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

Why do Zealous Fan Boys Wish for Failure?

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 10 2013, 5:14 pm

Quote: bunkey @ May. 10 2013, 2:49 pm

>

>If they had taken the entire 2009 script, changed the names, placed it in the 25th century, aside from some minor changes, the concept could have worked as is and I would have probably enjoyed it.

>


 


It worked for millions of people and 95% of the critics who reviewed it. That's the measure these guys are trying to hit. I hate to break it to you, but they're not targeting these movies at you. A 25 century "going forward" movie may have made it better for you (it's REALLY odd that this is now your sticking point, because I could argue "what difference does it make what era it takes place in" but that would fall on deaf ears as well), but 90% of the movie going population and even a large chunk of the fan base would not have cared.


 


So again, the thing people fail to recognize is the their singular vision of Star Trek is not what matters here. Making something that connects with people in general is what matters. 


If they fail at connecting with a few individuals but succeed in connecting with the general public...mission accomplished! Star Trek should be able to be enjoyed by the most people possible, not be an exclusive club that fanboys keep in a bottle under their bed and hide from others. 


So, now what you're saying makes absolutely no sense. In essense, you're saying if they produced the same basic movie, but with the setting in the 25th century and with different characters, you may have liked it. That really doesn't make sense. It basically means you're more concerned with the setting than you are with the story and the themes. 


 


As for this statement: "If Enterprise taught us anything, it's that going backwards in Star Trek doesn't work so well."


well...I'd say the fact that the last movie made more money than the previous two combined, rejuvinated a dead franchise, and got 95% of the critics on board means that you can indeed "go backward." (and oh by the way, the new movie which takes place in the 23rd century is on the exact same tragectory thus far)


Just throwing that one out there...


 


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 10 2013, 7:59 pm

Alright, I will deal with this line by line, as I think it is worth devling in depth with.


 If Enterprise taught us anything, it's that going backwards in Star Trek doesn't work so well. The show barely survived four seasons and it botched canon so much that the only retcon they could come up with was "alternate timeline" and was subsequently given the most shitastic finale in Star Trek history. 


I think that was more due to Berman and Braga and the ultimate direction they choose for the franchise, namely-none. That's why we got the Temporal Cold War , which went no where.


So we really don't have proof, one way or the other, that a prequel wouldn't work because Enterprise ended up being mired down in its own douldrum.


I think the only reason it survived as long as it did was that the characters were new, the actors were doing the best they could and fans desperately WANTED it to be good or get better. Personally I kept waiting for it to improve, but it never really did.


So Paramount says, "Hey let's go backwards again, retcon the ORIGIN of the whole franchise and some of the most beloved characters of all time. What could go wrong?"


But it's not the origin of the Prime Timeline-its an origin, yes, but of the crew coming together in a whole new way, with different and new challenges. I would submit that even the attitude of Starfleet is different than in the Prime Timeline.


While Spock I could see as being close to Prime Spock (save for Uhura-fans will forever disagree on that) the rest of the crew is influenced by their environment, an environment radically changed by Nero's incursion.


If they had presented us with a 25th century/post TNG crew, then all the elements they added would have been fine with me. JJ Abrams could have added as much lensflare, exlposions and pew pew space battles as he wanted. He could have blown up Vulcan,  Trill  or Bajor.  It was all fair game.


Why? They present it as an alternate timeline (really the same timeline as Enterprise) so anything its fair game in the new line.


I mean look at Deep Space 9. It really took a detour from Roddenberry's utopian vision and contained a lot of elements that were forbidden when he was alive, but it was accepted because it was new. It may not be the favorite of some fans, but it didn't attack our canon. It didn't UNDO anything we loved. It said, "Here's some new characters, maybe you'll like them." And it lasted seven years, so it was different, but successful.


I think this is were you and I will part ways. Abrams isn't "attacking" canon. He is changing it. An alternate timeline gives them more flexibility and a chance to do some crazy things.


But, I get that some don't like it and don't buy it. That's ok too. I'm just fine with an alternate timeline.


If they had taken the entire 2009 script, changed the names, placed it in the 25th century, aside from some minor changes, the concept could have worked as is and I would have probably enjoyed it.


 


Curiosity strikes me with this-would red matter bother you? Would the look and feel of the ship bother you? What about the destruction of Vulcan? Is that "fair game" now that we are in the future and not an alternate past?


 


 

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this May. 11 2013, 2:12 am

So these guys are not targeting these movies at an audience?


Or not targeting them at a particular section of the audience?


Oh I guess that must be the section that doesn't like them.   

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 11 2013, 5:17 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 10 2013, 10:27 am

> And we're supposed to remain silent lest we be labeled zealot or obsessed?  


No, please speak out about what you feel about the film.


But at the same time, dont point to things in the films and call them "canon breaks", "continuity destroying", "out of character" ect....ect...when the issues you point to are based on your preconceived notions of what should be .


If Enterprise taught us anything, it's that going backwards in Star Trek doesn't work so well. The show barely survived four seasons and it botched canon so much that the only retcon they could come up with was "alternate timeline" and was subsequently given the most shitastic finale in Star Trek history. 


I dont feel Enterprise's problems stem from "going backwards".And no offical source ever claimed that the series takes place in an alternate timeline.Enterprise is officaly part of the prime timeline.


As for "so much botched canon", please provide examples, so far the only canon slip that cant be easily explained is the Romulkan ships having cloaking devises.


Photobucket

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4028

Report this May. 11 2013, 7:55 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 10 2013, 10:27 am

>

>I don't consider all negative reactions arrogance or obsessive.  If that is the case then should all positive reactions be categorized as followers and sheep who will consume anything labeled Star Trek without thinking?  

>I don't like the new series.  The 2009 movie irked me but I was willing to live and let live because of the promise that it would be a new story, with new directions and original writing. 

>Now we're presented with a movie made from cannibalized part of classic Trek and recycled stories, along with questionable casting that has genuinely hurt and disappointed some fans. And we're supposed to remain silent lest we be labeled zealot or obsessed?   

>


If we were all sheep then we would be sheep about every incarnation of trek.  That is not the case.  There is lots of trek I don't like.  You seem to think that this is the first time trek has disapointed a fan. 


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 11 2013, 10:06 am

Let me be clear, I am not opposed to all reboots, nor have I been right about them all the time.  


When the Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles TV show was announced. I bitched and moaned all over the place about everything, including Lena Heady being brunette. I'm a huge Terminator fan and I huffed and puffed.  But I watched the show and fell in love with it, actively campaigned to save it and was very disappointed when it was cancelled.  I own the series on DVD and it stands side by side with my other Terminator DVDs.


Likewise, I am a huge BSG 2004 fan.  I love the show but was never a fan of the original. I still find it kind of "eh".  That being said, I know that there are original BSG fans that refuse to accept the 2004 show because it went darker, changed characters and were pretty much juggling a lot of character races and genders, although they did it for plot reasons, combining Athena/Boomer into one female Asian character so she could have romantic interests that became plot points and Starbuck being a woman. They also made Tigh white and Adama Latino. But there was a give and take on that, although I do fault them for not adding a major black character to the mix after taking one away. The only major one was the Black Cylon That Was Only Around Sometimes and when he showed up you were like, "oh yeah, he's on this show too". That was something I noticed right away on the show.  I understand if it angers original fans or they dislike the show. I respect their right to actively complain about it until they die.  I don't think they're narrow minded. I don't fault them for actively disliking the series.  I don't want to shut them up.  I don't try to convince them that BSG 2004 is awesome.  I see their points and a lot of them I acknowledge as actually not wrong. 


And as far as race bending, one of my most all time beloved fictional characters, Vasquez from Aliens, was a white person made up to look Latina.  I didn't know it until months after the movie came out and had already been hooked and at 13, I probably wouldn't have been socially aware enough to care even if I did.  The action was questionable in hindsight? Damn right it was questionable.  It was 1986, so the year was not an excuse. James Cameron should have cast a Latina as Vasquez. Jenette Goldstein did an amazing job but I would bet money that they could have found a Latina to do an equally good job. Can I do anything about it? No. Does it bother me now that I'm older on a certain level when I watch the movie? Yes. Absolutely.  But, if they were to follow up with a spin off about the Dark Horse comic and her sister, Carmen, you better believe it should be a Latina. What happened in 1986 would not excuse the same mistake.



 



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

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 11 2013, 2:37 pm

A magazine, I cannot remember which one it was, interviewed Ron Moore and asked him what he thought of Abrams Trek. His honest answer was that he liked it but didn't go far enough and should have been a clear reboot, like BSG 2004.


I understand the idea, and maybe it would have worked, but honestly, I think Trek fans, myself included, have a hard time thinking outside of the box. There are definitely different avenues to take but it isn't easy to branch away from so much lore.


So, I can understand the BSG comparison, but I think Star Trek had too much history behind it that sometimes limits what can be done with it.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 11 2013, 5:03 pm

I think the thing that some people somehow haven't gotten their heads wrapped around is that there was really no other way to do this. The fact of the matter is that the franchise was all but dead. Voyager had trailed off into non-relevance by the time it was cancelled. Star trek was bleeding ratings ever since TNG went off the air. Fresh audiences were not engaging, mainly because the format became stale and the perception of a vast and complicated continuity was off-putting. 


Enterprise tried the prequel thing, with an edgier approach, with the thinking that you could draw more fresh blood and lose the intimidation factor. That didn't work either, and not only failed to attract new audiences but also splintered the weakening existing fanbase. 


When you look at the movies, the same thing was happening. Insurrection was a tepid, uninspired cornfest for most people,and by the time Nemesis was released (which was arguably, on it's own, a higher quality film than Generations or Insurrection) critics, audiences, and fans alike were just done with Star Trek. Nobody went to see it. I mean nobody. 


Then Enterprise went off the air a year and a half later. It eas the only modern version of Trek to get cancelled and not last 7 seasons. 


So, as far as a new motion picture goes..three were only 4 options:


1. Another TNG movie


As much as some fans long for this it was never going to happen. INS and NEM were embarrassments and financial failures. The cast was aging and getting more expensive. No way was a studio going to risk this. 


2. A DS9 / VOY / Crossover movie


If nobody gives a crap about the TNG movies, based on a series with a very well known cast and a great main stream success as a tv series wasn't going to achieve box office success the other series wouldn't stand a chance, and certainly no studio would put money into such a project. 


3. A Star Trek The NEXT Next Generation 25th Century Movie


So, if a new TNG movie was out, and a fanwanky crossover or DS9/VOY movie was most certainly out...this would never happen. If fans and the general public aren't going to turn out for the TNG cast, they're sure as hell not turning out for THIS. Additionally, this scenario just adds to the bloated and unwelcoming canon that was keeping general audiences away. 


4. Do the Re-cast/ Re-boot of TOS


This was the only option that might work. You can market it with iconic proven characters while at the same time ditching a lot of the nerdoriffic canon that was keeping general audiences away. You can also finally move away from the slow, preachy, stale format that had been maintained since the late 80s TNG runs. You can update it to reflect needs of modern audiences. 


 


My point is that, as Picard once pointed out "wishing for something does not make it so." despite what some may wish had happened...you just have to realize that none of that would have worked for audiences. 


This was the only way to go folks. And you've got a developing pattern of tremendous success to justify everything that's been done. So theEdie us cast. No amount of agony, dispair or pleading is going to change it now. "Wish for failure" with all your might...but it doesn't change reality. 

Fleet Admiral Braxton

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 288

Report this May. 11 2013, 7:14 pm

The Bottom line is That This Is All FICTION; So it Can Be Interpeted In MANY Ways; As long as It's STAR TREK: Created By GENE RODDENBERRY,  Why The Hell Are People Pissing Their Pants At The New Concepts?

Kornula

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1676

Report this May. 12 2013, 2:05 am

Quote: Vger23 @ May. 06 2013, 8:18 pm

>Also it's not exactly fear of change. The change has happened. We're living it and have been since May 2009. It's more like failure to accept change and deep resentment that the narrow vision THEY have of Star Trek is gone and will not return.


What change?   JJ re used the original characters with a not so orginal story for both "Trek" films.


Regarding the lack of character and story... please tell me where there are examples of solid characters and story in any of his films?

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 12 2013, 4:20 am

Quote:

I think the thing that some people somehow haven't gotten their heads wrapped around is that there was really no other way to do this. The fact of the matter is that the franchise was all but dead. Voyager had trailed off into non-relevance by the time it was cancelled. Star trek was bleeding ratings ever since TNG went off the air. Fresh audiences were not engaging, mainly because the format became stale and the perception of a vast and complicated continuity was off-putting.


 


The franchise was not dead, it was not making new product.  Star Trek fandom was not about to fade. The cash cow for Paramount had dried up, but that is not the same things.


 


Where do you get Star Trek was bleeding since 1994? Please back up your opinions about the success of DS9 and VOY with ratings.


 


Honestly, everything you've written about the spin offs sounds like one very skewed opinion. 


As far as an extensive history and continuity being off-putting.  No Star Trek is not simple. Star Trek is complex, layered and has a deep rich history.  Should everything be simplified? Should everything be easy? God fordid monder audiences have to think. *gasp*!  THE HORROR!


 


Quote:

This was the only option that might work. You can market it with iconic proven characters while at the same time ditching a lot of the nerdoriffic canon that was keeping general audiences away. You can also finally move away from the slow, preachy, stale format that had been maintained since the late 80s TNG runs. You can update it to reflect needs of modern audiences.


"Nerdoriffic canon" is what kept Star Trek alive for 10 years between TOS and TMP.  For 19 years between TOS and TNG. It's what earned Star Trek a place in history and why Star Trek is pretty much embedded in our culture.  


I think what you mean is, "make it more action-y to earn Paramount more dollars as a summer blockbuster"


And what you call "stale and preachy" many would call "intelligent, thought provoking, interesting television." Not everything needs explosions to be considered good. 


 


Basically it's whoring out characters for quick profit. How Ferengi of them


 


You make it sound like Star Trek has been in the shitter since 1994 and that is absolutely NOT the case at all.


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

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 12 2013, 7:40 am

bunkey:


I don't see why I have to "back it up." It's well known fact that Star Trek's ratings were in steady decline (bleeding viewership) since TNG went off the air. 


But, since you seem to think I'd be a big enough ass to just make this stuff up, I've pulled the numbers. Anyone who argues they are anything but in steady decline post-1994 (I never said "in the shitter," by the way...don't twist my words...I said they were steadily bleeding) doesn't understand the concept of numbers:


 



Fall 1987 - Spring 1988: 8.55 Million
Fall 1988 - Spring 1989: 9.14 Million
Fall 1989 - Spring 1990: 9.77 Million
Fall 1990 - Spring 1991: 10.58 Million
Fall 1991 - Spring 1992: 11.50 Million
Fall 1992 - Spring 1993: 10.83 Million
Fall 1993 - Spring 1994: 9.78 Million
Fall 1994 - Spring 1995: 7.05 Million
Fall 1995 - Spring 1996: 6.42 Million
Fall 1996 - Spring 1997: 5.03 Million
Fall 1997 - Spring 1998: 4.53 Million
Fall 1998 - Spring 1999: 4.00 Million



SeasonTimeslotSeason PremiereSeason FinaleTV SeasonRankViewers
(in millions)
1stWednesday 8:00PM
September 26, 2001
May 22, 2002
2001–2002
#115[36]5.9[36]
2ndWednesday 8:00PM
September 18, 2002
May 21, 2003
2002–2003
#1323.94
3rdWednesday 8:00PM
September 10, 2003
May 26, 2004
2003–2004
#178[37]3.3[37]
4thFriday 9:00PM
October 8, 2004
May 13, 2005
2004–2005
#146[38]2.81[38]


(this last graph was specific to the 4 seasons of ENT)


As for the films:


Star Trek:Insurrection


Domestic Box Office: $70M


Budget: $58M


1998 Rank: 28th (behind such franchise killers as "Shakespere In Love," "Stepmom," "Dr. Dolittle," and "Six Days Seven Nights"


Rottentomatoes Aggregation: 56% (Rotten) and 51% on the viewer side


Star Trek: Nemesis


Domestic Box Office: $43M


Budget: $60M


2002 Rank: 54th (behind blockbuster tentpoles like "Two Weeks Notice," "Jackass The Movie," "The Tuxedo," "Barbershop," and "Maid In Manhatten" (which topped Nemesis in head-to-head releases opening weekend).


Rottentomatoes Aggregation: 38% (rotten) and 54% on the viewer side


Franchise rank: Dead Last


 


So, as you can see...you can lead with  your heart (and your chin) on this one, or you can accept simple facts. It was as I said. So, if two failed movies and a network series ending it's last two seasons ranked #178 and #146 respectively isn't "in the shitter," I don't know what is. Your opinion is the one that is "skewed." You're thiking about what YOU personally love and want...not about reality. That's fine...but if you ignore reality...that's going to continue to fuel your unrest.


When you compare that to the success of the last film (and the projected success of the film about to be released in the  US this week), yes...I'd say the people have spoken, and the trend isn't going your way.


 


As far as  your argument about continiuty: I agree that Star Trek is complex. That's not the argument. The argument is that vast complexity / background story / canon is a compounding turn-off for any potential new-comers. And if a franchise isn't growing...it's dying. The deeper and deeper into it the franchise got, the less and less likely newcomers would be to try watching the series. And, as the core fan group slowly but surely disappeared because of stale formatting and uninspired writing...the show was DYING. 


The "explosions" argument is more cliche than comparing the new films to Star Wars at this point. Again...YOU may think that listening to Picard or Janeway give someone a speech on superior human morality while Geordi or Torres ramble on for 5 minutes straight about how the phase-inducers need to align with the primary deflector matrix so they can channel a steady streem of tetryon particles through the warp core and open up a spatial anomoly that will fix the flow of space time to be "intelligent and thought provoking television" but most saw it for what it was: forced, pretentious and uninspired tripe. So, based on the numbers, the "many who find" that to be interesting were clearly not "many." It was few. Mainly, it was hardcore fans who dig that style of Trek. 


I applaud and admire your passion for the subject. But that's all it is. It's emotion. It's not reality or anything based in fact. None of this is an argument that can be won by you looking at "facts." If you want to debate why your "opinion" is what it is, that's fine. We're certainly all entitled, and that's what the board is here for. But PLEASE don't try to argue that the state of the franchise was such that it warrented "more of the same" with the new movie franchise. Because it absolutely didn't. Star Trek wasn't reaching audiences using the formula you wish for. So, regardless of the arrogance of saying "god forbid audiences need to think," television and movies are about reaching an audience. Star Trek wasn't making people think. It was telling them HOW to think, and it wasn't doing anything fresh or interesting to bottle that message up. So, by the end...nobody cared. 


 


Now people care. The critics care. The general audiences love it. The fans, with the exception of a small vocal percentage who pine for the TNG-era style of Trek that went on for too long, care. It's relevant again. That's what matters. "The needs of the many..."

dregj

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 551

Report this May. 12 2013, 10:58 am

if it fails theyll be forced to do something else perhaps re evaulate and make something good, intelligent ,moral and not a 2 hour gaping plot hole with added bad direction

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 12 2013, 11:11 am

Quote: dregj @ May. 12 2013, 10:58 am

>

>if it fails theyll be forced to do something else perhaps re evaulate and make something good, intelligent ,moral and not a 2 hour gaping plot hole with added bad direction

>


 


Brilliant thinking! 



And THIS dear reader...is the answer to AtoZ's original post. 


"Zealous fanboys wish for failure" becuase they are selfish, narrow-minded and entitled and could care less if millions and millions of people enjoy Star Trek. All they care about is themselves and what they want. And they want it badly enough that it doesn't matter to them if it dies or not. They just want it their way...


This one post by dregj perfectly sums up everything that group believes in one somewhat horribly written sentence. It sums up why they'll do everything in their power to bad-mouth it and try to get others to follow them.


It also illustrates why Paramount and the creators of the new films didn't care whether or not they alienated a certain minor percentage of the fanbase. You can live without these people and not miss a beat. In fact, the changes that cause their alienation will bring in fresh audiences three-fold. 


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 12 2013, 11:15 am

Quote: dregj @ May. 12 2013, 10:58 am

>

>if it fails theyll be forced to do something else perhaps re evaulate and make something good, intelligent ,moral and not a 2 hour gaping plot hole with added bad direction

>


"a 2 hour gaping plot hol"???


are you swure yoy payed attention to the film?


 


Photobucket

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: DS9_FOREVER!

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