Abrams Pitches ‘Star Trek: The Beginning’ In Korea | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Abrams Pitches ‘Star Trek: The Beginning’ In Korea February 25, 2009

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Marketing/Promotion,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Yesterday JJ Abrams was in Seoul, South Korea kicking off a brief tour in Asia to promote the new Star Trek movie, like he did in the Fall in Europe. This time he brought Chris Pine (Kirk) and Zoe Saldana (Uhura) with him. See below for excerpts and quotes from a report of his visit, plus a little context on the state of Trek in Asia.

 

Star Trek Begins in Korea
Although Asia has grown to become one of the more important markets for films, Star Trek has not performed well there in the past, so Abrams had his work cut out for him. He and his cast were there to preview 20 minutes of the film to journalists and distributors, like he did in Europe last Fall. According to a report from the Korea Herald the film will be called ‘Star Trek: The Beginning’ in Korea, and Abrams went out of his way to emphasize to the crowd his Star Trek his for a general audience, telling the crowd:

We made this film not for Trekkies but for future fans of Star Trek. The studio wanted to give the film a fresh start and I was originally brought in as a producer, but upon reading the script, I saw so much potential and possibility that the original had failed to realize due to technological constraints so I got very greedy and I decided to direct it myself.

Chris Pine also talked about making this new Star Trek noting how he was not doing an impersonation:

I began watching the original series pretty feverishly cause I knew I only had a limited amount of time to prepare for the role and after getting half way through the first and second season I wasn’t doing myself any favors by trying to pick up on the mannerisms of William Shatner and the minutiae of the Star Trek world. I would have created a character that was more impersonation than an original incarnation. JJ’s prescription for realizing the role and this goes for all of us- was to create our own and not worry too much about obeying the laws of the original Star Trek world.

For her part, Saldana talked about how she relates to the character of Uhura

I do have a gravitational pull towards characters that are strong. I think there are similarities between Uhura and myself. It is conceivable to believe that some of you leaks into the roles actors play and I certainly hope that the things that did manage to leak in … complimented my interpretation of my character in the film – the way she’s able to command herself with so much discipline and strength in a setting that’s mainly masculine and still hold court and fulfill her job in an androgynous manner – I love women that are like that.

Star Trek opens in Korea on May 7th.


Abrams with Saldana and Pine talk to the press in Seoul, S. Korea (Wire Image)

Trek’s challenge in Asia
JJ Abrams tour of Asia will be taking him to Japan later in the week. It is interesting to see how Paramount is working hard to make this new Trek film into a global event, something unprecedented in Trek’s history. The last Star Trek movie (Nemesis) only made $564,650 in Japan and opened on only 26 screens. Nemesis opened in Korea nine months after the US premiere, but there is no box office data available (it is likely less than Japan). In comparison, Abrams first feature film, Mission: Impossible: III, made over $44 million in Japan alone, and almost $38 Million in Korea, but that film did have the advantage of Tom Cruise, who is a big star overseas. The film that is often held up as a model for the new Trek is Batman Begins. That ‘reboot’ of the Batman franchise brought in $6.5 million in S. Korea and $12.4 million in Japan.

For the return of Trek to work as well as the return of Batman, it is going to need a lot of ‘new’ fans. So before Trek fans get too worked up over Abrams comments about the new Trek film being for new fans, bear in mind that Star Trek has not performed well in non-English speaking markets (with the exception of Germany). For the film to succeed in Asia, it needs an audience comprised almost entirely of ‘new fans’ so it makes sense for Abrams and Paramount to market the film as being for that audience.

Abrams comments about fans are not new and something he has said before, particularly in his Trip to Europe. In a recent interview with TrekMovie, Star Trek co-writer Bob Orci talked about Abrams overseas comments and offered this advice to his fellow Trekkies:

We can liken almost anything to something that happened on The Next Generation, because The Next Generation covered almost every story that there is. As fans – when JJ is out there saying things that prickled our pointy ears, we just think of him like Riker in the episode ["A Matter of Honor"] which he had to go be the first officer on board a Klingon ship in an exchange program. On that ship when someone talks back to you, you would have to beat them down or you lose the respect of your crew, which is protocol, whereas on a Federation ship that would be a crime. So we have to give JJ a little bit of leeway, when he is traveling the galaxy over there where they don’t know Trek, to say the things that need to be said in order to get people onto our side.     

Hey if it works, then all the better for Star Trek going forward.


Abrams with Saldana and Pine in Seoul, S. Korea (Wire Image)

[Source: Korea Herald - note site may contain viruses, not recommended to visit]

Comments

1. LordCheeseCakeBreath - February 25, 2009

Sounds cool!

2. AR - February 25, 2009

Somebody get Porthos out of there…

3. Commodore Z - February 25, 2009

I really want to like this film, but every time I read something like “not for Trekkies, but for future fans of Star Trek,” I feel like they’re telling me not to bother.

4. Spockalicious - February 25, 2009

somehow Pine looks a little more ‘Kirky’ each time i see him…

5. Montreal Paul - February 25, 2009

#3 Commodore

I guess you didn’t read this part too well.

“So before Trek fans get too worked up over Abrams comments about the new Trek film being for new fans, bear in mind that Star Trek has not performed well in non-English speaking markets (with the exception of Germany). For the film to succeed in Asia, it needs an audience comprised almost entirely of ‘new fans’ so it makes sense for Abrams and Paramount to market the film being for that audience.”

6. Art•Rob - February 25, 2009

What’s with Pine’s krytonite sneakers?

7. Lynies Esprit - February 25, 2009

well dont!! I’m sure like all the other trekies out there come May 8th you will still be in line waiting to see this movie because of your curiosity! This is for all you hate mongers out there either put up, or shut up!!

8. Alex - February 25, 2009

“…did have the advantage of Tom Cruise, who is a big star overseas”. Now that’s cruel. :-)

9. jesustrek - February 25, 2009

Pine have a Orion-shoes? heheheee

10. Capt. of the USS Anduril - February 25, 2009

Wait a second, Korea gets this movie BEFORE US?! Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!!

11. Denise de Arman - February 25, 2009

Here is hoping the film breaks records in Asia!

12. Spockalicious - February 25, 2009

in this pic Pinekirk has a similar smile to Kirk here:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1132/1199659277_d767ffa987.jpg

..and i still think JJ is Rick Moranis’s long lost little brother…

13. TonyD - February 25, 2009

#3 – I don’t think you should read too much into those kinds of statements as they’re obviously tailored for the audience they’re being delivered to. Trek isn’t popular in Korea, ergo it makes sense to word your sales rhetoric in such a way as to differentiate this new version from prior incarnations and ease peoples doubts. I have no trouble with that kind of stuff. Ultimately, I just want a good movie and the only way to tell if they accomplished that or not is to go see it for myself.

14. Mage Warfare - February 25, 2009

Comments from Orci and Kurtzmann should lay to rest most concerns for Trekkers (“Trekkies” sounds diminutive to me…). Now that this film is being pushed as a summer blockbuster, it HAS to appeal to non-Trekkers to succeed in that arena and Abrams HAS to say such things to bring in a wider audience. Like it or not, Trek fans are considered uber-nerds to the general populace and if this movie is percieved to be for them (or rather, US) most people will scoff at it and not go.

We WANT Star Trek to do huge box office and make tons of money. That would be a GOOD thing. Based on what I’ve seen and read so far, this looks like a really good movie. If it has to shed some canon to succeed, I’m all for it. It can still be Trek even if it doesn’t adhere to every bit of canon (a term I use VERY reluctantly in regards to a fictional work).

Just remember those famous words: “It’s only a movie”.

15. Anthony Pascale - February 25, 2009

Capt. of Andruril
actually the film opens first in Belgium, France and parts of Switzerland on Wed. the 6th!

16. Closettrekker - February 25, 2009

#3—”I really want to like this film, but every time I read something like “not for Trekkies, but for future fans of Star Trek,” I feel like they’re telling me not to bother.”

Try looking at it from a practical marketing perspective. This is a film with a budget of over $150 million. Obviously, the movie’s financial success is dependant upon recruiting moviegoers who otherwise wouldn’t bother with a Star Trek film.

It isn’t about turning you and I away. It is about bringing in people from among the mainstream—where there is an abundance of preconceived notions about Star Trek to overcome. Equally obvious is the need to convince those potential ticketbuyers that this is something different from what they have apparently dismissed in the past.

A movie “for Trekkies” is inherently exclusionary. The budget will not be justified by that “exclusive” group alone. It just isn’t possible.

If you honestly want to like this movie, and that type of marketing strategy honestly makes you feel unwelcome, then I suggest (quite sincerely and without sarcasm) that you alter your perspective or avoid the promotion. The strategy is not likely to change. In fact, if it did, I would question their judgement.

17. Dr. Image - February 25, 2009

Korean has the coolest looking alphabet.
I want a Korean poster- hey I’m into kimchee & TKD!

18. Capt Mike Of The Terran Empire - February 25, 2009

Well. heres hoping that the fillm does well. I was in the Navy back when Star Trek 6 came out and I do remember that the theater was sold out for the first week for Trek 6 in Singapore. I think it did well there. i hope that Trek will do great in all the Markets so we can have more Trek Movies and hopefully a new series one day.

19. Star Trackie - February 25, 2009

I’m somewhat comforted by the thought that PIne has watched the first season of Star Trek. That season is the benchmark. ANY cues he decided to ultimately take from that season will serve him well.

And yes, Trek, for the most part, on a worldwide basis, has performed dismally in recent years. I think the return to the pop icons of Kirk and Spock will bring a welcome familiarity back to those countries where Trek has stagnated in recent years.

20. Schultz - February 25, 2009

Chris Pine wears Orion memorial sneakers. ;)

21. ChristopherPike - February 25, 2009

Wait… Hold on. I have to go all the way to Korea to see how Erik Jendresen’s script worked out?

:p

22. tman - February 25, 2009

I’m very surprised he mentioned Trekkers in Korea. I have a hard time imagining they know what Trekkers are. I am also surprised he even mentioned the old series. Probably better to just act like this is a new original story with the themes of interest to those markets and act surprised to hear there was once a TV show with that name if anyone asks.

23. Devon Richards - February 25, 2009

Hopefully Star Trek will do well in South Korea. One thing s.Korea has done in the last ten years, its proven they can make damned good movies. Anyone who has seen..
Old Boy
Nowhere to Hide
GP 506
Shiri
Tube

..knows exactly what I mean.

24. Keith - February 25, 2009

Worldwide domination!!!

25. SerenityActual - February 25, 2009

Man I want a pair of those shoes…lol

26. TrekTwenty - February 25, 2009

I can’t say I give Pine the stamp of approval on those sneakers…

27. Aaron R. - February 25, 2009

Giant posters in S. Korean langauge – 300$
Plane tickets to another country 1500$
Star Trek movie to promote – 150 Million Dollars….

Chris Pine creating new fashion trends around the world – Priceless!

28. Sylvain - February 25, 2009

In all honesty and from what I have seen so far… all this sounds more like “Star Trek: the End” to me…

29. Closettrekker - February 25, 2009

#28—Oh, Sylvain….Haven’t you heard? The human adventure is just beginning.

30. McCoy - February 25, 2009

16.

Closet, it’s obvious that you are on the same page as the creators of the new film, but the one thing your forgot to mention was that they are counting on Trek fans going to the film NO MATTER what they say.

And that’s the wrong way to approach this.

Any new TOS incarnation with better effects and a fresh young crew is bound to get over 200 mil in this market. It doesn’t matter to the newbies what the stuff looks like—and yet that’s why the base is worried about the film.

Where’s the old-school catering? That’s the biggest chunk of the tickets for this film. Unless by bringing in new people they mean the Asian markets. LOL. Have you seen all the new movies coming out with stories that take place in asia? That Chinese market is looking pretty sweet to Hollywood.

31. charliebob - February 25, 2009

This is kinda funny because I’ve been watching M*A*S*H all week!
Hmm Star Trek meets M*A*S*H. Well Hawkeye *was* a captain! :P

32. SChaos1701 - February 25, 2009

28

Ha ha…your too funny….sadness…..

33. Bill Peters - February 25, 2009

actually I think this is the Begining of something that will keep new trek comming to us for a while!

34. McCoy - February 25, 2009

If they have a classic Enterprise reveal at the beginning or end of this film…they better fess up and stop with all the Cloverfield “surprises”.

35. Capt Mike Of The Terran Empire - February 25, 2009

#27 Funny! Ok. I think pine will do a great job along with the others in promoting. I can’t wait to see the cast on leno and or Letterman and Hey I hope they get promoted on the Oprah Winfrey Show. This should be good and if they promote hard then everyone will know about the new Trek movie and it should be great. Which also means that you havt to get to the theater early to get a seat.

36. SChaos1701 - February 25, 2009

31

Funny you mention M*A*S*H. I love that show. I’m actually watching AfterMASH right now and am about to watch the pilot for W*A*L*T*E*R.

37. The Geek Who Gets Laid Often - February 25, 2009

Let him market his film the way he sees fit. The fact that they even bothered to make a new Star Trek movie and take the time to reassure the readers of Nacelles Weekly on an almost daily basis is more than double the acknowledgment such a cry-baby audience deserves.

38. SChaos1701 - February 25, 2009

37

I can’t stand the crybaby audience. They’re the ones that make us TRUE fans look bad.

39. charliebob - February 25, 2009

@36 where did you get them? I can’t find them anywhere?! I’d love to see them!

40. Selor - February 25, 2009

Does JJ always looks like an Uber Nerd?
And those Slime Green shoes… hell yeah ^^

41. McCoy - February 25, 2009

22…LOL

It’s like…Uh…we have a movie called “Star Trek” but it’s not “Star Trek” cuz, it’s NEW “Star Trek”. We had a bigger budget and could do things they couldn’t do in the series, You know, all they could do was things like, uhm, City on the Edge Forever, Balance of Terror, This Side of Paradise, Amok Time, The Doomsday Machine. You know really bad stuff. And all they could do was spawn the largest fan base in the history of TV leading to 4 TV series spinoffs and 10 movies spanning a total of 40 years. That’s all they did.

Yeah, uhm… the one we’re doing is better. LOL

42. I'm dead Jim - February 25, 2009

My wife is Japanese and she LOVES Star Trek, really… at least since she’s been married to me.

43. Ed - February 25, 2009

Is it me or does Zoe have really skinny legs?

44. Capt Mike Of The Terran Empire - February 25, 2009

Hey I love Nacelles Weekly. thats a great magazine. I just wish there was a way for me to subscribe to it. I think that What J.J is dooing is great. he is out promoting the Trek movie like a mad man and I for one am thrilled. He is not only doing his job he is doing it with passion. yeah it’s about money but with out money there can be no Trek. I like the fact that Pine and Saldana are in Korea with J.J it also says they care about the movie and want it to do well in all the markets. Yes it will further there careers but it also shows they care about there work and it shows there passion for the show. So to the Naysayers please remember that with out J.J there would be no more Trek for a very long time and if we as true Hardcore fans do not go out and see the movie at the theater and if this movie flops then we will be partly responsable for the demise of Trek as paramount and others will think long and hard about doing more Trek for many years to come.So I say promote away and get all the mechendise out there and as much as possible and get on all the Talk shows and go all over the World and Promote the Blazes out of this New Movie. I for one will see Trek at least 7 to 10 Times with 2 or 3 at the Imax.

45. Capt Mike Of The Terran Empire - February 25, 2009

Oh by the way. My personell record for seeing a trek film at the theater is a tie between trek 2 and 6. 10 Times.I hope to break that record for the new Trek.

46. Capt Mike Of The Terran Empire - February 25, 2009

I seen Tmp once and Trek 2 10 times and 3 4 times and Trek 4 7 times and Trek 5 1 time.and Trek 6 10 times and Trek 7 3 times and Trek 8 6 times and trek 9 2 times.All at the theater.

47. Spockanella - February 25, 2009

38: Careful with the true fan talk. Your fandom is no “truer” than someone else’s. Those you deem crybabies are here for the same reason you are—love of Trek.

48. Odoakris - February 25, 2009

#15 “actually the film opens first in Belgium, France and parts of Switzerland on Wed. the 6th!”

Cool! I’m from Belgium…

49. SChaos1701 - February 25, 2009

47

They don’t love Trek. They love their own version of Trek to the detriment of the franchise as a whole. If they had their way, the new movie would look just like the old series complete with plywood sets and blinking lights. You know as well as I do that any movie that looked like that would completely fail and kill the franchise. So, in essence, they want the franchise to fail so they can selfishly watch their DVD’s in their Capt. Kirk underoos and sleep knowing that their “precious canon” hasn’t been violated by what will be an incredibly great movie.

50. Capt Mike Of The Terran Empire - February 25, 2009

#48. Ill get a Ticket with you and maybe a few others of us hardcore fans can go along and we can see the film 1ST!!! Im there with you.!!!!!

51. AJ - February 25, 2009

30:

McCoy:

“Where’s the old-school catering? That’s the biggest chunk of the tickets for this film.”

Trek fans will not be the majority attending the new film. “Enterprise” had around only 4m viewers in the US when it was canceled. Sure, we’ll all go, but the “new-school” is the key to success, including vast new potential fans in Europe and Asia.

52. AJ - February 25, 2009

49:

Trek currently onlu exists as a collection of 700+ episodes and some books. Your “Trek” ad the “Trek” of everyone else are currently identical.

I think the vasy majority of Trek fans are looking forward to this film, so your rant is geared toward a small amount of naysayers. But their fandom should not be questioned. In fact, most “true fans” are polite and civil on these boards while expressing their opinions.

53. Closettrekker - February 25, 2009

#30—”Closet, it’s obvious that you are on the same page as the creators of the new film…”

There are some creative decisions that raise questions in my mind to this point, but in terms of marketing (something with which I have a great deal of experience in building and furthering my own successful business), there is no question to me that the strategy is correct.

I do not focus my advertising energy (or dollar) in preaching to the already converted. If I were to do so, I would be limiting the ability of my business to expand into other markets. Moreover, if I were to advertise to different demographics, I wouldn’t likely use the same tactics. I would tailor the advertising to suit the audience.

Where most of the marketing is being done are areas in which Trek does not have a history of doing well on a regular basis (if at all). If that target audience has dismissed the previous product (for whatever reason), the obvious strategy becomes to highlight the differences in the new product and convince those potential customers that this is something upon which they should spend their money.

“…they are counting on Trek fans going to the film NO MATTER what they say.”

And for the most part, that’s probably true.

#41—”We had a bigger budget and could do things they couldn’t do in the series, You know, all they could do was things like, uhm, City on the Edge Forever, Balance of Terror, This Side of Paradise, Amok Time, The Doomsday Machine. You know really bad stuff.”

I don’t know how you get that from this: “The studio wanted to give the film a fresh start and I was originally brought in as a producer, but upon reading the script, I saw so much potential and possibility that the original had failed to realize due to technological constraints so I got very greedy and I decided to direct it myself.”

It doesn’t take much imagination to reach the conclusion that television budgets and technological ability which is over 4 decades out of date would be inherently inferior to massive budget filmmaking and cutting edge effects capability.

“And all they could do was spawn the largest fan base in the history of TV leading to 4 TV series spinoffs and 10 movies spanning a total of 40 years. That’s all they did. ”

The “largest fans base in the history of tv”? I don’t know what show you are talking about—but it isn’t Star Trek.

The producers of Trek from 1964-2005 did accomplish alot, but that in no way means that it should forever rest upon those laurels. Are you honestly saying that Star Trek has no room for improvement?

54. THX-1138-The Horn Xpressionist - February 25, 2009

#37

Waaaah!!! (Just to bug you)

#38

Only one making you look bad is you. Cut out the TRUE fan crap. Bjo Trimble is the true fan. When you can stage the saving of a TV series out of nothing but love for it, you get to be the TRUE fan.

55. mateo - February 25, 2009

i want chris’ shoes

56. Rastaman - February 25, 2009

“So we have to give JJ a little bit of leeway, when he is traveling the galaxy over there where they don’t know Trek, to say the things that need to be said in order to get people onto our side…”

Okay, that kind of disturbs me a little. So basically, they’ll say whatever it takes to get asses in seats? So much for artistic integrity. Not that I’d expect anything more from a big studio. I recall being spoon fed nonsense from “the powers that be” who were involved with Nemesis claiming Shinzon to be the “best Trek villain since Wrath of Khan” a few years back. Yeah right.

Also, I think JJ’s not the only one doing the spoon-feeding. Orci will say anything to please the fans as well. Kind of like his comments about Trek 2009 taking place in a Quantum universe (a la “Parallels”), therefore, maintaining canon. (Although, according to his follow-up comments, this is mentioned no where in the film itself).

All I’m saying is that fans should maintain a healthy dose of skepticism concerning everything that comes out of these men’s mouths. They are, after all, little more than corporate tools.

57. Will_H - February 25, 2009

#2…nice. At least Kirk didnt have a dog till later, but still, I hope they dont find a way to put Butler in the movie :(

58. McCoy - February 25, 2009

‘Enterprise’, which was based on an overused premise, is not a fair measure of Trek fans. The series lost me as soon as it created the NX-01 and then jumped into it for yet another romp in a starship (we’ve done that so many times). I was hoping for an Earth-based Starfleet Academy locale with a series finale

In many ways, this new film is really the second attempt to re-boot the series. Get young actors, get a different ship called the Enterprise and go some places. The problem is (IMO), you shouldn’t re-imagine TOS. The best episodes of ‘Enterprise’ were the Mirror Darkly episodes. It was fun…

If you invoke TOS era, have fun with it as escape. The art direction should be an EXPENSIVE version of how the future looked in ’66. No one is going to be able to design the real 23rd century anyway. But if you want TOS, well, we know what that looks like. And for goodness sake, I’m not talking about cardboard or plywood. We’re talking style and continuity. Change the buttons and textures…change a few colors.

59. SChaos1701 - February 25, 2009

54

I can attest for my true fanhood. I flew to Hollywood on my own money (I’m a poor grad student) to picket Paramount to save Enterprise and thus still have Star Trek on TV.

I’m not going to sit her and constantly naysay, nitpick, and insult every breath that JJ takes like some people here because he’s the one that can give a chance for the franchise to live again. Right now, Star Trek is dead and as it stands, the only chance for it to come back right now is JJ and Co and, unlike some people, I want to see him succeed and, thus, our beloved franchise succeed.

60. Dennis Bailey - February 25, 2009

#3: “I really want to like this film, but every time I read something like “not for Trekkies, but for future fans of Star Trek,” I feel like they’re telling me not to bother.”

Ah, I don’t mind being a “future fan of ‘Star Trek’” myself…and I’ve been into this since 1966. LOL

61. SChaos1701 - February 25, 2009

39

Go to http://www.thepiratebay.com

62. THX-1138-The Horn Xpressionist - February 25, 2009

#59

Good on you. You are still not Bjo Trimble and thusly do not hold the mantle of true fan. You are a fan just like us all. I hear where you are coming from but the true fan comments and general air of being somehow more enlightened and superior to the rest of us just doesn’t seem to sit well.

A request to tone down that aspect of your view is put forth.

63. Closettrekker - February 25, 2009

#60—”Ah, I don’t mind being a “future fan of ‘Star Trek’” myself…and I’ve been into this since 1966.”

Good point. Excellent perspective!

64. Closettrekker - February 25, 2009

#58—”The art direction should be an EXPENSIVE version of how the future looked in ‘66.”

Why?

Why not a picture of what the artists envision the mid 23rd Century to look like from the modern perspective? Why throw out the knowledge accumulated over the last 40 years? That seems like ignoring (and therefore wasting) the resources available to them.

“…you shouldn’t re-imagine TOS.”

I don’t think that TOS is being reimagined. I think that the 23rd Century is being reimagined.

TOS is a vision of that future from the perspective of the 1960′s. This is a vision of that future from the perpective of the 21st Century.

I enjoyed the vision from the 1960′s perspective as a child (even if it was in 1970′s syndication). Now, I would like my kids to enjoy that vision with me, and without the necessity of qualifying it with something like:

“Now remember, the only reason it looks like that is they have decided to use more than 40 year-old designs, just so that the future looks just like someone else thought it would back in 1966.”

I would rather my kids look at it and say to themselves, “Wow, I can see this being the 23rd Century, and Dad was right—this is better than Star Wars!”

65. SChaos1701 - February 25, 2009

62

I’m not saying that I’m above everyone else here. I’m saying that I, and many many here, are true fans as compared to the naysayers who want this film to fail because it doesn’t fit their neurotic vision of “canon.”

66. Hat Rick - February 25, 2009

More power to JJ, I say.

I like that reference to “A Matter of Honor.”

67. weerd1 - February 25, 2009

Man. I’m not sure what to think. There’s so much I could say, so many nuances I could argue for or against. I suppose there’s really only one conclusion though, one thing to really take away:

Yep- those are green.

68. AJ - February 25, 2009

59:

SChaos1701:

You agree with alot of us here. Just drop the “Only True Fan” thing.

I have been a real Trek fan since 1972. I love TOS and most TNG, but Trek lost its way with most of what came after. Trek is not about CGI Dominion wars, endless Borg cubes, or snarky Vulcans. By the time Manny Coto showed up, it was too late.

Many real fans share my beliefs, or variations thereof. Their fandom is not diminished by it.

69. Unbel1ever - February 25, 2009

Abrams still needs us “old” fans to go watch to movie. It’s clear what he means to say, but he could have said the same thing, without constantly sounding like he’s bashing the old fans. Otherwise he comes off like Donald Rumsfeld and his “Old Europe” speech.

70. Anthony Pascale - February 25, 2009

Anyone and everyone here is a true fan. You don’t have to agree with eachother, but please respect eachother

71. Max Choi - February 25, 2009

According to Internet Movie Database, Nemesis opened in South Korea on September 19, 2003 (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0253754/releaseinfo). That doesn’t say anything about how much–how little–business it did in the country.

Star Trek’s lack of success in Korea (all the movies, not just Nemesis) is part of a bigger trend in the country: space-based science fiction movies just aren’t all that popular. From what I’ve seen, Korean audiences seem to prefer fantasy over SF, and science fiction tastes tend to run toward more Earth-based stories (e.g., The X-Files).

72. I am Kurok! - February 25, 2009

I look forward to seeing the movie with a non-trekkie: it would be nice to see someone catch the ‘trek-bug’ live vicariously through them for a while, and reminisce about our own sense of wide-eyed wonder when we saw the show for the first time.

BSG was different: it was a kid’s show when I was a kid, and definitely an adult show when I was an adult, and I enjoyed them both in their time-it was more about theme and story lines, which went in a different direction than I think trek will go.

As for marketing in Asia, Zoe and Chris should do a couple of Japanese product-endorsement commercials for the exposure: those go a LONG way.

73. Denise de Arman - February 25, 2009

weerd1#68- LOL!

74. THX-1138-The Horn Xpressionist - February 25, 2009

I have done my damage for today. Back to FB.

75. John from Cincinnati - February 25, 2009

Actually, I think the franchise should sell its soul so it can make tons of money and continue to go on, no matter how unrecognizable it may become in future projects.

Here’s to a brave new world!

76. John from Cincinnati - February 25, 2009

64.

Actually, my kid watches the remastered TOS Star Trek now, he’s 11, and he thinks they are GREAT.

Anyone who watched ‘The Menagerie’ in the theater last year, saw the Big E held up very well on the big screen, with the new digital effects.

I still don’t see the need to re-write Kirk’s backstory, new bridge, new Enterprise. I like the new cast, that was necessary since the original cast is too old. I still think if only the movie was filmed with modern techniques and given an ‘edge” in the screenplay, the original ship, uniforms, backstories would’ve held up extremely well.

77. Lu-Wan (JE) - February 25, 2009

Well guys it looks like Abrams is leaving the hard work to us. I guess it’s our job to get the new American generation into Star Trek

78. McCoy - February 25, 2009

64:

This film doesn’t feel anything like the future to me. It also doesn’t feel anything like TOS…and yes when I say “TOS” Closet, I mean “TOS era”.

Also, since you have identified this film is for your kids, you can enjoy taking your kids to see Kirk mount an Orion slave girl and Uhura take her shirt off.

79. McCoy - February 25, 2009

76.

I agree. Nice to know I’m not alone.

80. Devon - February 25, 2009

#28 – It sounds nothing like that, other than what you have convinced yourself of.

81. Shatner_Fan_Prime - February 25, 2009

#78 “Also, since you have identified this film is for your kids, you can enjoy taking your kids to see Kirk mount an Orion slave girl and Uhura take her shirt off.”

Come on. Hardly graphic by today’s standards. I seriously doubt Trek will contain anything a kid can’t handle.

82. Devon - February 25, 2009

“Anyone who watched ‘The Menagerie’ in the theater last year, saw the Big E held up very well on the big screen, with the new digital effects.”

It was okay for a 1960s TV show on the big screen. But for something from 2009? Don’t think so.

“I still don’t see the need to re-write Kirk’s backstory, new bridge, new Enterprise. ”

That isn’t for you to worry about. Otherwise, you are complicating this for yourself.

83. Ben IV - February 25, 2009

I’m building Main Engineering from the Ent-D from balsa wood to the same scale as the action figures, does this qualify me as a “true fan?” or must I be old enough to have sent letters to Paramount? (TNG began when I was in 1st grade, Voyager ended my freshman year in college. Star trek has been a continuous part of my life…)

84. frederick - February 25, 2009

I’m glad to know that Pine did watch so many of the original shows; at least he will know how Kirk moved, spoke and acted. Even saying he’s not doing an imitation, having that knowledge had to have influenced him somewhat and I think we’ll have a better Kirk for it. Even subconsciously.

85. Alec - February 25, 2009

Abrams to Trek fans: ‘From hell’s heart, I stab at thee. For hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee’!

I understand the explanation given (largely by Abrams’s colleagues and sympathizers) for why Abrams is saying the things he’s saying, seemingly at almost every opportunity. Aside from nevertheless being annoying, it seems to conflict with this quote of Pine’s (assuming ‘laws’, as seems a normal reading of the term, refers to something substantial, and not window dressing):

‘JJ’s prescription for realizing the role[,] and this goes for all of us [,] was to create our own[,] and not worry too much about obeying the laws of the original[,] Star Trek world’.

Turning to a further point, even though Pine seems (rightly or wrongly) to have largely ignored the performances of the great Bill Shatner, it’s nice to know that he bothered to watch quite a lot of Star Trek and no doubt saw some of the best episodes (i.e., season 1).

I just have to hope that Leonard Nimoy, and our dear friend Bob, as bona fide Trekkies, keep the Star Trek in ‘Star Trek’. I welcome more action, faster pacing, better special effects, etc. But I do want to recognise what I’m watching. TOS’s essential nature (its philosophy, character descriptions, optimism, etc.,) doesn’t need, not would it benefit from, modernizing.

86. Alec - February 25, 2009

N.B., I wasn’t intending to be pejorative by using the term ‘sympathizers’.

87. SChaos1701 - February 25, 2009

68

Where the f*** did I say I was the only true fan? Show me indisputable evidence of me saying that. I didn’t so please stop slandering me.

88. SChaos1701 - February 25, 2009

70

I, respectfully, disagree with you. Anyone who wishes this film to fail like some people people here are not true fans of Star Trek. I’ll respect the posters but I don’t have to respect their views.

89. McCoy - February 25, 2009

53…” The “largest fans base in the history of tv”? I don’t know what show you are talking about—but it isn’t Star Trek.”

To me it’s obvious, but here you go:

From Wiki: “Star Trek is one of the most culturally influential television shows – and perhaps the most influential science fiction TV series – in history. The original series, which aired in the late sixties, has since spawned five successor series, ten movies (with an eleventh in production), a plethora of merchandise, and a multi-billion dollar industry collectively known as the Star Trek franchise (now owned by CBS Paramount Television).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_influence_of_Star_Trek

Others:
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Social/star_trek/SH7.htm
http://pages.prodigy.net/thenadels/history.htm

“Are you honestly saying that Star Trek has no room for improvement?”

I never said that. But nice try to deflect the issue. You call the designs of this film an improvement? My goodness.

90. THX-1138-The Horn Xpressionist - February 25, 2009

#87

“They’re the ones that make us TRUE fans look bad.”

Yep. You didn’t say ‘One’ true fan. But you imply that your status is elevated to that of others.

#88

Show us some of that indisputable evidence of someone wishing that this movie fails. The ‘true fan’ stuff only strengthens the perception that you don’t respect other posters here.

91. SChaos1701 - February 25, 2009

90

I respect every poster here. I just don’t respect some of their opinions. Last time I read the US Constitution, I have the right to not respect an opinion.

92. McCoy - February 25, 2009

All it takes is fresh music (full orchestra) and modern effects to make the Big E feel new again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tO7cl6bmOs

93. S. John Ross - February 25, 2009

I don’t care how they sell it. I just care about how they made it.

Here’s hoping for a good one. Pretty please.

That said: eerie green shoes.

94. SChaos1701 - February 25, 2009

93

I agree. I’m anxious as hell about this movie. If it does well, the franchise is back. If it fails, Star Trek is dead. I want this film to succeed so bad.

I dunno about those green shoes though.

95. THX-1138-The Horn Xpressionist - February 25, 2009

SChaos1701

I think you’re avoiding the initial problem I had with your post. And that is fine. If you think that you are in the right it’s a waste of my time to try to point out that you are being a bit direspectful. I’m just hoping that one last appeal to the tone of your comments vis a vis the true fan bit can be heeded.

96. McCoy - February 25, 2009

http://www.scottgammans.com/doomsdaymachine/index.html

97. The Quickening - February 25, 2009

#3
I really want to like this film, but every time I read something like “not for Trekkies, but for future fans of Star Trek,” I feel like they’re telling me not to bother.

I just wish Abrams would highlight and focus on the limited production aspects of previous TREK movies and how this film is not like those, as a selling point, rather than the distancing themselves from TREKKIES stategy. That’s just not necessary, is negative and runs the risk of being counter productive. I still think more people are turned off to TREK movies because they have, let’s face it, looked poor and have not been very good or consistent. Make good movies and the fandom issue goes away.

It was Paramount itself that didn’t spend the money necessary to make fully realized sci-fi movies or give the films the needed amount of advertising. Nobody forced Paramount to treat TREK like movie-of-the-week productions after TMP; to consistently not hire top Hollywood personnel. They did these things all on their own. It’s poor films making that put TREK in the poor position described above. Of course, it’s easier to point to the fans, than to point to Paramount itself… right? Can’t do that.

I understand the challenge to convince the public this is not just a Trekker film. I get it. I do. I still think it’s silly to use this as a selling point, though. Trekker’s and the public walked hand-in-hand to make TOS a hugh success in syndication; TNG an even bigger syndication hit; STAR TREK itself into a multi-billion dollar franchise. Now, all of a sudden, it’s the Trekkers that are the “perceived” concern? I still say you can advertise this film and not go down that road. Why alienate a potentially important part of your audience when you don’t have to? Why go negative?

The challenge of this film is to convince the audience this time, this TREK film is a good one (hopefully) that you should want to see it, and, it’s not like other recent TREK films, or any movie in the series. It’s much better to hype the gigantic budget, the epic nature of the film, and show scenes that demonstrate crowd pleasing aspects of the film rather than to point at Trekkies.

Can a monumental ad campaign and a good film (again, hopefully) erase the negative perception that TREK has because of nine rather cheesy films? We shall see. This bad perception went on way too long. This is the true perception Abrams needs to be fighting. And, whose fault is that? I don’t understand why now they are finally getting around to investing this kind of care in a TREK movie? I just wish Abrams and company would stop the “us verses them” traveling road show. It’s insulting and not altogether accurate.

98. T'Cal - February 25, 2009

It seems to me that JJA figures we Trek fans are very likely to check out the film and that he knows he needs to reach beyond us. If so, I agree. Truth be told, if I don’t care for this film and there is a sequel, I’ll give that one a try, too. Trek has been a great source of entertainment for me and my family so I’ll continue to give it a chance with each iteration. Where they will make their money off of me is if I like it. If that happens, and I hope it does, I’ll go back to the theatre a few more times with my family, I’ll buy some tie-in products, and I’ll buy the DVD.

99. AJ - February 25, 2009

91:

The Constitution guarantees your freedom of speech, but civility is something only you can guarantee.

We’ll both be in line opening day.

100. T'Cal - February 25, 2009

BTW, many co-workers and friends who aren’t Trek fans but know that I am have come up to me and told me how cool the trailer looked that they saw at the theatre or during the super bowl. They are interested in something that wouldn’t have drawn them in if it was a Shatner or Stewart film. While I long for more TNG, I hope it comes back to TV rather than as a film. Leave epic TOS stories for the big screen and TNG/DS9/VOY ensamble cast stories for TV.

101. COMMANDER KEEN - February 25, 2009

Boy doesn Zoe look good!!

102. COMMANDER KEEN - February 25, 2009

#100:T’Cal

Yeah. I’ve had many comments made to me by non-trekkers. It is really time for Star Trek to move past the weight of itself and move forward. Otherwise, it is going to get crushed by its own rules (Canon).

103. Z - February 25, 2009

any word if they’ll drop by the Philippines? =D

104. Xai - February 25, 2009

If this movie, it’s sets, actors, story or something else bother you, please vote with your hard-earned $$ (euros, etc) and don’t go.

105. The Governator - February 25, 2009

92. McCoy

“All it takes is fresh music (full orchestra) and modern effects to make the Big E feel new again”

For you and me maybe, but not for the non-Trekkie.

I must say that I humbly respect your views and opinions. However, I have noticed that you seem to be more inwardly focused when it comes to the creative decisions of this movie. In other words, you want the movie to be made for you, but not for non-Trekkies. I understand what you say when you wish the film were marketed more for Trekkies, but you must also understand how, unfortunately, in order to win new hearts, J.J. must disrespect the old ones, whether he really has respect for them or not. It’s really a very difficult task, because it is like trying to have two girlfriends at the same time. But hey, cut the man some slack. He only wants the best for them both. :)

106. EnsignJulka - February 25, 2009

I hope the film does well in the non-English speaking world!

107. Spockanella - February 25, 2009

93, 94: And on that we can definitely agree! (especially the green shoes…) :)

108. AJ - February 25, 2009

105:

All indications are that the old fans/future fans schtick is being used to warm up newbies (i.e. most of the world) to this film.

Bob Orci recommended we give JJ some slack, and he wrote the damn thing, I’ll give JJ that slack and judge the film in May.

109. Johnny - February 25, 2009

Star Trek hasn’t preformed well overseas PERIOD. This has been weakness of Star Trek since TWOK. The Motion Picture did the best overseas and still has the record when it come what trek movie made most gross overseas 41%. Matter of fact The Motion Picture made more money overseas then TWOK, TSFS and TVH combined and If we take inflation into consideration TMP made more overseas profit then TWOK to TFF combined.
So clearly something went wrong after TMP.

110. Jon S. - February 25, 2009

Hey Anthony,
I believe you mean “NOT doing an impersonation” instead of “no doing an impersonation”

111. The Governator - February 25, 2009

108. AJ

Quite So.

112. The Governator - February 25, 2009

No disrespect to Pine, but what in God’s name is he wearing?! Those shoes look like he crapped all over them and forgot to wipe!

113. TOG - February 25, 2009

Is Pine sporting the new line of Orion Sneakers? I’m positive it isn’t Federation issue…

114. lurker - February 25, 2009

Here is a question for anyone about the marketing strategy for this film.

What exactly is it about the “Trekkie” aspect of Star Trek films that Paramount believes would turn the general pubic away from this film? Is it the perceived geekiness? Does the existence of an involved backstory that people think they need to understand to enjoy the film? What is it?

Can anyone imagine a new Star Wars movie and the producers saying this is not for the Star Wars fans?

What are your thoughts?

115. Jeff C - February 25, 2009

Wow. This is the only movie franchise that thinks it’s major problem is it’s built-in fanbase. Actually I take that back.

This film is not any part of the franchise that came before it. It is an adaptation. A remake. A reboot.

It’s filmmakers have the audacity to say that It will be better than the forty year history that preceeds it, that non-fans know better than the long-time fans what is good and marketable–and that you should completely turn your back on the proud history of Star Trek in order to be “more successful”.

Bullsh*t.

Star Trek was already amazingly successful–the largest american Science Fiction franchise of all time, with Hundreds of hours of content.
But it doesn’t sell toys like Star Wars. So, the hope is that by grafting elements of what they think made Star Wars cool, it will make it a breakthrough financial success.

What they want is more profits.

They want it to be simple, dumb entertainment that appeals to the lowest common denominator. And if you want it to be that too, fine. But ask yourself at what point does something STOP being Star Trek and it becomes something else?
A shallow, pale imitation of what it once was–Star Trek in Name Only
(STINO)?
And once it becomes that…do you even care? Or are you going to just hand over your money and sit there with glazed eyes, clapping your popcorn stained hands and drool at the Explosions, the colors, the pretty lights as they get the ship wrong, the characters wrong, the acting wrong, the details that the previous makers of Star Trek spent their lives making.

Let’s say this film is a good movie that flops. Then you always have Paris. You have the concrete memories of the (mostly) wonderful experiences you have had with Star Trek. But, let’s say this is a horrible film that becomes a huge hit, like Transformers. Will you lament your culpability in letting something less than worthy become what people think of as Star Trek? Or will you just be happy to be able to wear Star Trek T-shirts without getting laughed at?

Now, I hope I am wrong in this. I really am. I hope that against all odds, they have made the best Star Trek film of all time…but barring a miracle it doesn’t seem likely. The more I see of this film makes me less and less interested in this film. I figure they have one more chance, with the trailer attached to Watchmen, to get me to eat crow and see the film.
What do you think their chances are?

116. Jeff C - February 25, 2009

I guess my point is this. If you are going to make a Star Trek movie…make a damn Star Trek movie.

117. Montreal Paul - February 25, 2009

Jeff.. and you are saying all this because…. you have seen the movie?? Are privy to the thoughts of teh Parmount execs?? Saw the memo that said “Screw 40 + years of Star Trek and just keep the name?? No.. this is only YOUR “opinion” of it.

But hey.. like I have said before to others.. if you feel that wronged by a movie you did not see… then, by all means, STAY HOME and DON’T see the movie.

118. RD - February 25, 2009

I’m sure Orci was referring to some alternate universe in which Abrams didn’t really mean those things and the new Star Trek movie wasn’t a reboot. Regardless, I would like to visit the universe where the filmakers could actually tell the truth from the beginning about this being a reboot which rejects all canon.

And let me be CLEAR: This film IS canon as far as the franchise is concerned. However, it rejects all known canon from at least the destruction of the Kelvin forward and selectively choses what to include in the new alternate universe where the producers have admitted this movie takes place. By all definitions that is a reboot. I’ve no doubt the movie will be entertaining. Too bad we live in a universe where producers have to continually mislead their audiences in order not to jeopardize ticket sales.

119. Valenti - February 25, 2009

Funny… In the story’s thumbnail on the frontpage, Saldana reminds me a bit of the Korean singer Hyori Lee, but a bit darker. :P

120. charliebob - February 25, 2009

@61 cheers…downloading now. Kinda guessed after I posted lol. Gonna watch M*A*S*H till it’s finished

121. GaryS - February 25, 2009

I will judge the film when I see it.

122. The Quickening - February 25, 2009

#13
Why not differentiate by focusing more on the fact that more money has been spend on this film than previous TREK films; the CGI will be first rate, cutting-edge, and monumental; you have a young new cast (to lure in a younger audience); you have a fresh new creative team behind the camera; there hasn’t been a new TOS movie in almost 20 years, etc. I just think it’s unwise to imply negativity to any segment of your audience…even if you perceive them a negative.

123. FSL - February 25, 2009

Sure hope those “Klingon protocols” work. Here in HK, most people can’t tell Star Trek or Star Wars. Insurrection and Nemesis never came. And the only other Trek fan I know is not a local…

124. The Governator - February 25, 2009

Some people on this site are beyond ridiculous.

125. SChaos1701 - February 25, 2009

120

The first season was great. I’m 2 episodes into the second and can understand why it’s cancelled. The best part is Soon Lee. She’s Keiko O’Brien. :-D

126. The Quickening - February 25, 2009

51
Why not go for new school and old school and not go negative on old school?

53.
…I do not focus my advertising energy (or dollar) in preaching to the already converted. If I were to do so, I would be limiting the ability of my business to expand into other markets. Moreover, if I were to advertise to different demographics, I wouldn’t likely use the same tactics. I would tailor the advertising to suit the audience…

Yes. Agreed, but would attacking the already converted to expand really be sound business?

…the obvious strategy becomes to highlight the differences in the new product and convince those potential customers that this is something upon which they should spend their money.

Great. And it would be wise to highlight those differences by not focusing so excessively or negatively on your other customers your business wants to keep.

#71
Good point and another reason if I were Paramount, I would be worried about this film–nationally and internationally. Fantasy is what is driving genre films today, not science fiction.

#75
That’s really funny, and I believe dead-on accurate!

109.
Star Trek hasn’t preformed well overseas PERIOD. This has been weakness of Star Trek since TWOK. The Motion Picture did the best overseas and still has the record when it come what trek movie made most gross overseas 41%. Matter of fact The Motion Picture made more money overseas then TWOK, TSFS and TVH combined and If we take inflation into consideration TMP made more overseas profit then TWOK to TFF combined. So clearly something went wrong after TMP.

What I think went wrong is right after TMP, they stopped making movies and started making blown up TV shows–something only TREKKERS would more and likely want to pay to see.

#100
BTW, many co-workers and friends who aren’t Trek fans but know that I am have come up to me and told me how cool the trailer looked that they saw at the theatre or during the super bowl. They are interested in something that wouldn’t have drawn them in if it was a Shatner or Stewart film….

Exactly. That is what will put people in the theater seats, not the segregation of fans to lure in the general public.

102.
Yeah. I’ve had many comments made to me by non-trekkers. It is really time for Star Trek to move past the weight of itself and move forward. Otherwise, it is going to get crushed by its own rules (Canon).

I have too. But in my experience it’s been because the movie series has been perceived as cheesy and inconsistent, not because of canon.

127. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - February 25, 2009

Zoe Saldana’s outfit is cute… I much prefer it to the exposed-bra scene….

128. Duane - February 25, 2009

I live in Thailand and for some reason movies always open here on Thursday. So if Korea is getting the movie on May 7 (a Thursday) I hope we in Thailand will as well.

So visit us in Thailand and see the movie 36 hours before you can see it in the US!

129. Buzz Cagney - February 25, 2009

I can’t be the only long time Trek fan that feels rejected every time they talk of this film as being for new fans not Trekkies- can I?
If thats the way they feel perhaps I won’t bother to see it.

130. AJ - February 25, 2009

129:

Buzz:

You and all the others are going to line up for this film.

You will then either post “I told you so,” “Meh,” or “Holy Crap.”

If the film blows, believe me, the backlash here will be ginormous. If the film is superb for Treksters and non alike, this site, and Trekdom, will be an extended party.

If it’s 50/50, we can all settle in to our little camps of opinion, and hope it hits its numbers..

Fact is, we, as Trek fans, need to see this film. There is nothing like empirical evidence to feed an informed opinion.

131. SChaos1701 - February 25, 2009

130

Great post. Believe me, if this film blows, I will be the first one here blasting the film. But I will give this film the chance it most definitely deserves. If Paramount is giving it the summer blockbuster treatment, then that’s saying something. I’m so excited for this film and worried about it as well.

132. Iowagirl - February 26, 2009

#29, 28
Sylvain has heard, he/she just couldn’t believe his/her Vulcan ears…;)

#41
Believe me, I’m thinking along those lines rather often myself…:)

#129
- I can’t be the only long time Trek fan that feels rejected every time they talk of this film as bing for new fans not Trekkies- can I? -

No, you can’t, and as far as I’m concerned, you aren’t.

133. Devon - February 26, 2009

“This film is not any part of the franchise that came before it. It is an adaptation. A remake. A reboot.”

And part of Star Trek.

“It’s filmmakers have the audacity to say that It will be better than the forty year history that preceeds it,”

Show us where please.

“that non-fans know better than the long-time fans what is good and marketable–”

Show us where please.

“and that you should completely turn your back on the proud history of Star Trek in order to be “more successful”.”

Show us where please.

“Bullsh*t.”

Yes it was.

“Star Trek was already amazingly successful–the largest american Science Fiction franchise of all time, with Hundreds of hours of content.”

It quit being “amazingly successful” well over a decade ago.

“But it doesn’t sell toys like Star Wars. So, the hope is that by grafting elements of what they think made Star Wars cool, it will make it a breakthrough financial success.”

Possibly. Nothing wrong with that.

“What they want is more profits.”

Profound, a company wanting profit? Noooooooo……… really?

“They want it to be simple, dumb entertainment that appeals to the lowest common denominator.”

That’s just your own theory.

“And if you want it to be that too, fine. But ask yourself at what point does something STOP being Star Trek and it becomes something else?””

Yes, let’s find our inner souls and ask ourselves that.

“The more I see of this film makes me less and less interested in this film.”

Which is very little. You might be convincing yourself of these thoughts.

134. Devon - February 26, 2009

#132

“#41
Believe me, I’m thinking along those lines rather often myself…:)”

Then you aren’t really thinking. It was really pretty silly / without much merit.

135. Oriana - February 26, 2009

”We made this film not for Trekkies but for future fans of Star Trek.”
”JJ’s prescription for realizing the role and this goes for all of us- was to create our own and not worry too much about obeying the laws of the original Star Trek world.”

Hmmmm, I’am very disappointed. :(

136. Databrain - February 26, 2009

I do believe Abrams said it again at this event. That this film is ‘not for trekkies, but for future fans’. That is a completely illogical statement. If the film is not for trekkies, why even base it on star trek? Why not just make a brand new generic sci fi film based on whatever message you want to preach? Make some sense JJ!

137. thorsten - February 26, 2009

@135…

Databrain, for some reason you want to be angry at JJ, and you want to hear only what you believe in anyway… let me tell you one thing:

This movie is the truest rendition to TOS since 1968.

138. Iowagirl - February 26, 2009

#134

Ah, y’know, more often than you might really think the merit lies beneath the silliness …:)

On a more serious note, who is a real fan and who is not, and who really thinks and who does not, is not ours to decide, and too much self-righteousness doesn’t bode well for any of us. Some do like the direction the franchise is heading, some don’t. No right or wrong, silly or sensible, true or false about it – just different perceptions, opinions, trains of thought, and views.

139. miguelito - February 26, 2009

@ 3 two thumbs up.

I don’t like to read that either. Star Trek has forty year of history. And all those who have saved nem by buying the dvd were probably all normal people. Without the fans star trek would have died in 1967.

140. Craig - February 26, 2009

Abrams is an arrogant idiot, his comment regardless of the audience shows his contempt for the Trek fanbase and lack of understanding of the many successes and few mistakes the franchise as a whole has made in the past.

141. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

#129
“- I can’t be the only long time Trek fan that feels rejected every time they talk of this film as bing for new fans not Trekkies- can I? -”

I’m a long time fan.. I don’t feel rejected. I guess I feel confidant and secure enough that JJ and co. are going to put out a kick ass movie. Maybe because a friend of mine working for the distribution company has seen the entore movie and tells me it is going to be huge. And he’s a long time trek fan too. I have no worries.. I have no concerns… Trek is alive and well in the hands of JJ.

142. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

139. Craig

Wow.. that’s pretty harsh. I think you are pretty arrogant for posting that comment. Did you like TWOK? Because Nick Meyers said teh same thing when he was promoting Star Trek 2. Hmmmm…

143. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

138. miguelito – February 26, 2009
“I don’t like to read that either. Star Trek has forty year of history. And all those who have saved nem by buying the dvd were probably all normal people. Without the fans star trek would have died in 1967.”

And because of the fans.. Trek almost died a few years ago.

144. thorsten - February 26, 2009

@139…

Fear leads to anger.
Anger leads to hate.
Hate leads to suffering.

I sense much fear in you.

145. thorsten - February 26, 2009

Hey, Paul… ça va?

146. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

ça va tres bien Thorston… et vous?

147. CaptainRickover - February 26, 2009

I don’t see any reason from JJ attacking us “old” trekkies. That sounds like we trekkies are the enemys of Star Trek.

Why he use the word “trekkie” or “future fans” at all? He doesn’t need. Does promotion allways work this way? “This new Star Wars is not for the old fans”? “This new Batman is not for the old fans?” I can’t remember that Lucas or Nolan ever used that word in any poress conference.

I’m sorry, but I feel indeed attacked and insulted by JJ’s comments. He could use a lesson in diplomatics. But that’s just me.

148. CaptainRickover - February 26, 2009

Star Trek – The Beginning…

I wonder why they don’t use that title only in Korea?

Anthony, something you could find out?

149. thorsten - February 26, 2009

@146…

Well, I was not in Seoul to listen to JJs press junket there…
but I was in Cologne.

And JJ said there:” We made this movie NOT ONLY for trekkies, but for new fans as well.
And fans attended the show… the organizers of Germany’s biggest Trek Convention, FedCon were invited, too, and they loved what they saw, and these folks know their Trek canon. Susanne Doepke from FedCon told me she was a bit afraid, but after she saw the footage she was giddily happy.

Orci and Kurtzman even included throwaway references to Archer and his dog… and that was just a tiny moment.

150. Don Farnsworth - February 26, 2009

I appreciate they cannot imitate the original actors but if an actor was cast to play a real person we judge the quality of the performance on how well they nail the nuances of the character.

Josh Brolin and George Bush, Kate Blanchette and Katherine Hepburn by way of example.

Kirk did have particular mannerisms and i hope they are not lost.

151. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

146. CaptainRickover

Because “trekkies” is a kind of stigma when attached to a movie. “oh God.. you’re not one of those Trekkies!” Did you watch the doc Trekkies? Make Trek fans look like even more than the geeks we are.. made us to be freaks! That is why i will never call myself a Trekkie or a Trekker.. I am just a Trek fan. I uderstand exactly what he is trying to do. If this movie has to solely rely on fickle “trekkies” .. it has no fighting chance to survive. It has to attract new fans as well.. just like TWOK did… just like TNG tv show did. If you want to take offense to it.. fine. I don’t. I think he needs to bring in future fans in order for Star trek to live. If this movie doesn’t, then I am afraid that all you will have to watch is phase II or reruns.

152. Chris Roberts - February 26, 2009

The problem with Abrams Is he spends too much time In reaching the non Trek Audence,and he has done nothing to attract the Trek Fan base.
They are taking the preNemesis audence for granted.

Robert Orci has been the only one trying to say to fans they should this
film.It Is still works as part of canon.

The real danger for them Is some fans may not hear what Rorci has been saying only Abrams this Is not for fans comments.

And trying to point out on boards that this Isn’t a total reboot but a Time
travel caused changing of history but remains part of canon film.

Of course If paramount would release more of Leonard Nimoy this would
help Insuring fans and get It through this Isn’t a total reboot.

153. AJ - February 26, 2009

I think the message to South Korea would be different than the message to Germany, which is Trek’s largest foreign market.

There are so few Trekkies in Asia, that JJ’s statement almost makes no sense, comments in an expat newspaper notwithstanding.

I still trust that his message is geared toward a wider world. For the vast majority of ticket buyers, this will be their first exposure to Star Trek.

154. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

151. Chris Roberts
” Of course If paramount would release more of Leonard Nimoy this would help Insuring fans and get It through this Isn’t a total reboot.”

You know he is in it.. isn’t that enough? Do you want the movie to be given to ou in little bits so there are no surprises left? You want the plot given to you before the movie comes out? I know he is in it and he is crucial to the movie and the plot.. that is good enough for me.

155. Closettrekker - February 26, 2009

#78—”Also, since you have identified this film is for your kids, you can enjoy taking your kids to see Kirk mount an Orion slave girl and Uhura take her shirt off.”

Lol. That’s a ridiculous spin. You’re truly reaching now.

First of all, I am quite sure that my boys will not be adversely affected by the sight of Zoe Saldana in her bra. And since you obviously haven’t been paying attention, that’s not a “slave girl”—but a fellow cadet that the young Kirk is briefly seen kissing in his underwear. She just happens to be an Orion. Given the film’s rating, I can hardly imagine that there is anything more graphic than that. And even if there was, I am quite comfortable in talking to my boys about sex.

156. Closettrekker - February 26, 2009

#126—”Yes. Agreed, but would attacking the already converted to expand really be sound business?”

It certainly would not. However, I have yet to see anything remotely close to that being done..

“Great. And it would be wise to highlight those differences by not focusing so excessively or negatively on your other customers your business wants to keep.”

Again—I have yet to see that done.

Oh—now I have seen some fans read into JJ Abrams lack of interest in Trek prior to working on this project and his tendancy to identify himself with the more mainstream viewers he wishes to court into the new Star Trek camp—but that’s about it.

Saying that you are not a big fan is not an attack upon people who are big fans. Taking it that way is the result of insecurity.

157. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

155. Closettrekker

I agree with you completely. Do you remember Nick Meyer talking about knowing nothing about Trek when he was doing TWOK. I don’t understand why so many people are up in arms. This movie will only fail because of their shortsightedness and bad attitudes towards the movie.

158. Oriana - February 26, 2009

”We made this film not for Trekkies but for future fans of Star Trek. ”

”JJ’s prescription for realizing the role and this goes for all of us- was to create our own and not worry too much about obeying the laws of the original Star Trek world.”

Hmm. I’am very disappointed. :(

159. Oriana1 - February 26, 2009

”We made this film not for Trekkies but for future fans of Star Trek. ”

”JJ’s prescription for realizing the role and this goes for all of us- was to create our own and not worry too much about obeying the laws of the original Star Trek world.”
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Hmm. I’am very disappointed :(

160. Iowagirl - February 26, 2009

Ah, come on – “We made this movie NOT ONLY for trekkies, but for new fans as well” for Germany, because as a clever marketing strategist Abrams is aware of the huge fan base already existing there, “We made this movie not for trekkies, but for future fans of Star Trek” for Asia, in order to apply to an audience not familiar with Trek. In future Iowa he will probably state “This film in solely for those of you who can’t remember Kirk the way he used to be.” And on his promotion stop on Vulcan he’ll tell T’Pau “Tis is to inform you tat tis is a Spockkk-centered film, alssough it is nott logicall to act like te queen bee. ” Abrams uses his words just how it suits him best. A lot of hot marketing air and phasemongering; no need to suddenly start denying what many of us esteemed and cherished for such a long time: 40 years of Trek, and of being a Trekkie. I for one never had difficulties being a Trekkie – if XI is successful, fine, if not, 40 years of Star Trek will do for a lifetime.

#150
- If this movie doesn’t, then I am afraid that all you will have to watch is phase II or reruns. -

Once you’ve seen XI, it will be a rerun, too…

161. McCoy - February 26, 2009

155.

Way to try to spin Closet. Whenever someone says something about JJ or comments about lack of continuity, you automatically conclude it’s our problem and not the production team’s. Do you work for them? This isn’t reading anything into what JJ said, these are his own words:

“We made this film not for Trekkies but for future fans of Star Trek.” —JJ

“I have never been a Trek fan” —JJ

162. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

159. Iowagirl
The Asian market doesn’t give a sh*t about 40 years of previous Trek. That is why he has to market the film to the mass public there. It is like any film.. they will market the same movie different way depending of the market.

163. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

161. McCoy -
“Whenever someone says something about JJ or comments about lack of continuity, you automatically conclude it’s our problem and not the production team’s.”

That’s because it IS your problem.

164. AJ - February 26, 2009

156:

Montreal Paul:

This movie will only fail if Paramount fails to attract viewers outside of the “fanbase.”

What many here fail to realize is just how small the Trek fanbase is. I read somewhere that it was around 2 to 2.5 million people worldwide. That qualifies as more of a cult. And we’re talking North America, Germany, and small pockets in the rest of Europe. Paramount always went for the “low hanging fruit” approach to markets, and never bothered to invest into Trek in Asia, Africa, or the Middle East, where the majority of the world’s population lives.

It’s truly naive to think that pissing off a few fans is going to make one bit of difference to the bottom line of this film.

165. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

Oh.. you all do know that Nick Meyer never watched a single episode of Star Trek before making TWOK. That is why he didn’t know about Chekov not meeting Khan. Meyer was always saying he wasn’t a Trek fan. YEah.. TWOK was a shitty movie because of that! lol

166. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

164. AJ

I agree 100% with that.

167. T.U.M. - February 26, 2009

What’s the motivation for becoming a future fan of Star Trek if, once you become one, films will no longer be made with you in mind as an audience?

168. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

167. T.U.M.

says who? I’m a Trek fan and I see a Trek movie being made for me right now.

169. AJ - February 26, 2009

167:

T.U.M.

I think, if this film achieves its goal of creating a massive and consistent worldwide base, that it will not be ignored.

I think Paramount wants another Indiana Jones. Patch together a crap film (Crystal Skull) which received only poor reviews/word of mouth. Made a billion bucks worldwide. Now that is a true worldwide base. They want Trek to be the same.

170. T.U.M. - February 26, 2009

What’s the motivation for becoming a future fan if, once you become one, movies will no longer be made with you as part of the target audience?

#160
“‘We made this movie not for trekkies, but for future fans of Star Trek’ for Asia, in order to apply to an audience not familiar with Trek.”

If they’re not familiar with Trek, why would there even be a need to distinguish old fans from new ones?

171. T.U.M. - February 26, 2009

#168 – “says who? I’m a Trek fan and I see a Trek movie being made for me right now.”

JJ Abrams says quire explicitly that the movie is not being made for you.

You may feel that you know better than he does what kind of movie he’s making, or maybe you feel that he doesn’t really mean what he explicitly says, and that’s your prerogative.

172. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

171. T.U.M.

So since this “film isn’t being made for you”.. I guess you aren’t going to see it then?

I, on the other hand know what marketing a movie is all about, and WILL see this Trek movie being made for Trek fans as well. I’ll let you know how it is ;)

173. thorsten - February 26, 2009

@146…
J’ai légers maux de tête

174. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

thorsten

J’ai un mal de tête aussi. Quand j’ai lu lire tous les commentaires négatifs ici. LoL

175. Closettrekker - February 26, 2009

#161—Who cares if JJ Abrams has ever been a Trek fan?

Neither was Robert Wise, Nick Meyer, or Harve Bennett prior to their work on the film franchise. In my opinion, their work has been the best so far!

Moreover, the writers (Orci and Kurtzman) and producer (Damon Lindelof) are Trek fans. I don’t see the problem.

These comments (i.e. “We made this film not for Trekkies but for future fans of Star Trek.”) are part of a marketing strategy meant to bring in the necessary numbers for this film to be as successful as Paramount believes it has the potential to be. They are directed at those who have never before given Star Trek a chance.

That’s not spin—-it is sound marketing strategy, and it doesn’t take anything more than common sense and simple mathematics to figure that out.

If there are 2.5 million established Star Trek fans, then they would each have to see the film an average of 4.5 times just to break even! That was never going to happen. There has to be a somewhat aggressive attempt to court more mainstream fans. Period. In order to do that, this film (at least in the marketing stage) has to distance itself from the foundations of the very preconceived notions about Trek standing in the way of its mainstream appeal.

Therefore, comments like:

“This is not your Daddy’s Star Trek”, “This film will be like nothing you’ve ever seen”, etc., are perfectly in line with that strategy.

If they didn’t take that approach, I would (quite frankly) question their intelligence!

And finally, I consider myself a candidate for future fandom. If you don’t—fine. Don’t go see it.

While I am a fan of Star Trek to be sure, I also consider myself to be a “future fan”. I don’t see the problem.

What I don’t understand is why on Earth someone like you—who has convinced himself/herself that this isn’t going to be something for him/her—would spend so much time talking about something you don’t even like. That seems like a waste of time to me. I would much rather spend my time talking about something I am enthusiastic about…at least that seems healthier.

To each his own.

And no—I don’t work for anyone but my wife and children. I am a business owner in Houston, Tx. I have no association with this film other than the fact that I am excited about it. I have been waiting since the mid-80′s for these characters to be recast.

176. Craig - February 26, 2009

142… Montreal Paul

Well when Meyer said it, it was true since then we’ve had 9 movies and 4 series most of which have made Star Trek the institution it is today

177. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

176. Craig
“Well when Meyer said it, it was true since then we’ve had 9 movies and 4 series most of which have made Star Trek the institution it is today”

So what? Just because there are more series and movies since then, doesn’t invalidate his statement. Meyer wasn’t a Trek fan… Wise was not a Trek fan.. Bennett was not a Trek fan.. for that matter… Shatner isn’t a Trek fan. He even admitted that himself.

Either way… Some of the best movies are from non-trek fans.. and as Closettrekker had mentioned… those were the best movies. Not to mention that the writers are huge Trek fans themselves. So relax. If you are getting that worked up and upset about it.. don’t go see the movie.

178. thorsten - February 26, 2009

@174…
exactement!

179. T.U.M. - February 26, 2009

“172. Montreal Paul – February 26, 2009

171. T.U.M.

So since this “film isn’t being made for you”.. I guess you aren’t going to see it then?

I, on the other hand know what marketing a movie is all about, and WILL see this Trek movie being made for Trek fans as well. I’ll let you know how it is ;)”

Personally, I go to see plenty of movies I’m pretty sure I’m not the target audience for. Of course, usually the director isn’t enough of an arrogant jerk to come right out and say in interviews, “This movie is not for women/Causasians/adults/etc.” Most of them have more class and common sense than that. My beef isn’t with the movie (unless the story doesn’t turn out to be better than the previews make it out to be, but most of the time previews don;t really give you a good idea) but with the director acting like a [redacted].

I’m not the one creating the dichotomy between existing fans and future fans – the director of the movie is.

180. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

179. T.U.M.
If you weren’t on this board or another board, you would have NEVER heard anything about it. Just because you don’t hear this from other Directors, doesn’t mean it isn’t going on. When you hang around the Sex in the City boards.. I am sure the directors went around saying it wasn’t for men. Know what I mean? No? I don’t know why you are taking this so personally when all it is is marketing 101. Like I said before.. why don’t you save yourself some grief and worry and not see the movie. Maybe you will be happier that way ;)

181. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

Listen.. all you worry warts and nay sayers.. how about giving it a rest and wait until the movie comes out. You will then see that all your fears have been silly. Good Lord people.. it’s ONLY a movie!

182. T.U.M. - February 26, 2009

#180 – Well, that’s an interesting theory. can you back it up with any examples? Just because we don;t hear it doesn;t mean it IS going on, either.

I don’t know why you assume I’m taking anything personally or suffering any grief or worry. That’s kind of…odd. And how would not seeing the movie change the fact that Abrams is being an arse?

183. BaronByng - February 26, 2009

177. Well said. The movie most people recognize as the best of the Star Wars series, The Empire Strikes Back, was directed by veteran Hollywood hand Irvin Kershner, not George Lucas — who dialed back the technobabble and focused on human storytelling and character development. When Lucas took back the reins for the prequel trilogy, his over-focus on plot and visual density couldn’t compensate for his inability to direct actors or write believable-sounding dialogue.

It’s clear from JJ and the Supreme Council’s body of work that they love telling a good story (with a mystery at the core), and are supremely good at writing character-focused plotlines. Alias, in particular, balanced action scenes and techno-MacGuffin plots with lots of character development, while always looking very stylish and, dare I say it, cinematic.

One thread that seems to keep coming back from some of the naysayers is that they think the original sets, velour costumes with gold lamé badges, and ship designs would be ‘fine’ for a 2009 audience, or that ‘just a little updating’ would suffice. I think the results would be incredibly campy and hard to take seriously — you know, like doing a remake of Forbidden Planet with its very 1950s design ethos, costumes, and stilted dialogue.

40 years of film and tv history have happened since 1969. Audiences expect not only more visual detail, but their threshold for suspending disbelief has been raised. They’re also used to seeing crackling dialogue and character interplay (seen Mad Men, anyone?), and they’re much more comfortable with change and open-ended resolutions of storylines. The Planet-of-The-Week format which nearly always ended in the reset button being pushed by the following episode just doesn’t cut it anymore. (Which is why DS9 was much better than Voyager, and Enterprise’s later story arcs worked better than its first season).

184. Closettrekker - February 26, 2009

#182—”And how would not seeing the movie change the fact that Abrams is being an arse?”

That’s hardly a “fact”. That’s your opinion, and nothing more.

185. thorsten - February 26, 2009

Yeah,
thats pretty cool, hide behind three dots and call somebody names…

186. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

182. T.U.M.
“I don’t know why you assume I’m taking anything personally or suffering any grief or worry. That’s kind of…odd. And how would not seeing the movie change the fact that Abrams is being an arse?”

Just by that and your other comments directed at JJ shows you are taking it personally. And the only one I can see being an arse.. well… :)

187. Closettrekker - February 26, 2009

#183—Very well said.

188. Iowagirl - February 26, 2009

#162
Hey, this is (more or less) exactly what I said, which you would have realised if you had read my post a wee bit more carefully. And my remark regarding the importance of 40 years of Trek was being made with the fans in mind (Trekkies or whatever you wanna call them) – I’m well aware that Asia’s exposure to Trek has no real history. And I wanted to make clear that *I* don’t give a sh*t anymore what Abrams’ is saying; I’m not ashamed of being a Trekkie and I will live whether this film is being made FOR me, NOT ONLY for me or NOT AT ALL for me..;-)

#170
Heeelllooo T.U.M, knock knock – we’re on the same page; only that I decided to take it a bit more lighthearted… ;-)

189. thorsten - February 26, 2009

@187…
Yep, agreed.
Imagine Neelix and Kes with the quality of Mad Men…

190. Closettrekker - February 26, 2009

#188—-”I’m not ashamed of being a Trekkie…”

Nor should you be!

I don’t recall anyone from the creative team behind this fim ever mentioning, inferring, or implying that anyone should be ashamed of their fandom.

That really wouldn’t make much sense, would it—especially given the fact that 3 of the 5 members of the STXI “Supreme Court” are self-professed ‘Trekkies’ themselves (Orci, Lindelof, Kurtzman)?

191. Iowagirl - February 26, 2009

#190

I wasn’t referring to the “Supreme Court”, but to some of the posters here (such as Montreal Paul whose post I was answering) mentioning that being a Trekkie is considered as some sort of stigma by Non-Trek-People (hey, as name-calling is so popular here, don’t we have a catchy term for those outside the Trekdom? :-), and that some here actually have felt ashamed of being a Trekkie in the past, sort of Trekkie = freak, and that they hope that they can call themselves Trekkies again with pride as soon as XI will have revitalized the franchise.

Not meaning to insult anyone, but imo that’s bullsh*t.

192. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

hey.. I am just staing a fact.. ask anyone that is a non trek fan what they see trekkies as. Geeks & Freaks. I am a very proud Star trek Fan. I even have a picture of me at 2 years old sitting in front of the TV in the 60′s with Star Trek on the screen.

And yes, there is a term for non-trek fans out there… just can’t say it in here :)

193. thorsten - February 26, 2009

I am a trekkie.
Where is the problem?
I use digital cameras that can send images streight into the web,
I use computers that talk to me.
I don’t have problems talking to the hottest girl in the room.

All because I am a trekkie.

194. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

and I never said you should be ashamed of being a Trekkie. I just don’t like the term Trekkie or Trekker.. I use Trek fan.

195. Closettrekker - February 26, 2009

#191—Understood.

As for creating a term for those outside of Trekdom, that could be fun.

How about “Heathons”?

:)

196. Iowagirl - February 26, 2009

Ok, just for the record: We are all proud Trek People! :)

#192
- And yes, there is a term for non-trek fans out there… just can’t say it in here :) -

Hey, killjoy – tell us NOW! :D

#195
Good – first suggestion!

If it’s ok with you all, I’ll compile a list… :)

197. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

Iowagirl…

Sorry if i have been sounding harsh.. but i am just so annoyed with all the negativity from fans towards this movie. Know what I mean?

You can add “tasteless” to that list ;)

198. Closettrekker - February 26, 2009

#196—-Compile away!

I can’t wait to read them.

199. Iowagirl - February 26, 2009

#197

Montreal Paul, no need to be sorry – we’re ok. As I said, we’re all fans and we’re all talking about something that’s dear to us. For you, XI is an important continuation of Trek, so I understand your feelings. For me as a TOS purist and die-hard fan of the original cast, XI was more of an annoyance, now I’ve found I don’t care too much about it anymore. But that doesn’t mean we can’t talk about Trek, and discuss it, and have fun!

Ok, now we have “Heathons” and “Tasteless” on our list. I wan’t more! :)

200. Izbot - February 26, 2009

Are those numbers right? Mission: Impossible: III made over $44 million in Japan and almost $38 Million in Korea, but Batman Begins brought in only $6.5 million in S. Korea and $12.4 million in Japan?? Wow. I guess I can see that. Tom Cruise is huge in that market and American comic book super-heroes aren’t that popular. Still, wow.

201. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

TOS and the original movies are always my favourite ones.. followed closely my DS9.. then the rest. I see this as a great way to continue Trek into the next generation (no pun intended). It is really too bad the original cast is 3 members short now. Reality is that they are all older. I am really looking forward to this continuation of TOS.

202. thorsten - February 26, 2009

@200…

yep…
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=batmanbegins.htm

203. T.U.M. - February 26, 2009

191. Iowagirl – February 26, 2009
(hey, as name-calling is so popular here, don’t we have a catchy term for those outside the Trekdom?

Herbert?

204. RD - February 26, 2009

Advertising and marketing are just accepted terms for lies and deception. It is not a new concept that the folks on Madison Avenue come up with creative ways to sell a product regardless of the truth of that product, or whether anybody really needs it. Only recently has government regulation saddled marketing with truth in advertising laws telling us the business is prone to bending the truth. Lengthy disclaimers at the end of drug commercials do little to mitigate the euphoric images depicting the improved lifestyle acquired by those who ask for a particular drug by name, telling us that marketing often relies on deceptive practices to attract their audiences, observing only the minimal requirements determined by law if applicable. The only thing true about marketing and advertising is that they will do whatever is not specifically disallowed by law to justify making a buck for their clients and earn their paychecks. “Sound marketing strategy” is just another term for pack-of-lies.

205. T.U.M. - February 26, 2009

186. Montreal Paul – February 26, 2009
Just by that and your other comments directed at JJ shows you are taking it personally. And the only one I can see being an arse.. well… :)

I don’t need to be personally grief-stricken to notice when somebody is saying something kinda discourteous to the people one would expect him to be friendly to, iven that they’re one of the hands that’s feeding him.

I mention it because, hey, we’re all here to talk about the items that get posted. They interest us. I don’t assume you’re taking personally any of MY words you’ve chosen to comment on, or that they’re causing you any kind of grief.

206. Closettrekker - February 26, 2009

#204—-You’re a riot!

Does your philosophy come with a tin foil hat?

207. Closettrekker - February 26, 2009

#205—-I wonder if Lindelof, Orci, and Kurtzman feel slighted by JJ’s comments. After all, they are self-professed Star Trek fans, right?

The bottom line is, they have come here to this very site and made clear that their intention is to make a movie that is for everyone—established fans and non-traditional ones alike. Why should you care how it is marketed to the Korean press?

208. A. .S.F.33 - February 26, 2009

143. Montreal Paul – February 26, 2009 And because of the fans.. Trek almost died a few years ago.

Uhm NO! Trek almost died because the Powers that be stopped giving fans (at least the majority of old school trek fans) the kind of Trek THEY wanted to see. I am tired of hearing how trek fans abondoned Trek, when in reality it was the other way around. The PTB thought trek fans would buy and support anything named trek and as the lackluster performance of the last few trek enderverors proved…. that just wasn’t true. JJ and crew should understand that point and realize that some Trek fans are NOT a given to be there opening weekend. Some of us really don’t like what we’ve seen so far and will wait to hear how all this alternate universe, Kirk is a young loser stuff is resolved before spending money to see this thing, IMO they should not be so glib in dismissing us when it comes to promoting this movie/

209. McCoy - February 26, 2009

208

Well said. I agree.

210. Iowagirl - February 26, 2009

#203

I like Herbert! :)

I suggest we’ll wait until tomorrow and then have an inofficial poll…

211. Charliebob - February 26, 2009

@125 It’s downloaded so I’ve started. That’s ace seeing Keiko! I jsut started watching. I took a sneak peak at the end of the ep where they rearrange Potters office to be like the one back at the M*A*S*H. Brought a tear to my eye.

212. The Quickening - February 26, 2009

156
I never mentioned Abrams identification with the mainstream or, his lack of interest in TREK. I’m only referring to Paramount and / or his advertising tactic to use an “us verses them” strategy. There are better marketing methods to be inclusive than what is being used. I only use the word attack because that’s certainly the way some fans are taking it, and that wouldn’t be happening if they would highlight a more positive way to sell the film. I get the movie needs to draw in the mainstream, and I know it’s not intended, but it’s happening and it just isn’t smart.

213. Closettrekker - February 26, 2009

#208—”Trek almost died because the Powers that be stopped giving fans (at least the majority of old school trek fans) the kind of Trek THEY wanted to see.”

And what is that exactly? I consider myself to be an “old school fan”. TPTB stopped giving many of us the kind of Trek we wanted to see decades ago (around the late 80′s, with the abomination known as STV). However, plenty of fans loved the radical departure that was TNG.

“IMO they should not be so glib in dismissing us when it comes to promoting this movie/”

Is that what you call all of the time Roberto Orci spends here with us—dismissive?

What about the live chat here with the director, writers, and producers?

On the contrary, I think the promotion of this film among established fans has been quite intimate, if anything—certainly not dismissive.

If you don’t see it, what’s the difference between that and fans like me not caring a bit for 24th Century Trek?

What’s the difference between that and my kids not liking pre-Voyager Trek (aside from the original movies)?

I’ve endured (as a fan) through nearly 2 decades of Trek I didn’t care for!

IMO, it is time to get back to the roots—-an optimistic vision of the future for Humanity, ripe with action, adventure, sexuality, romanticism, drama, humor, and cool characters.

That’s the Star Trek (TOS) that I grew up on…what about you?

Everything they say tells me that this (with a bigger budget and less dated asthetics) is what they’re after.

214. Closettrekker - February 26, 2009

#212—” I’m only referring to Paramount and / or his advertising tactic to use an “us verses them” strategy. ”

Where is that strategy? I’ve been paying pretty close attention to all of this, but I’ve never seen that at all.

Once again, all I have seen is Mr. Abrams’ attempts to paint himself as someone who (like the majority of potential moviegoers) wasn’t really a Star Trek fan, in an effort to convince them to give this movie a chance.

At the same time, those of us who are established fans interact with Roberto Orci right here,—and are privy to his thoughts (at least what he can disclose) on an almost daily basis. He has never been anything but absolutely clear that his intention was to write and produce a movie that fans and non-fans alike will enjoy.

There was a time when all efforts to promote a ST film were directed at us. But then again, those were film with budgets that could be justified by about 2-2.5 million tickets purchased.

Maybe that’s why some feel slighted. I don’t know. I have yet to see any rational reason for it (IMO).

215. SChaos1701 - February 26, 2009

211

I’m glad you’re enjoying it. I love that episode where Klinger redecorates Potter’s office. Unfortunately, I’m two episodes in the second season and I’m not liking it.

216. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

208. A. .S.F.33

Actually there was some pretty great Trek out there that fans just didn’t get into. I was never a TNG fan.. but loved DS9 and Enterprise. Very little fan support for Enterprise made it die out. That and the fact that it was no longer a syndicated show and was on UPN. Next Gen was successful becuase it wasn’t tied to network cnstraints like UPN. People can badmouth Berman all they like.. but he was a fan.. he was hand picked by Roddenberry. No.. the fans stopped watching and it almost died. Yu can see taht there are numerous fans for Enterprise… but fans gave up after the first season… if they stuck around the final season was incredible. Because it wasn’t TOS or Next Gen.. fans didn’t want it. It strayed from what they were used to.. afraid of the change lol. I thought Enterprise was well written and well acted. I thought it was a great idea. And… if you can recall.. the first season DIDN’T have the name STAR TREK attached to it. When numbers dwindled..they tried to add it it.. but it was too late.

I like to think of Star Trek fans like the old Montreal Expo fans… when the expos were doing great.. the staduim was bringing in the fans.. when they started losing.. the fans left.. the team finally folded and went to Washington. Same with Trek.. if it is good.. fans will supposrt it.. if it isn’t like TNG or TOS.. fans will loss numbers.

I have been watching reruns of all the trek series.. DS9 had amazing stories and took you to a grittier Trek. Voyager had it’s moments too.. some really good stories. Enterprise.. well.. I already talked about.

Do you see what i am getting at?

217. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

213 & 214 Closettrekker

EXTREMELY well said! i agree 100%

218. AJ - February 26, 2009

I have to agree with 204 (RD) on the A&M of Big Pharma. Complete deception.

“If you want to quit smoking, ask your doctor. Go on a 12-week regimen so you can quit at your own pace with (DRUG NAME HERE). Side effects include…

If you want to quit smoking, don’t smoke!

Star Trek XI’s marketing is as traditional as can be, with snazzy trailers, upbeat soundbyte interviews, and director/star roadshows. The access to TPTB we Treksters get on this site is wonderful. My eyes are wide open going into this film.

219. AJ - February 26, 2009

216

Montreal Paul:

Here’s a different take. Star Trek in the ’90s did not grow out of the “alien of the week” mode, and started looking stiff as broadcast and cable TV moved to the the next level. The Sopranos, Sex and the City, 24 and their ilk changed what viewers were used to seeing, and then what they wanted to see.

Trek couldn’t evolve into something for a more sophisticated audience, and ENT was stuck inside the box of the standard Trek format with a schlocky crew. Manny Coto’s brilliant 4th season just came too late because the casual viewers and now lapsed Trek fans had moved on.

220. A. .S.F.33 - February 26, 2009

216. Montreal Paul – February 26, 2009
Where to start. How can you blame FANS for givning up on something if they didn’t like the product??? THAT is my point. Those series and movies you list turned out to have limited appeal in the existing fanbase and therefor did no do as well. If” you don’t give the majority of the audience what it wants to see, you CANNOT be succesfull just because you call it trek. This same thinking holds true for ANY movie or tv series. You have to give people a good product and what they want to see or you can’t expect their support, This does not mean there weren’t fans of all incarnations of Trek and they have every right to like any version thst appeals to them.

>>”Very little fan support for Enterprise made it die out.”<<

Actually what made Enterprise die out was the fact that the show did not appeal to the majority of the tartget audience. I mean really, I buy or support products I LIKE not becausae they are a certain brand or in this case just because it’s Trek. And before some get all huffy, YES i do consider myself a trek fan equal to anyone else here. However, just putting the name TREK on something does not guarantee i will like it or support it.

221. Closettrekker - February 26, 2009

#220—”Actually what made Enterprise die out was the fact that the show did not appeal to the majority of the tartget audience.”

Many of us wouldn’t have even known if it did or did not. UPN was not even available to me until I switched to satellite, and I basically didn’t even see the show until after it had been cancelled. I caught a couple of episodes and then bought the dvd’s.

For the first couple of seasons, it was the same old Berman era stuff I never liked anyway. But the third and fourth seasons are (IMO) the best spinoff Trek I ever saw.

Everyone’s opinion is different, but I rank ENT’s 3rd and 4th season right after seasons 1 and 2 of TOS. I think it’s just too bad that Manny Coto wasn’t there from day one.

As for the movies, I haven’t even bothered to pay to see one in the theater in about 18 years.

For this one—I’ll be there with bells on.

222. Montreal Paul - February 26, 2009

220. A. .S.F.33
“Those series and movies you list turned out to have limited appeal in the existing fanbase and therefor did no do as well. If” you don’t give the majority of the audience what it wants to see, you CANNOT be succesfull just because you call it trek. ”

Alright, let’s run with your hypothesis for a sec. Name me one Trek series that every single fan enjoyed? There are TOS camps, TNG camps, DS9 camps etc. i love DS9 & ENT.. but others didn’t. Some LOVED TOS.. other didn’t, they loved TNG. Fact of the matter is.. you cannot have one series that every single Trek fan would support. Some of the best writing overall came from DS9 and ENT. Even TOS barely lasted 3 seasons because the lack of support by it’s fans. Get what I am meaning?

Remember, Enterprise did not have the “STAR TREK” name on it at first. It was the first series that didn’t.

In terms of the movies.. I will even say that I did not support them at the end. I didn’t see Insurrection or Nemesis at the theatres.. I only rented them when they came out on DVD. But then again.. there are people.. yes really.. that enjoyed those two movies.

So you see.. if every Trek fan loved every series, then there wouldn’t be a problem. Trek is not just Kirk and Spock.. it’s also Picard or Data or Sisko. And every single fan will like his or her own thing.

There is no way anyone can appease ALL the fans.. THAT is impossible. So maybe.. just maybe that is why they hired JJ for this Mission:Impossible… sorry.. couldn’t resist. But you catch what I’m saying?

223. Christine - February 26, 2009

I think it’s great that they’re really reaching out to other countries. And I think it’s important to note that while JJ says things like “we didn’t make this movie for Trekkies” or whatever he says, that doesn’t mean Trek fans can’t appreciate it. In fact, most (including myself) hopefully won’t be disappointed. It’s my understanding that while it has a new look, and a new groove, it has been and ever shall be… Star Trek.

#221 :: “..Everyone’s opinion is different, but I rank ENT’s 3rd and 4th season right after seasons 1 and 2 of TOS. I think it’s just too bad that Manny Coto wasn’t there from day one. …”

Totally agreed with you there. Lots of people don’t like the Xindi arc; I thought it was fantasmatastic. xD As for Season 1 of TOS… EPIC WIN. Well, WIN, anyways. ;3

#220 :: “….Actually what made Enterprise die out was the fact that the show did not appeal to the majority of the tartget audience. ….”

Actually, the producers of Enterprise weren’t exactly targeting the.. uh… original fan group. As I’ve seen in numerous interviews that came out around 2001-2002, i.e. the start of the series, they wanted to make it /clear/ that this wasn’t the regular ol’ Star Trek that’s been around for 40 years. And indeed, it was different. It feels a lot like that with ST09, with what we’ve seen/heard/know so far.

224. Chris Roberts - February 26, 2009

The fact Is every Interview he has given has had the same I was never really a fan(however like Nicholas Meyer with Star Trek II,IV,and VI that
amy not mean a bad movie) and this Isn’t for fans but the general audence.Now If It wasn’t for The writers talking some fans would be less
enthustic about the film.

I for one am willing to go along with new sets,and visuals and libities taken with Continuty If It means It can be part of the Universe.

While I watched The Next Generation I am a classic Trek trekker.My
Favorate Spin Off was DS9.Some great stuff there.The best stuff done
recently.Loved the Domonion war and the lead up to It.In fact My biggest
gripes with Insurrection and Nemesis was they didn’t deal with the war and aftermath.

I gave up on Enterprise during the second season however after later seeing the show on DVD this was a huge mistake on my part.The last 2 seasons(with the exception of the terrible finale) are great,and are ebtter than anythign of the Next generation and Voyager.While there are still bad episodes of the first 2 seasons the last 2 seasons have made It my third favorate Trek after Classic and DS9.

Voyager despite later adding the hottest Trek babe ever Jeri ryan Is the worst show of the franchise In my oporion.And It’s ashame DS9 often gets put In the same catergy as It.

My hope Is the new film does what the writers have siad and can appeal to both fans and non fans.

225. A. .S.F.33 - February 26, 2009

222. Montreal Paul – February 26, 2009 Alright, let’s run with your hypothesis for a sec. Name me one Trek series that every single fan enjoyed?”
Ok let’s play…I never said there would be ONE trek series that everyone liked. What I said was the most successful ones had the broadest appeal to the MAJORITY of viewers/fans. Some of these series like TOS actually gathered more fans in reruns and perhaps that may happen with something like Enterprise however, that point is
unproven

>>”Remember, Enterprise did not have the “STAR TREK” name on it at first. It was the first series that didn’t.<>Trek is not just Kirk and Spock.. <>>>There is no way anyone can appease ALL the fans.. THAT is impossible<<<< Agreed but you better hope you are pleasing the majority of them or you really won’t have a chance to be successfull.

All this marketing stuff JJ is putting out may get seats filled opening weekend but if he doesn’t generate possitive word of mouth buzz from people who have seen it, the numbers probably won’t hold up. Positive buzz will come only if he gives the majority of viewers/fans what they wanted to see and at this point that is still an unknown.

<<”So maybe.. just maybe that is why they hired JJ for this Mission:Impossible<<
OK good one LOL

226. johnny - February 26, 2009

1st of all i have to say…

WHAT THE Fuk is up with the green shoes…? i’ve heared of little green men and orion slave girls, but green shoes?

anyway, i wish i would have known they visited korea… I would have liked to have meet them.

Anyway, good that it will show here. Now i don’t have to waste $2,000 just to see star trek movie. lol

227. A. .S.F.33 - February 26, 2009

Don’t know what happened to some of my post 225 but it should read….

>>”Remember, Enterprise did not have the “STAR TREK” name on it at first. It was the first series that didn’t.<>Trek is not just Kirk and Spock.. <<
Actually as a Trek fan i agree with you, although they are my absolute favorites and TOS is the series i love the most. I do think though that JJ, Paramount et al, did realize that Kirk and Spock were indeed the most recognizable TREK to the rest of the world, It’s no coincidence they picked TOS as a starting point for all this as you can say those names most anywhere and have people know who they are and that they are associated with TREK.

228. AJ - February 26, 2009

“Watchmen” was decimated today by the Hollywood Reporter. They called it the “first real flop of 2009.”

Poor acting and production design/FX, etc. Sub-par fight scenes and bad costumes.

“That’s bad news for Warner Bros. and Paramount, which hold domestic and international rights, respectively. Opening weekends everywhere will reflect the huge anticipation of this much-touted, news-making movie. After that, the boxoffice slide could be drastic.”

Not a great choice for the new Trek trailer, I guess. Hopefully, we’ll get a good two weeks of exposure to cinema audiences before it disappears.

229. McCoy - February 26, 2009

175.

Thanks for crunching numbers, but what does “established Trek fans” mean.

1) I bet there’s a lot more Trek fans out there than that

2) I bet if they made this for fans…they would get family members too

3) Furthermore, I seriously would pay to see the classic Enterprise on the big screen 2, 3 or 4 times. With new effects and a John Barry-like soundtrack, it would make me happy to see it in full glory (even if the story was boring).

230. 24th Century Rockstar - February 26, 2009

I can’t get over how kickass AWESOME the casting is for this one! I definitely gotta agree with the guy who said Pine really does look more Kirk-like the more I see him. I like how they’re showing a more wholesome side of the cast for the international marketing in the eastern bloc – Saldana has the girl next door cuteness out in full swing.

On a tangent, It’s easy to forget how pop-cultures differ. I’ve always found some amusement at how eastern countries advertise their pop-stars (bubblegum-y but overall wholesome) in comparison to how the west swings hard for the sex fences.

- 24th!

231. Shatner_Fan_Prime - February 26, 2009

#228 … WATCHMEN is not going to bomb, in spite of what that rag says.

232. Harry Ballz - February 26, 2009

I think Pine’s green shoes are a hint as to what happens to you when you sleep with an Orion slave girl! Some part of you is bound to turn green!

233. Iowagirl - February 26, 2009

Alright, seems we have: Heathons, Tasteless (The Tastelessers?), and Herbert.

Although I like all of your suggestions, I’m voting for “Herbert”.

Your vote?

234. Closettrekker - February 27, 2009

#229—”Thanks for crunching numbers, but what does “established Trek fans” mean (?)”

People who were fans prior to Bad Robot signing on to do Star Trek.

“I bet there’s a lot more Trek fans out there than that”

Perhaps, but it is commonly suggested that there are about 2-2.5 million Trek fans (I am not the only one to mention that on this thread either). I can’t speak to the accuracy of that, but I would be surprised if the number were significantly higher than that.

“I bet if they made this for fans…they would get family members too”

Even if every one of those 2.5 million brought 3 family members—that’s still only 10 million tickets. If the “fans” see it an average of 3 times each, you could add another 5 million tickets. If the average ticket price is $10, that might break the budget even, but that’s not what you call a “Summer blockbuster”, is it?

If Paramount believed they could make a big budget fanboy film and get a return, it would have been done again and again in the last 30 years. As it stands, Paramount hasn’t (until now) felt comfortable with a big budget Star Trek movie since TMP.

“I seriously would pay to see the classic Enterprise on the big screen 2, 3 or 4 times.”

The “classic” Enterprise wasn’t deemed fit for the big screen 30 years ago (hence the “refit” in TMP). It was never going to happen now.

However, if it is a good movie, I’ll probably see it a few times myself.

If it isn’t, it certainly won’t be due to the look of the Enterprise. It will more likely be poor acting, writing, or directing, etc.. That is generally what makes a film bad.

I’m not expecting The Godfather Part II, but I have faith in the directing, casting, and scoring—that’s for sure. I also feel that the script must be pretty intriguing to have convinced Nimoy to reprise his role and Abrams to direct instead of merely produce, so I am expecting the writing to be good enough for a Star Trek movie.

235. Closettrekker - February 27, 2009

#225—”All this marketing stuff JJ is putting out may get seats filled opening weekend but if he doesn’t generate possitive word of mouth buzz from people who have seen it, the numbers probably won’t hold up. Positive buzz will come only if he gives the majority of viewers/fans what they wanted to see and at this point that is still an unknown.”

Positive buzz will come if the people who fill those seats on opening weekend feel that it is a good movie. The truth is, it has nothing to do with whether those people were established fans or not. If anything, the “positive buzz” about it may carry more weight if it comes from the general moviegoing public, rather than just a bunch of Trekkies and genre fans.

As for the numbers holding up, no one should expect TDK-type figures, but if it sits #1 at the box office for the first week and remains in the top 2 or 3 for a couple of weeks after that—-it will qualify as a “Summer blockbuster”—-and that is, after all, the goal.

236. Shatner_Fan_Prime - February 27, 2009

#235 … I truly am curious as to how this will perform at the box office. The road is certainly uphill after the dismal returns for Nemesis. Since Nemesis was the only ST movie NOT to debut at #1 on opening weekend, I think it’s a guarantee that XI will easily bring Trek back to that coveted #1 spot. But how it will hold up in subsequent weeks is the question.

I think overall it’ll do well. Especially with DVD sales now being a major factor and all this courting of the overseas markets. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the biggest Trek moneymakers thus far have been, in order:

1) TMP
2) TVH
3) FC

Right? It’ll be interesting to see where XI falls on the list.

237. Closettrekker - February 27, 2009

#236—-Sounds about right.

Here are the (unadjusted for inflation) numbers:

1 Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home Par. $109,713,132 11/26/86
2 Star Trek: First Contact Par. $92,027,888 2,812 11/22/96
3 Star Trek: The Motion Picture Par. $82,258,456 12/7/79
4 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Par. $78,912,963 6/4/82
5 Star Trek III: The Search for Spock Par. $76,471,046 6/1/84
6 Star Trek: Generations Par. $75,671,125 11/18/94
7 Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Par. $74,888,996 12/6/91
8 Star Trek: Insurrection Par. $70,187,658 12/11/98
9 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier Par. $52,210,049 6/9/89
10 Star Trek: Nemesis Par. $43,254,409 12/13/02

I’m not sure that, after adjusting for inflation, FC would even be in the top 5 (although I could be wrong)—but it certainly did the best of any Star Trek movie since the mid-80′s. My own opinion is that it tends to be overrated due to the poor company it keeps (its fellow TNG era movies).

TVH had crossover appeal to be sure. Everyone knows “the one with the whales”. :)

238. Shatner_Fan_Prime - February 27, 2009

#237 … What strikes me about that list is that Generations only made about a million more than TUC did. And this after Paramount ushered the TOS cast out so that the newer cast could “sell more tickets.” Sad. There should’ve been at least one more TOS era movie, IMO (though I know you feel they had already overstayed their welcome).

All the TOS stars were demonstrating their willingness to reprise their roles years after TUC in 1991. Shatner, Doohan, Takei and Koenig all got chances to do so. Even Nimoy was willing (as witness his early taks with Berman re. Generations). I wish Paramount had continued making TOS movies for at least 5 years longer than they did. If studio bosses felt that movies earning in the $70 million range weren’t profitable enough, moving them to the off season (early spring or fall), when there is less competition, might have been a good idea.

I’ve always felt that FC represented a spike in box office #’s solely because the Borg were so popular at the time. It was an anomoly, and all downhill from there.

239. Closettrekker - February 27, 2009

#238—” I wish Paramount had continued making TOS movies for at least 5 years longer than they did. ”

As do I. I would have been much happier if, after TVH, Kirk were given younger officers to play with on a new five year mission set immediately after the commissioning of the Enterprise-A. Several movies could have been made like this.

McCoy could have stayed on as Chief Medical Officer and (maybe) Scotty as Chief Engineer. Kirk would obviously remain Captain. But Sulu, Uhura and Chekov should have moved on. For obvious reasons, you would want Spock to be a part of at least some of the future stories, but he wouldn’t have to be an official part of the crew to do so. Unfortunately, his rank of Captain made his presence there somewhat ridiculous, IMO.

Anyway, the studio could have kept Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley—but surrounded them with up and coming faces.

The other option to me seems obvious—recast the characters and set new stories within the timeframe between Season 3 of TOS and TMP, or (in order to continue to utilize the refit Enterprise) between TMP and TWOK.

I thought the characters still had alot to offer and alot of ground to cover. I just didn’t feel that the original actors did (at least all together).

240. A. .S.F.33 - February 27, 2009

#235. Closettrekker – February 27, 2009 “Positive buzz will come if the people who fill those seats on opening weekend feel that it is a good movie. The truth is, it has nothing to do with whether those people were established fans or not. If anything, the “positive buzz” about it may carry more weight if it comes from the general moviegoing public, rather than just a bunch of Trekkies and genre fans”

Uhm Closet (can I call you closet? :) I NEVER said the buzz would come only come from the Trek fans. I SAID it would come from the viewers/fans, meaning ALL the supposed and hoped for NEW viewers AND of course all the trek fans that jj and team think are guaranteed to be there (I do feel they are a bit too smug about this last point however as i don’t think ALL trek fans will go ). If this movie fails to deliver what the majority of the viewing audience wants and likes, regardless of whom these movie goers are…. IT WILL NOT BE SUCCESFUL, The same way some of the previous trek series and movies didn’t do as well…They did not give the majority of the audience what it wanted to see. No movie or entertainment endeavor can be successful, if the majority of the viewing public doesn’t like it and therefore doesn’t go to see it.

241. Databrain - February 27, 2009

This notion that there are only somewhere between 2 and 4 million trek fans world wide is complete BOGUS. Otherwise the franchise would not have survived through the new millenium. The reason many of the several million trekkies went into hybernation is due to the fact that recent trek producers soiled roddenberries vision with mainstream garbage. It began in the late 90s and culminated with enterprise and now, prospectively, this new film. People who are coming up with this arbitrary number are almost as pathetic as the people who believe it.

242. AJ - February 27, 2009

Trek fans are certainly viable “Buzz creators,” as their friends and colleagues will ask if the film was any good. They’ll also be on the 11pm news in line for the midnight shows across the country. Trek and SW films always generate those news stories.

Let’s hope the actors themselves do the morning and late night TV circuits as they have done traditionally, and that that the movie and reviews are good enough to propel the film beyond opening weekend, and we should have a winner in traditional markets.

It’s the rest of the world that counts most of all.

243. Closettrekker - February 27, 2009

#240—”Uhm Closet (can I call you closet?”

I’d be honored.

” I NEVER said the buzz would come only come from the Trek fans. I SAID it would come from the viewers/fans, meaning ALL the supposed and hoped for NEW viewers AND of course all the trek fans that jj and team think are guaranteed to be there…”

Perhaps I should have stated right off the bat that I concurred. I didn’t intend my post to be argumentative.

“If this movie fails to deliver what the majority of the viewing audience wants and likes, regardless of whom these movie goers are…. IT WILL NOT BE SUCCESFUL…”

Agreed.

“The same way some of the previous trek series and movies didn’t do as well…They did not give the majority of the audience what it wanted to see.”

As well as failing to put their product on a medium where every Trek fan has the opportunity to see it (unlike the UPN).

“No movie or entertainment endeavor can be successful, if the majority of the viewing public doesn’t like it and therefore doesn’t go to see it.”

Common sense—except that a particular endeavor can be successful belatedly.

TOS is a perfect example, as is–to a lesser degree–ENT. Despite the cries of blasphemy and the difficulty some fans had even getting past the theme song, ENT is treated far better now (in fan circles) than it ever was while on the air. Much of the reason is that, by the time it hit its stride with Manny Coto’s direct involvement, many had stopped watching. There are others still, like me, who never even got the opportunity to watch much of it because of the limited availability of the UPN.

When I saw it on dvd, I found it far more entertaining than any of the other spinoffs. By the time I neared the end of the 4th season, I was sorry that I was running out of episodes to watch.

Nothing, however, excuses the finale….just awful. Valentine, my a$$.

244. Databrain - February 27, 2009

CLoset person said:

‘Positive buzz will come if the people who fill those seats on opening weekend feel that it is a good movie. The truth is, it has nothing to do with whether those people were established fans or not. If anything, the “positive buzz” about it may carry more weight if it comes from the general moviegoing public, rather than just a bunch of Trekkies and genre fans.’

But the ‘buzz’ won’t matter if it isn’t about the central trek message, which is essentially the Roddenberry vision. If it’s just a ‘buzz’ about a new clever action movie, then no one will care by this time next year. People buzzed a few weeks about the mission impossible movies or transformers, no one is discussing or debating those films nor their philosophies (as if they had any). They were, at their core, generic action films with a label slapped on them. If that is what this film is, ‘the buzz’ won’t matter. Because it’ll die very fast and no one will remember nor care when the next generic sci fi action movie comes out. Get it? Got it? Good.

245. AJ - February 27, 2009

Closettrekker (239) and Databrain (241):

I remember Dennis Bailey throwing that fan number around about 2 years ago.

Databrain, you have to realize that it’s not just Trek fans who watch. There are more casual viewers than fans. ENT was attracting under 4m viewers per broadcast in the US when it was canceled, and many Trekkers stayed away.

With no Trek since ENT, the number of loyal fans has most likely dropped. I think Ron Moore knows that, and he’s attracted many of them to his boutiquey “BSG,” which isn’t even doing half of ENT’s final numbers due to limited distribution.

With the new film, we’ll see the lapsed fans return, and hopefully many new ones as well.

246. AJ - February 27, 2009

244:

“The Roddenberry vision” is something JJ Abrams has mentioned often: The optimism of a positive human future should be all over this film. I just hope it doesn’t come in the form of a sledgehammer like it did in TNG’s early efforts.

The issue of Blacks, Asians, Russians and North Americans (and aliens) serving together is no longer worth trumpeting. I just hope the word “exploration” makes its way into the film at some point.

247. Databrain - February 27, 2009

245:

You can’t have it both ways. You must realize that by alienating the fluid fan base you are doing absolutely nothing of any sound cultural value. If this is just a generic sci fi action movie with treks label slapped on it, then what would be the point of it? Why not just make another starship troopers type generic sci fi film? It makes no sense what they seem to be doing here. And I emphasize the words ‘seem to be’.

248. Closettrekker - February 27, 2009

#241—”This notion that there are only somewhere between 2 and 4 million trek fans world wide is complete BOGUS. Otherwise the franchise would not have survived through the new millenium. ”

You mean–”crawled” into the new millenium.

Even at its peak (around 1986), the number of fans willing to pay to see a Star Trek movie do not support the notion that the number is significantly higher than the 2-2.5 million generally estimated.

“The reason many of the several million trekkies went into hybernation is due to the fact that recent trek producers soiled roddenberries vision with mainstream garbage. It began in the late 90s and culminated with enterprise and now, prospectively, this new film.”

Some of us went into “hybernation” much earlier than that, as evidence by the attendance in theaters for the TNG-era films. And what constitutes “garbage” is not the same for you as it is for me. I like ENT far better than any Trek I’ve seen since the mid-80′s.

“People who are coming up with this arbitrary number are almost as pathetic as the people who believe it.”

(sigh)…I see you haven’t learned any manners since your last visit to this site.

249. Databrain - February 27, 2009

I didn’t mind the mataphorical ‘sledge hammer’ in the first few seasons of the next generation. It made for a very futuristic feeling program. And despite its stark futurism, TNG is the most highly rated trek series to date. There were no compromises during its run. Every episode was thought provoking in some way, made the viewer ask a question, of some form or another. That is what this film should always be, first and foremost. It should force the viewers to ask several important questions, instead of just letting the philosophy aspect ride the coatails of bungie jumping generic action. If that is all it is, it will be a definite waste of the roddenberry namesake.

250. Databrain - February 27, 2009

Closet guy said:

‘Even at its peak (around 1986), the number of fans willing to pay to see a Star Trek movie do not support the notion that the number is significantly higher than the 2-2.5 million generally estimated.’

That was not its peak. Its peak was the early to mid 90s, when the geek era flourished. I guess it depends on what your definition of ‘peak’ is. If that definition depends on how much a film grossed, then people are actually thinking of STIV. If it has to do with how much fan activity there was, I believe that was the next generation, or so called geek era. Especially with regard to the convention circuit.

251. Closettrekker - February 27, 2009

#247—”You must realize that by alienating the fluid fan base you are doing absolutely nothing of any sound cultural value.”

That makes no sense whatsoever. Any speak for yourself. I consider myself a part of the fanbase, and I don’t feel the least bit alienated. Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof are also a part of that fanbase. I wonder if they feel alienated by their own work or the efforts of the director to attract sufficient numbers of moviegoers to the theaters…

“If this is just a generic sci fi action movie with treks label slapped on it, then what would be the point of it?”

Agreed, but how does that apply to STXI?

TOS was full of sci-fi action too. It was also ripe with sexuality and humor. These are things that STXI claims to have as well. Abrams is also insistent that the optimistic vision that the Original Series incorporated into its atmosphere is important to them as well.

So far—the only thing this film seems to have that TOS did not is a huge budget.

252. Closettrekker - February 27, 2009

#250—Most fans have never been to a convention. Most of us just like watching Star Trek in one form or another. Of course I was referring to the height of the movie era, since we are obviously talking about a Star Trek movie.

253. Closettrekker - February 27, 2009

I see nothing wrong with going back to the elements that made Star Trek (the original Star Trek) and its characters so entertaining during the height of its popularity (which was, of course, its many years in syndication).

Action, sexuality, humor, drama, the occasional social commentary, adventure, romanticism, and what defined “Roddenberry’s original vision” above all else—a vision of a possible future for Humanity in which the human race (as so often feared) does not destroy itself, but instead, unites to conquer the social ills which plague us today and to explore the ‘final frontier’.

254. Databrain - February 27, 2009

I always thought the television shows, because they were allowed to say more than the films, philosophically speaking, had more of a cultural impact than the films. But there are exceptions, Despite how many feel about Insurrection, it was a very culturally significant trek film. Perhaps this is why many felt it beared many similarities to a two part episode of the show. Either way, I would not alter anything about that particular entry into Trekdom. It is very important, culturally. It extended the message, it didn’t alienate.

255. Databrain - February 27, 2009

244:

I am tired of people saying ‘the occasional social commentary’. The original series was full of social commentary. There was not a single episode that did not say something about the world in which we live, to strike at the heart of the human condition. Albeit sometimes you had to read a little more deeply to see the message, but it was always there. There was nothing ‘occasional’ about it. And TNG heightened that message, naturally.

256. AJ - February 27, 2009

249: Databrain:

You know, I didn’t mind the “sledgehammer” when I watched TNG first-run in the late 1980s. I was in my early 20s.

But I’ve been watching 1st season re-runs on Sci-Fi these past days, and there’s a tendency for the writers to spell out the moral of the story so that we all get it. For example, in the excruciating “Angel One,” Riker has to explain to the leader of a society why killing rebels created martyrs, and why it’s bad.

In “Farpoint,” the whole episode is meant to prove that humans aren’t dummies, and they spend two hours bringing Q up to speed.

THAT’s how I define “sledgehammer.”

257. AJ - February 27, 2009

254:

“Insurrection” had a message for sure, but it was diluted by a horrid story and an embarrassing performance by F. Murray Abraham.

Also, it has one of those “Why didn’t they just…” moments, like “Why didn’t Frodo just fly on an eagle to Mt. Doom and drop the ring into the volcano?”

Why didn’t they just choose another part of the planet? Why remove the tiny stagnating hippie colony?

258. Databrain - February 27, 2009

257:

It is my understanding that the concentrated metaphasic radiation would have left the entire planet uninhabitable for some time. This is easily deduced from the dialogue contained within the film itself. Too bad you did not pay enough attention to it.

259. Closettrekker - February 27, 2009

#254—”Despite how many feel about Insurrection, it was a very culturally significant trek film.”

I find it to be a significantly boring Trek film, Klingon acne notwithstanding.

#255–Perhaps I should say, “the occasionally blatant social commentary”.

“And TNG heightened that message, naturally.”

—While leaving much of what was always appealing about Star Trek behind, in favor of technobabble, holodecks, the USS Hilton, android pinnochios, children on the bridge, and once challenging and cunning Klingons who have seemingly regressed to cavemen in space who like to sing drinking songs, are obsessed with imaginary honor, and eat live food—not to mention virtually turning Star Trek into a “geeks only” club…I’ll take my “chicken sandwich and coffee” over Earl Grey tea…Thank you very much.

And I don’t find TNG to have any heightened message about it, except that a century after TOS, the Universe (or at least the Federation) seems to have lost its romantic qualities.

260. Closettrekker - February 27, 2009

#258—”Too bad you did not pay enough attention to it.”

I guess they should have made a better movie.

261. AJ - February 27, 2009

258:

That’s assuming they go ahead with the project of collecting the particles. I was paying attention.

The message I got from “Insurrection” is the same one I got from “This Side of Paradise.” These people are a waste of space. An arrested society of perfectly coiffed California hippies. They spend decades grooming artists to make tapestries, yet some impossibly collective daze prevents them from moving beyond their self-imposed inertia. Picard defends them because he has to, and mostly because he has a hard-on for Anij

Also, the depiction of the Federation is ridiculous.

The movie is a Trek brain-fart.

262. Johnny - February 27, 2009

#237. Closetrekker: these unadjusted for inflation numbers you listed is only based on US box office gross.and not worldwide gross..

1. Motion Picture made $139* million worldwide gross.
2. Voyage Home made $ 133* million worldwide gross.

*(unadjusted for inflation )

263. The Quickening - February 27, 2009

#214
I guess to some, the highlighted division of “Trekkie and mainstream” is having a negative effect and is being seen as “Us verses them”–though that’s not the intent. That’s probably because some see Trekkies as a negative thing–both in the public and fandom. All that’s needed is a little tweaking. The main focus should be the improved product–the film itself. Highlight that first. Concentration on market break down, or whether Abrams was never a Trek fan, etc., should be secondary anyway.

264. Databrain - February 28, 2009

261 said:

‘That’s assuming they go ahead with the project of collecting the particles. I was paying attention.’
That was the presumed plan of the Sona throughout the entire film.

‘The message I got from “Insurrection” is the same one I got from “This Side of Paradise.” These people are a waste of space. An arrested society of perfectly coiffed California hippies.’

Who said the Ba’ku were in a state of arrested development? And how does one measure such? They are artists, they spend the majority of their lives creating, that is hardly a state of Stagnation. You should feel so lucky to get the urge to create a single work of art in todays maddening world of external distractions. Their society is ideal for artists, not stagnant people.

Otherwise the rest of what you said is waste and not worthy of reply.

265. Closettrekker - February 28, 2009

#263—”The main focus should be the improved product–the film itself. Highlight that first. Concentration on market break down, or whether Abrams was never a Trek fan, etc., should be secondary anyway.”

Absolutely. In the end, all that should matter is whether or not it is a good product that viewers (established fans and general moviegoers alike) enjoy.

266. Closettrekker - February 28, 2009

#262—”Closetrekker: these unadjusted for inflation numbers you listed is only based on US box office gross.and not worldwide gross..”

That is correct, and TMP’s numbers are far more staggering in comparison to the other films when actually adjusted for inflation.

267. AJ - February 28, 2009

TMP’s ww gross is $404.25m in today’s dollars. None of the others comes close.

268. Closettrekker - February 28, 2009

#267—And it remains one of my two favorite Star Trek films of all time.

McCoy: “Spock, this ‘child’ is about to wipe out every living thing on Earth. Now what do you suggest we do? Spank it?”

269. Gay Sci-Fi Nerds (GSFN) Podcast Show » Cult/Sci-Fi and Horror » Star Trek’s J.J. Abrams: ‘This film’s not for Trekkies’ - March 4, 2009

[...] that the movie is aimed not so much at longtime fans as at newbies, according to a report on TrekMovie.com. Abrams was joined by Chris Pine, who plays Capt. James T. Kirk, and Zoe Saldana, who plays [...]

270. Mariana Aispuro - July 1, 2011

Thanks for these tips. One thing I should also believe is the fact that credit cards providing a 0% rate of interest often bait consumers in with zero interest, instant approval and easy on the net balance transfers, nevertheless beware of the real factor that may void your 0% easy road annual percentage rate and also throw anybody out into the bad house in no time.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.