very different story.


I do very much hope it fails. I hope it tanks and Paramount shelves it for a few years and then maybe we have a chance of getting GOOD Star Trek.  You seem to think I don't want new Star Trek. I do, very much so.  But I want good Star Trek, not this half assed simplistic crap that Abrams is feeding us.  And Abrams is an obstacle to that, so yeah, I hope he fails. Miserably.  It's a gamble, but to me it's better to hope that someone gets it right down the road then continue on this path.


I AM the "effing Gatekeeper, Arbiter and Sole Decision Maker on what's good or bad ST. Or what's worthy to carry the ST name." when it comes to what I personally enjoy.  I want to enjoy Star Trek and this isn't enjoyable.  I want it to move forward. So you're damn right I'm selfish because I want to get enjoyment out of a franchise I love.  


No one is forcing me to love NuTrek, but the existence of it is in the way of good Star Trek and therefore I want it to fail.  


Sorry not sorry.


 


And if it does fail I will do a dance.


Sarcasm is my native language.
JJ Abrams is not of the body.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this May. 21 2013, 4:07 pm

[quote]


Both Forbes and BoxOfficeMojo have termed STID's box office as "disappointing" and that's the first weekend. Meaning, they expected a LOT more.  This weekend will be key.  


[/quote]


Yeah, and several analysts have said the most probable reason is competition with the juggernaut that is Iron Man 3, coupled with the 4 year interval from ST09.  Paramount didn't take Iron Man seriously enough and the > 2 year interval hurt the opening weekend.  They did overestimate the film's opening box office in the wake of Iron Man 3. 


That said, the film's got a great rating on rottentomatoes.com, which means great word of mouth, and performed even better overseas than ST09 did.  It definitely will not be a bomb, like NEM was.  By all projections, it will still be tremendously successful.  They're already discussing a third movie, which, personally, is really all I'd want to see.  If they're more, great, if they can end it at a nice point with 1 more film, I'll be happy.  And maybe you'll be happy too, since they might very well move into a new phase of the franchise, either a new film series or a new television series.  Heck, if I could go without watching ENT, which was really easy, I don't see why other fans who don't like Abrams' films just kick back and let them pass.  If VOY, ENT, and the TNG films (with the exception of the excellent FC) couldn't kill the franchise, Abrams films won't either (although I really loved ST09 and am looking forward to seeing STID).


[quote]


JJ Abrams has yet to prove he can deliver Marvel-level entertainment that will have fans running  to see his films two and three times.


[/quote]


I don't know if that's exactly fair.  I don't think many franchises can compete with the Marvel juggernaut.  Probably only Twilight and Harry Potter. 


[quote]  Joss Whedon had proved that he can make awesome movies that perform.  


[/quote]


With Avengers maybe, but he didn't do so well with Serenity, did he?  Why?  Because no one watched Firefly (despite how excellent it was).  The whole Marvel franchise has, right now, an advantage over the ST franchise.  They've put out a lot more product the last four years.   


[quote]


The souce material has nothing  to do with the quality of the film.  It's how you interpret it. Whedon makes good movies.


[/quote]


And so does Mr. Abrams imo.


[quote]


 


Abrams also shot himself in the foot with the Khan secrecy, in more ways than one.  Set aside the fact that Khan's role was whitewashed thanks to Hollywood racism,


[/quote]


I don't think it was.  They were trying to get Benico del Toro for Kahn y'know.  He turned it down.


[quote]


but he had the chance to promote the hell out of it and failed. Had he properly cast the role and promoted it, it might have been a different story.


[/quote]


Again, I disagree.  I think they really went all out on the marketing front.  And the trekkies at least expected Khan.


[quote]


Numbers don't lie.  We'll see what resonates more with fans, Hangover III or NuTrek.


[/quote]


With the under 25 year old males, it might indeed be The Hangover III.  We'll see.


 


[quote]


New? NEW?! I like new! Is there actually new Star Trek around??  Really?! I'd like some fresh, new innovative Star Trek!


[/quote]


Speaking for myself, I'm pretty happy with what we got.  I really don't care that much if new elements of the franchise are produced or not.  I still have my DVDs after all and I've barely seen any ENT.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this May. 21 2013, 4:16 pm

Iron Man 3 is already at 25 of the top grossing movies of all time on box office mojo.  Tough competition indeed


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

Kdbtrekkin

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3648

Report this May. 21 2013, 7:28 pm

Went to see the new movie, enjoyed it immensely. Will be seeing it again soon at the theater(don't do that very often, only twice I can think of: Star Trek Generations and The Dark Knight).


"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires, seek discipline and find your liberty." Frank Herbert(Dune)

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this May. 22 2013, 1:17 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 20 2013, 5:17 pm

>

>But better there be no Star Trek than bad Star Trek.

>


Really? Really-really? I mean think of what you are saying here. If sacrificing a Threshold type episode (which you never have to watch either way) means also sacrificing In the Pale Moonlight, are you sure you'd opt for that? Would you really prefer to ditch Into Darkness (don't have to watch it!) and Wrath of Khan because no S.T. is better than a little of the stuff you perhaps don't like?


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this May. 22 2013, 7:32 am

god forbid someone not like an episode of trek she likes.  We'd have to get rid of that too. 


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 22 2013, 7:37 am

Oh get bent.  Bad episodes =|= Bad Star Trek 


Don't be such a drama queen.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this May. 22 2013, 9:24 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 08 2013, 3:46 pm

>

>In the words on Inigo Montolya "I do not think it means what you think it means."

>I wouldn't call JJ Abrams a savior at all. He's turned a profit for Paramount.  He got some non-fans to attend the films and talk about Star Trek for a minute. He gave younger fans some attractive people to swoon over. This is not the man to breathe life back into a franchise that thrives best on the small screen.  JJ Abrams has shown Paramount that with a lot of special effects and a passable plot, you can make some money in the theaters, which is why they made a second and will probably make a third.  He has shown Paramount how to make money off the name of Star Trek.   Has he produced material that can is viable for television? Have his writers proven that they can write quality scripts week after week? If Paramount were going to attempt another series, they would want to use someone who they think can make money. And in their eyes, it would be JJ Abrams.    JJ Abrams is not going to do a Star Trek series. He is movng on to Star Wars (he's their problem now).  A man who is not a Star Trek fan will not save the franchise.


*stands and applauds


this is how I feel. But I get called a hater for it.


the thing I hate the most about these new movies is my fellow fans. If they love the movies that's great. I have no problem with that. But if you don't like the movie they jump all over you, call you a hater, or a rabid fanboy that can't be pleased, things like that. They can't simply say ok that's cool I liked it and you didn't, to each their own.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 22 2013, 9:35 am

Willowtree, I get called much worse than a hater here.   But I refuse to be silenced because my opinion is unpopular. I admit that I want Abrams Trek to fail because it's standing in the way of new, quality Trek that is forward moving. I would rather have no Star Trek than really bad Star Trek and will not swallow what JJ Abrams is feeding us.  Apparently, that makes me a horrible person. 


My analogy is this (And STID is inspiring a lot of food references, lol)


Say all Star Trek fans are ice cream fans.  We love ice cream. We ADORE ice cream, but there hasn't been any ice cream for a while. Suddenly, we hear the ice cream man truck coming and run yelling "ICE CREEEEEAM" waving money.  Everyone lines up for ice cream and when it's your turn, you buy your cone and bite into it and realize it's not actually ice cream but tofutti.  You look around and some people are staring at the tofutti but eating it anyway. You say "hey this isn't ice cream, it's f'in tofutti!" Everyone tells you to quiet down and enjoy your tofutti and that it's just as good as ice cream, but you insist that you wanted ice cream. People say "shush, just be happy that we have some sort of dessert at all" but you want ice cream, full fat, real sugar ice cream, so you go up to the ice cream man and demand ice cream, throw your cone away and tell people "hey that's not real ice cream you're eating"  but some how you're the rabble rouser because you insist on telling people that you hate tofutti and were promised ice cream and are mad that you were lied to.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum