Right, this is also known as “hedging,” as in stock-trading, for example.

If you go into the film expecting to be disappointed and the movie turns out more or less as you had expected, then you walk out not too let down, but with the pride of having accurately judged the film in advance of seeing it and the right of I-told-you-so.

If you go into the film expecting to be disappointed and the movie turns out to be better than you had predicted, then you may have lost the right of I-told-you-so, but you’ve gained something much more valuable — a good and possibly enriching experience.

If you go into the film with Pollyanna expectations and the film delivers, then it’s your birthday and you’ve won all around.

However, if you go into the film with Pollyanna expectations, and the film doesn’t live up to them, then not only have you lost the right of I-told-you-so, but you have had a bad experience and walk away from the film disappointed and disillusioned.

So, economically speaking, it really pays to have low expectations and be somewhat of a curmudgeon. Though, if you become so married to your curmudgeonly expectations that you invest your pride in those expectations and in your arguments here in support of them, then you may refuse to enjoy the film even if it turns out to be good, in order to save face. And, then you will find yourself to have lost in both respects.

Therefore, the safest position seems to be one of relatively low expectations modestly held. The pragmatist in me holds this position, but the pie-eyed optimist in me fights to raise my expectations a bit higher, especially when exposed to the marketing campaign of the film, which includes a stamp of approval of the sagacious Leonard Nimoy and the Bob Orci PR charm offensive.

“Your extrapolation of my logic is incorrect. Having a low expectation rather than no expectation at all borders on self delusion and I can not advocate that sort thinking. It can adversely affect one’s ability to make rational decisions and maintain a positive outlook.”

Please note the emoticon in that part of the post – I was kidding you.

But, if you want to get real about it, there is some research that does show there are some benefits to negative thinking. It helps people prepare for worst case scenarios and allows for people to be pleasantly surprised when things turn out well.

Besides this, if one’s expectation is evidence-based, then it is not irrational to form an expectation based on this evidence. I, for example, expect that the milk will still be in the fridge when I go to the kitchen.

Such expectations can be defeated, but we cannot navigate the world without these sorts of assumptions. Since we cannot be “blank slates”, it also follows, that we cannot be entirely free of evaluative predictions either (e.g., I expect that I will hate the taste sweet potatoes the next time I taste them as much as I have in the past). And this undermines your goal of objective disinterest. You will never be tabula rasa – a Star Trek fan cannot buy a ticket for a Star Trek movie and not have a buzz of anticipation (be it excited glee or dread or both).

In terms of personal experience, I have only been really soured on a film (in terms of preexisting bias) when I went to the film with expectations that it would be fantabulous based on critical buzz and word-of-mouth. I cannot recall an occasion when I expected that a film might not be so good, found it was better, and was not pleasantly surprised.

the bickering is a bit much though.
sorry”

Please don’t apologize – I’ll start feeling bad and have to apologize for my own excesses, and this could, in turn, influence other posters and we would no longer be able to enjoy uncivil discourse on this site.

Seriously, don’t feel bad, this is merely “Theatre of the Nerd.”

If the above is your intended meaning, fair enough. Your original statement (especially when read in its entirety) gave me a much different impression.

At any rate, I can see what you mean, but the whole point of this site is to get pumped up and to share speculations, news, hopes, fears, etc. This website is intrinsically erosive to your stated goal of neutrality/disinterest.

I agree that we should not make proclamations about the goodness or badness of the thing before anyone has seen it, but I am all for discussing scenarios, possibilties, new facts, and so on.

We can’t control what is going to happen but it is cathartic, to kibbitz, and gripe, and guess.

Spielberg is a tremendous director, and a hell of a visionary. His films led a transformation of Hollywood from the mid 1970s forward.

Anyone who says that there are no interesting characters in Spielberg’s WoTW obviously forgot Harlan Ogilvy, played to perfection by Tim Robbins. Yes, yes, Tom Cruise was in it. We have to look past that.

JJ Abrams, like him or hate him, is the golden boy in Hollywood right now. MI-III did very well, and Lost has been a runaway success. I don’ think that either reflects his true abilities, just as 1941, * Batteries Not Included, and “Pinky and the Brain” did not reflect Spielberg’s potential as a producer or director. Given time, JJ just might be able to move away from pop-oriented material, to films with more specificity, more depth.

Spielberg himself said that he would not have written “Close Encounters” the way he did in the 1970s, that in retrospect, it did not reflect his views on family, fatherhood, and his own priorities or values as a father.

Give JJ some time, and some living. We’ll see some gold from him yet. Hopefully, starting right around May 9 of THIS YEAR.

The fact that the movie was pushed back to May, while disapointing at the time, showed the confididence Paramount has in the movie and now that Brad Grey has had his contract extended partially due to Star Trek! Leads to a very bright future for Star Trek!!

I predict an announcement of the next movie to coincide with the DVD release of Star Trek later in the year!

‘10 years’ is a confusing number, to me. He’s only directed one film, and that was in 2006. I’d agree he hasn’t done anything so far that matches Empire of the Sun or The Color Purple. Still, Color Purple was over 25 years into Spielberg’s career. So I think JJ has some time left.

That pretty much sums it up. however, it was never my intention to throw a cold glass of water in anyones face. My appologies to you if I came across that way.

the bickering is a bit much though.
sorry

“So, seeing LOTR without any expectations that this movie would be an experience as close to nirvana as I was going to get allowed me the freedom to simply enjoy it for what it was: A FRICKIN’ MOVIE! Get it?”

By that logic, if you went into the film with low expectations (rather than none), you might have an even more pleasant experience (by being that much more surprised/impressed. : )

“So JJ and Paramount can make what ever kind of movie they feel like. It’s theirs to make. If its a good movie, great. I’m sure I’ll enjoy it. If it sucks, which I doubt, I wont waste my time crying about it.”

This is less contentious than your original statement:

“Bottom line. We fans don’t own Star Trek! Paramount does and they are entitled to do whatever the hell they want to with it.”

Beyond the obvious statement of fact, however, I am still unsure of what to make of this…

So, because you can’t have the film “built to your specifications” and because you’ve been burned by other franchises, you say “Hey, it’s yours, I don’t care either way”?

Are you telling us, we should do the same thing? We should protect ourselves against disappointment by becoming disintrested? We should accept the fact that we don’t have control, that it is not ours, and make our peace with what comes? Was the first post an attempt to throw a cold glass of water in the face of bickering over things we have no control over?