Does Hollywood Care About The Fans? | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Does Hollywood Care About The Fans? June 25, 2014

by Brian Drew , Filed under: CBS/Paramount,ST: Into Darkness Sequel,Star Trek Into Darkness,Trek Franchise , trackback

A new article from Forbes is sparking some debate on how much Hollywood studios value franchise fans, including Star Trek fans. The article even caught the interest of Star Trek writer/producer (and soon to be director) Roberto Orci, who was mentioned in it. More below.

Does Hollywood Care About The Fans?

When digital effects became a mainstream filmmaking tool in the early 90′s, it gave filmmakers the ability to stretch their imaginations and envision concepts that would’ve been considered impossible to realize just 10 years earlier.  The technical progress that came forth over the ensuing two decades has been a boon for geeks everywhere, who finally got to see live-action, big screen depictions of iconic characters like Spider-Man and X-Men and have even gotten to see projects get made that were once considered unfilmable, like Watchmen. The studios found a whole new source of box office and licensing revenue and now flock to San Diego Comic Con every year to give fans sneak previews of their latest projects and often bring cast members along.   All in all, it’s been a good time to be a geek.

But according to Forbes’ Scott Mendelson, geek influence in the movie business has been overstated.  Mendelson believes that recent controversies surrounding Edgar Wright’s departure from Ant Man, Drew Goddard’s departure from the Daredevil series, and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman, as well as other controversies, don’t have the influence on studio decision-making that fans would like to think.  He also believes their box office importance is exaggerated:

It’s not that Hollywood doesn’t care about or doesn’t appreciate the geek fandom. It’s just that said geek fandom doesn’t make up very much total box office for a given film.

He cites (and it could be said, overgeneralizes) fan reaction to Star Trek Into Darkness and Bob Orci’s appointment as the director of the next Trek film as an example:

The casual moviegoers that propelled Star Trek Into Darkness to $467 million worldwide thought it was an entertaining science-fiction adventure with a fun cast and strong special effects. They didn’t care about the whole “Is Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan?” controversy or the hamfisted callbacks to Wrath of Khan or the 9/11-truther undertones. It was the hardcore Star Trek fans who took to the Internet to proclaim the film to be the “worst Star Trek film ever.” But Paramount (a division of Viacom, Inc.) knows that most of those  ”Trekkies” will still show up for Star Trek 3 in summer 2016 no matter how much they disagree with the choice of Roberto Orci as director.

It isn’t clear what the Forbes writer is using as a source for the claim that Trek fans “disagree” with the choice of Roberto Orci. And it could be argued that Paramount is actually playing to the fans by giving Orci the chair, as he has been the most fan-friendly of all the producers involved in the last two films.

Bob Orci himself took notice of the article tweeted out a link (and posted a comment here at TrekMovie) asking for reactions to this article.

[NOTE: TrekMovie has verified that '@realboborci' is indeed the real Bob Orci, now under a new Twitter account]

So, what are your thoughts?  Is Mendelson right in saying that fans are being taken for granted, or do you think fan opinions carry weight?

 

POLL

Do you think that Paramount cares about Trek fans?

Does Paramount Care About Trek Fans?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

 

Comments»

1. Harry Ballz - June 25, 2014

Hollywood rewards fan loyalty by stepping all over us on the way to the bank!

2. Harry Ballz - June 25, 2014

Hollywood is supposed to be a combination of Art meets Commerce.

Too bad Art left town 20 years ago.

3. Darkwater - June 25, 2014

As a fanboy himself who’s worked in the fanboy-Hollywood area, I can say that it’s a double-edged sword. Fanboys are the most vocal and can definitely have an impact on public perception, but the actual fanboy numbers themselves are tiny.

Think about Comic-Con’s overall attendance. If you got all 150,000 people to go see a major Hollywood blockbuster, it would have very little impact. That’s why it’s treated as more of a press event than anything else these days.

4. Jay Margolis - June 25, 2014

I have yet to meet a real person that didn’t like Star Trek Into Darkness and saw it. I think if anything whoever doesn’t care about those people knows they are a small fraction of a small fraction. Can’t please everyone. To say that not obeying whatever a small fraction of a small fraction wants is like saying we should have to elect an Amish president because they’re maybe the smallest faction in our country.

5. Logical Chaos - June 25, 2014

Hollywood is right. In the end, fanboys (like me) will go see the movie.

Hollywood needs to cater to a broader audience who may not be fans after all. They need to find elements which may trigger a prospective audience to buy that golden ticket.

Star Trek fanboys are getting older. To some extent, the fans of long time ago are getting fewer and fewer. So Hollywood needs to tap a new younger audience to fill in those seats.

And that’s showbiz, folks.

6. Phil123 - June 25, 2014

It’s not about if Hollywood cares about the fans. It’s about Hollywood not caring about films that make sense, that have depth or any originality. Movies that look amazing but fall apart when you think about them are becoming increasingly common in the big blockbuster genre. Star Trek ID was very well made, but it wasn’t very well written.

7. Hat Rick - June 25, 2014

I’m a bit irritated by the overstatement sometimes made by the less-informed that Trek fans believe that STID is the “worst” movie in the franchise, simply because a vote of — what? a few hundred fans? — was taken at a convention somewhere, once upon a time.

I, for one, have strongly support Abrams’ movies, although I’ve been increasingly frustrated by the lengthy delays associated with them. And, as well, I’ve come to see the biases that I have in favor of such movies, over time. But nevertheless, I’m a fan of the latest movies.

The overall situation is complicated and contextual. There is a sense in which without the fan base, there is no franchise. One could never remake Flash Gordon at this point, because there aren’t enough aficionados of that particular character (notwithstanding that a remake was made as recently as 1980). In a completely different context, no one would ever consider remaking any of Charlie Chaplin’s movies featuring his central character, The Little Tramp, because there’s neither an appeal to it any more, nor a fan base — despite the fact that Chaplin is widely considered a comic genius.

But it is also a truism that the fan base is simply not enough to sustain a big-money production. For that, there are dozens of other factors to be considered.

Let’s look at the Iron Man series of movies. Before the very first such movie, how big was the base of Iron Man devotees? Not very, to say the least. And yet the Iron Man movies, once they were made, turned out to be extremely successful. It was the movies, and the stars, that generated the fan base that in turn made movies even more successful.

There is a feedback loop, therefore, and a virtuous cycle of mutual reinforcement.

Something tells me that, this time, the beancounters are actually right: You can’t depend solely on the fan base. However, without a growing fan base, all the counting in the world, eventually, wouldn’t amount to a hill of said beans. It’s not a zero-sum equation; it’s an evolving process of growth. A fan base may be necessary to the continuation of a franchise, but it is not, in itself sufficient.

8. Harry Ballz - June 26, 2014

They can ignore the fans, but that doesn’t mean the movie has to be crap.

How about making a movie with a GREAT story and THEN add the action scenes to it?

Imagine if the word-of-mouth about a movie was that it had an AMAZING story to it? Real depth with meaning. One for the ages. A classic.

Nah, that makes too much sense!

That would require hiring writers with actual talent.

Good luck finding that in Hollywood.

Studios don’t do it because they can get away with piecing together pure crap with big explosions to distract the audience. Bread and circuses, indeed.

Pitiful.

9. Alt-Spock - June 26, 2014

I am a Trek fan. I gave the first JJ movie a shot, but after that mockery no way was I going to see STID.

Really though I don’t think the problem was (only) the Director – the god awful script was painful. The fact Orci was involved with the writing does not bode well, IMO.

10. MPMonroe - June 26, 2014

While I believe it is important to listen to, appreciate, and give fans their due, I think too much fan input is a detriment. Is so-called fans would have had their complete say in the previous two films, they would have been financial flops.

It is the responsibility of the studio, director, and writers to strike a balance in order to create broader appeal. Fans may not want to admit it, but we rely on the casual moviegoers to support what we love. We need to attract them in order to have more Star Trek. I gladly sacrifice what I believe should be done as a fan versus what appeals to a bigger audience if it means Star Trek stays relevant while being true to what it is at its heart. That is something I believe JJ, Orci, and company have done beautifully for us. It is something more fans should understand and appreciate.

11. art wolff - June 26, 2014

Star Trek Into Darkness is viewed by most people the BEST Star Trek movie. Trekkies and non nerds alike.
The writer of the Forbes article like many writers and critics when writing about the Sci-Fi and or comic book movie culture are neophytes and do not have any real knowledge or experience with this subject.Since this part of our culture is now popular and making money some uneducated in the subject will nevertheless attempt to add their 2 cents in an attempt to shower themselves with popularity and monetary back spray.

12. tribble314 - June 26, 2014

@realboborci is *not* Roberto Orci. The description for the account is “An internet character designed for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to Roberto Orci is part of a conspiracy.”

The real Roberto Orci deleted his twitter account after insulting fans.

13. Aurore - June 26, 2014

“Thoughts on this?”

__________

(As far as Star Trek is concerned), it reminds me of an old article I read while waiting for my DVD of Star Trek (2009) ( a movie I only had the opportunity of watching for the very first time in November of 2009. A good film, from my perspective; I enjoyed it tremendously ) :

“… Trek has been going downhill for the last 10 years and if we expect it to be around 20 years from now we will have to take some bold steps that might be controversial at first but we are sure to bring new fans to the dying franchise

New fans? what about the old fans?
Although their source is unnamed and not very diplomatic, it is true that Trek needs new fans to remain vital going forward. Abrams built in fanbase should help (as would the fanbase of any ‘star’, like Damon for example). IESB’s ‘source’ elaborated on his views of Trek fandom

“Trek fans were not able to keep the last show (Enterprise) on the air and we are looking on bringing over ‘Alias’ and ‘Lost’ fans and if the old Trekkies like the new movie great, if not too bad. We have to boldly go were no Star Trek has gone before.”

http://trekmovie.com/2006/08/17/paramount-source-trek-xi-is-for-a-new-generation-shatner-rejected/

…From the Forbes article :

“…The casual moviegoers that propelled Star Trek Into Darkness to $467 million worldwide thought it was an entertaining science-fiction adventure with a fun cast and strong special effects. They didn’t care about the whole ‘Is Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan?’…”

Personally, I cared about the fact that an English man portrayed an Indian character, in 2013 in a ( Star Trek ) movie . I still do.

….I know ; as an “unnamed source ” would say ; ” too bad “…

14. david oakes - June 26, 2014

I think if Paramount simply wanted to make money then it would have given Star Trek to Michael Bay back in 2009.

The very thought of that makes me sick.

15. Disinvited - June 26, 2014

It’s a tale as old as time that is being misdirected to unnecessarily slam fans.

Look, when Hollywood studios option best selling books to make into movies as they have from the beginning, TARZAN, THE WIZARD OF OZ, GONE WITH THE WIND, THE MASTER OF THE WORLD, THE TIME MACHINE, JAMES BOND, THE PLANET OF THE APES, HARRY POTTER, TWILIGHT, THE HUNGER GAMES, etc. they are lying through their teeth if they claim the reason they are doing it is because they don’t give a damn about the eyeballs that made those works best sellers.

What Hollywood has traditionally ignored is not the fans per se but the originating creators of the tales and their characters themselves. Most of the time in the past the studios have optioned best sellers not out of some altruistic need to realize a great work of art on a broader canvas but for the simple name recognition boost that it gives their marketing efforts and that this right to slap these easily recognized names on a movie could be had for a mere pittance of the amount of money they’d have to spend in a marketing campaign for a movie based on an original script.

If there is any basis for this claim of Hollywood needing to actively ignore fans, it is probably more of backlash because of the consternation studios and productions have at finding out that as the era of greater communications through technology eases our ability to do just that, these authors and creators don’t just write works, but write to each other. And thus, these best selling titles are no longer so easily purchased and they come with provisos such as “script approval”, “casting vetoes”, “director approval”, etc.

So to fight this increasing feeling of creative claustrophobia, traditional Hollywood types feel the need to lash out. But I think that’s all it ultimately is.

Besides, even if there is such a thing as a critical “fan” mass that can be achieved at which point the studios can take them for granted it is very doubtful STAR TREK movies have achieved this.

From STARLOG, July 1982, Issue No. 60:

http://archive.org/stream/starlog_magazine-060/060_djvu.txt

“[STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE] turned a global
profit of over $175 million.” — Ed Naha, “The Re-Making of Star Trek”, STARLOG, July 1982, Issue No. 60

When that figure is adjusted for inflation, the current films aren’t far outstripping it. They are doing respectable comparable biz, but critical fan ignoring mass???

I don’t know where Bob Orci’s head is on this but I wouldn’t want to build my ticket sales projections believing only those core fans who showed up for NEMESIS and will do so regardless, matter.

16. Oscar - June 26, 2014

Marvel cinematic universe is made for fans. Great success. Iron Man, The Avengers, Capt. America…

Abramverse is made for casual movigoers. Mediocre success.

Marvel cinematic universe is the formula: a extended universe made by fans with talent for fans.
Nu trek universe must die, if Paramount wants to build a extended trek universe , they need the original timeline. The original thing is the best. If Paramount wants a extended trek universe, they will reboot this poor and badly made nu trek. Stid was a piece of garbage made for casual movigoers and it lost money in America…

Abrams said you cannot earn money with movies made for fans….hahaha, and he is shooting a star wars movie made for fans. And you know what, Abrams? The Avengers….
Oh, true he despised star trek, this is the why he did not want to shoot a trek movie for fans…
Star Trek needs a Josh Whedon, a Singer, with Orci you can have stupid nu trek movies, Crash trek movies, GIJOE trek movies, but you will never have a true STAR TREK movie.

17. Dot - June 26, 2014

The more I reflex on the movies, the more I see the gaping holes and disappointments – and I still want to watch them again and look forward to the next installment.

Yes, the reboot lacks the depth, emotion, and thoughtfulness of the original. They are still fun and deliver a shot of excitement to space exploration and science fiction. Cosmos brought physics and science to the masses. I hope that the Star Trek movies can continue to balance the needs and wants of long time fans while pulling in new ones.

18. Admiral_Bumblebee - June 26, 2014

I think in todays times, movie making could and should be done differently.
We live in times of crowdfunding, open sourcing, crowdforging etc. Why not do this kind of open development for movies as well?

Yes, yes, the story should be a “surprise” etc.

But, why not include those who do not care about being spoiled into the creative process? Why not talk about the story by doing some crowdforging/crowdsourcing etc.? You can never be so close to the fans and those who will pay for your product than by including them into the process.
You could test some things, look how well they are received, tweak things up until the fans are satisfied and then you would know that it would be well received instead of hoping that everything you did in your secret little chamber will work.
Those who do not want to be spoiled don’t have to participate.

Maybe it’s time to come out into the open with creating movies just like games are doing and doing it really well.

19. Bobby H - June 26, 2014

Does Hollywood Care About The Fans?

o answer this i need to ask another question.

The new ones or the old ones?

If it can get more new ones then no.
If it can’t then yes.

This is just my opinion and i will continue to support anything that gets Trek continuing to hit our screens, I like the new (parallel) universe. However i also grew up and like the old universe.

20. star trackie - June 26, 2014

The first problem, where Star Trek is concerned, lies in the definition of “fan”. There are far too many factions of fandom all residing under the same “Trek” umbrella. TOS-IS-Star Trek fans, TNG-is best-Trek-I grew-up-with Fans, Ds9-is-the-best fans, I-grew-up-with-Voyager fans, 4th-season-Enterprise-is-the-best fans…then there are the I love TMP, TMP is too slow, Nick Meyer, Even number, TOS film only, JJ Trek Rocks, JJ Trek sucks, Trek 5 sucks, Shatner sucks, Let-Frakes-Direct fans. It’s exhausting.

The studio shouldn’t pander to ANY of them. They look at the numbers. JJ’s Trek is raking in numbers that have never been seen before. Sorry, I-hate-the Lens Flares and Orci-can’t-write-his-way-out-of-a-paper-bag fans…Bad Robot Trek is not going anywhere. And that makes me, a JJ fan, very happy! :)

21. dswynne - June 26, 2014

It’s not just fans of ‘Trek. Look at the fan reaction to other franchises, such as the Transformers and the comic book films.

22. R.E.Moore - June 26, 2014

Cry, whine or complain in the end U will not STOP! going to the movies. Hollywood knows this. Besides there’s a “new” generation of movies-goers coming up & they’re money spends as well as yours!

23. Hector Torres - June 26, 2014

Since Michael Piller opened the doors to fans write for TNG, Paramount has never cared about fans. The finest TNG episodes were written by those fans who now are at the helm of many new succesful series in TV. Paramount is just completelly shortsighted. Too bad. No light at the end of the tunnel. Hopefully, Bob Orci will ammend things. Regards from Mexico to all ST fans.

24. DaltonB - June 26, 2014

Yes Orci is the most fan-friendly from the last 2 films – instead of spitting on you after they kick you in the head like the rest, he just kicks you in the head. Much better.

25. Captain Conrad - June 26, 2014

@1

Spot on. Clicked on this pretty much to say that, Don’t get me wrong, there are some writers and directors who do care, but overall the producers want money and they don’t care how it’s made as long as it makes money. Both the new Trek films have been successful because they are both Space Action Adventure Films… In Space.

26. TUP - June 26, 2014

So….we fans dont make up enough of an audience to make a difference but they also dont care if they piss us off because we will all show up?

I beg to differ. If the fandom didnt matter, they could have slapped the words Star Trek on anything that was flashy and it would sell.

I maintain that Nimoy’s public involvement in Star Trek attracted a great many lapsed fans.

Most of my non-trekkie friends saw the movie sometime after it opened because the word of mouth was good (and most of them needed me to explain to them WTF was going on so they could have a fuller appreciation of it).

If they are talking only about the hardest of hardcore fans, then maybe. But thats a pretty ignorant position to take.

27. Nony - June 26, 2014

Simple answer. If Hollywood actually paid attention to what was going on with fans, Star Trek Into Darkness wouldn’t have contained the whitewashing and casual misogyny it did. “Caring about fans” is no longer simply a question of “we have to keep our geeks happy by getting the Klingon pronunciation and the look of the spaceship right.” Fans are now demanding that their media reflect and respect the diversity of the real world. Female, queer, and POC moviegoers – who all together probably constitute a majority of people buying tickets to a Star Trek movie, much as Paramount would like to make that fact go away – have traditionally had their needs and wants ignored by the entertainment industry, but are now growing more powerful and outspoken about what they want to see, and Hollywood is going to have to start to keeping up with that in years to come. Star Trek Into Darkness was unfortunately behind the curve in most respects, which is why many people I’ve spoken to and many in fandom disliked it.

28. LogicalLeopard - June 26, 2014

The whole concept of this article is somewhat flawed, because it’s assuming that a majority of the fans don’t like the new Star Trek shows. I think it’s a vocal minority. Even on this website, when they had the polls after the Thursday midnight premiere, and through the weekend, I remember that the majority of people thought it was either excellent or good.

Bottom line: Movies are made to make MONEY. Television shows are made to make MONEY. Star Trek, has ALWAYS been produced to make money. It’s not an episodic art film that somehow made it on CBS. It was a profitable show that stayed on the air until it became unprofitable, then was resurrected when they found out it was more profitable than they initially thought. And it stated in the theatre and on the air until it became unprofitable again. Now it’s profitable, and better yet, it’s being spread to other people.

Star Trek is not a private serenade to a few fans, it’s an album released for as many people as possible to enjoy. And sorry, I know a lot of people think it’s grown out of tune, but I still hear the same type of music. It’s a little different, but still the same thing I fell in love with. I’d compare it to the group Sade. Over the years, they might have added a little more electric guitar and lost the jazzy/disco sound, but if you liked them in the 80′s, you’ll like them in the 00′s as well.

29. LogicalLeopard - June 26, 2014

Also, there are two definitions of fan. There are people who love a particular thing, and there are people who like a particular thing, but wall themselves into an elitist group and feel that they “own” the particular thing. Hollywood doesn’t care about the latter. They’re going to complain, and you’ll NEVER be able to please them.

As far as the former group, Hollywood listens to them to a degree. People had some misgivings about some areas of the first Star Trek movie. They changed them in some cases (Engineering/Brewery), or addressed them (Kirk’s rise to Captain).

30. LogicalLeopard - June 26, 2014

16. Oscar – June 26, 2014
Marvel cinematic universe is made for fans. Great success. Iron Man, The Avengers, Capt. America…

Abramverse is made for casual movigoers. Mediocre success.

Marvel cinematic universe is the formula: a extended universe made by fans with talent for fans.

******************************************

The Marvel universe still has enough substantial changes that would enrage Marvel fans of the caliber or Star Trek fans. Some of the changes were completely unnecessary. Khan played by a white guy? How about Jarvis not being a GUY at all, but a computer program? Speaking of, there were purists who found fault with the casting of the Norse gods in Thor. Hogun being Asian? Heimdall being black? They’re NORSE gods, and thus should be portrayed by Nordic looking people, the argument went. Plus, they didn’t like the downgrade from them being gods to more like Aliens. Jane Foster is a physicist instead of a nurse? Why isn’t Bucky a kid in Captain America? 17 year olds can join the marines, why not make him 17?

But for many people, those arguments never reached their ears, because they were casual fans and moviegoers. Same thing with Star Trek, most people won’t care.

31. Elias Javalis - June 26, 2014

Fans and Star Trek Fans are undoubtedly Sweet Persons who follow their heart and passion, they re very Imaginative and the rest of people tends to find that…odd? Maybe?
But that’s ok, it’s wonderful to feel Special!

Studio’s like Paramount , (and like all Major Corps.) have Advisors and Analysts and Generous People, (like Bob Orci – otherwise he would not have come here).
Their Job is to Get the “pulse” and make decisions.

32. Red Dead Ryan - June 26, 2014

The problem with Star Trek fandom is the high percentage of vocal Talifans and fundamentalists who will automatically crap on something that is new and different from what they’re accustomed to. They’ll think they’re the majority by belittling and persecuting those who have enjoyed the BR movies. These folks resort to the “Abrams raped and butchered Trek” argument out of pure vile and hate. There are fans like these in the comic book and “Star Wars” genres as well, but Trek Talifans are the most militant, and numerous. They are the minoriy, but unfortunately, especially on this site, they tend to be the loudest, crudest, rudest, sensationalist, outrageous, and partial as you will ever witness.

The BR movies have been the most successful, in terms of bringing in new fans. The Talifans don’t like this fact, and are continually doing their best to spoil the fun for everyone else. But it ain’t going to work. The success of the reboot movies have proven it.

33. Kev-1 - June 26, 2014

The fans are important long term, because they are the ones buying the merchandise. The last two films were successful (though it’s important to note that domestic box office dropped for STID) but the money they made, while impressive, is not that much against the millions in fees paid for licensing five Star Trek TV shows worldwide, plus the money gained through merchandising. Every time a TV station runs a Trek show, they have to pay. New York pays, Cleveland pays, Poland pays — ad infinitum. Also what is a fan? Plenty of people enjoy and watch Star Trek, but will never visit a site such as this, or buy an action figure or model kit. Some new fans will be created by the reruns of old shows. Good stories are timeless. Even if we had holodecks, a good story would work, but last years cutting edge FX would be instantly rendered obsolete.

34. boborci - June 26, 2014

on related note, thoughts?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2014/06/13/why-audience-fatigue-isnt-really-hurting-spider-man/

35. Ahmed - June 26, 2014

@Brian Drew

“It isn’t clear what the Forbes writer is using as a source for the claim that Trek fans “disagree” with the choice of Roberto Orci.”

I guess that you didn’t follow the discussions on various Trek sites, when the news broke out, from Trekmovie, Trekcore to Reddit & other forums where many people disagreed with the idea of hiring a first time director like Orci.

36. Ahmed - June 26, 2014

@32. Red Dead Ryan

“The BR movies have been the most successful, in terms of bringing in new fans. The Talifans don’t like this fact, and are continually doing their best to spoil the fun for everyone else.”

So people didn’t like the BR Trek because it brought in new fans !! What a dumb idea even for you, RDR.

There are more serious problems with the new BR Trek, specially STID, which we talked about here for a million time & I assure you that bringing in new fans is NOT one of them :-)

37. NuFan - June 26, 2014

The vocal minority brought it on themselves. And they deserve it.

When you rant like an elderly maniac about the beautiful canon, and when you are clearly lying through your teeth to bring back an old universe, of course you will be dismissed by Hollywood.

I think Hollywood is even ignoring the perfectly sane fans now. We can thank the true fans for that.

38. I am not Herbert - June 26, 2014

HEY!! How come i can’t vote?!? =(

“Do you think that Paramount cares about Trek fans?”

with regard to cinematic product: it speaks for itself – DEFINITELY NOT! =(

with regard to profit extraction: it speaks for itself – YOU BET ‘YER @$$!! =(

39. I am not Herbert - June 26, 2014

34. boborci: re: thoughts?

i’m really starting to dis-like you… =(

40. Ahmed - June 26, 2014

@ 37. NuFan – June 26, 2014

“The vocal minority brought it on themselves. And they deserve it.”

Agreed, Hollywood was always listening to the fans since the silent movie era but now they are running away from us! They should send us all to the concentration camps immediately!

41. JRT! - June 26, 2014

Well I loved ASM 2! I know I’m one of the few,especially the socalled fanboys. I’m not a fanboy,I just like what I like and don’t overanalyze it or pick it to shreds. I’ll probably enjoy the new Turtles movie as well,LOL! And Spidey wasn’t a failure,despite what some people might believe. Look at what it’s earned,and more to come when it’s released on dvd/br.

So thanks Bob,for ASM 2! And for still being involved in the Trek comic by the way,which I also love. Don’t care what anyone says or thinks about that,lol!

J-R!

42. tom vinelli - June 26, 2014

Before we dismiss the new director of Star trek 3, how about they get the movie made then we can bitch & moan all we want. Will this director make a film we want as fans, I doubt it, for one thing JJ will still be the producer. Producers have to make sure the movie caters to the masses, not just a certain group of fans. Even this round with the Hobbit films are a far cry from the books and the Lord of the rings series. I can’t wait till the Star war fans start bashing JJ for that up coming film. It not because it will be a bad film , it just Star War fans can be just as vocal as Star Trek fans. I will say the next Trek film will be much like the first 2. Hey ,its all about making money , when will movie goers get that. Even if Orci wants to make a Trek fan film , it won’t happen, He is going to have to meet the studio in the middle, it will always be that way. The Trek of the past is now in fan made films. That Trek is gone, the times are different now. But as they say things that go around ,come around. Maybe 30 years from now someone will try to do Trek like it was done before.

43. Trekbilly - June 26, 2014

I’ll go on record as stating that THIS fan is NOT against Bob Orci as director! Quite the opposite!!

44. Trekbilly - June 26, 2014

“Bottom line: Movies are made to make MONEY. Television shows are made to make MONEY. Star Trek, has ALWAYS been produced to make money. It’s not an episodic art film that somehow made it on CBS. It was a profitable show that stayed on the air until it became unprofitable, then was resurrected when they found out it was more profitable than they initially thought. And it stated in the theatre and on the air until it became unprofitable again. Now it’s profitable, and better yet, it’s being spread to other people.”

*********************************************

Word.

45. I am not Herbert - June 26, 2014

I own I.M., Thor, Cap, Hulk, Avengers on blu-ray… TOS S1-3 on blu-ray…

nu-trek? don’t make me LAUGH!! =P

we tried it in ’09… it sucks even worse now… =(

46. DarExc - June 26, 2014

All they care about is money, just like the actors at the conventions, they don’t care about you, me, or Star Trek, if there was no pay check, they wouldn’t be there. If the fans are worth more money than the non-fans, they’re get a movie for fans, otherwise it’ll be for non-fans. It’s not very hard to figure out and it makes sense. We’ll get a few nods but nothing more.

47. Oscar - June 26, 2014

32.
My friend, I like new things, if new and intelligent things, but I dislike new and silly things…new Galactica is Ok, because is new, intelligent and quality stuff…Nu Trek is more brawn than brain, it is a noisy and silly show…a movie for easy movigoers…
Crash Trek …
Interstellar will be true sci fi for intelligent people and it will earn more money than Orci’s Crash Trek….

48. Cygnus-X1 - June 26, 2014

6. Phil123 – June 25, 2014

Hear, hear.

49. Buzz Cagney - June 26, 2014

I do agree with the assessment of STiD. ‘Hamfisted’ indeed. As to whether they care about the hardcore fans, well, I have my doubts given they’ve invited back one of those responsible for STiD to not only write the next one but to direct it too.
I guess this is Orci’s one big opportunity to show it was the other guys who made the last movie the dogs dinner that it was.

50. Cygnus-X1 - June 26, 2014

13. Aurore – June 26, 2014

“Trek fans were not able to keep the last show (Enterprise) on the air…

This is a misleading statement in that it ignores the real problems of the show.

I’m a “Trek fan,” and I had become so disillusioned with Berman Trek by the time of ENT that I simply lost interest when Season 2 failed to be much of an improvement over Season 1. It was only people here, years ago, strongly recommending that I check out Season 4 that prompted me to do so. And I’m certainly glad that I did, because it rocks (and so does Season 3, IMO).

But I see people here comment all the time that they didn’t like ENT. Whether or not they’ve seen Season 4, I can’t say, but I suspect that they gave up on the series like I did during its original run.

The point being that “the fans” were not immune from the problems with Berman-era Trek. TNG was hugely popular with general audiences. DS9 and VOY split that audience share, each ending up with half (or less in the case of VOY) of what TNG had had.

VOY was a disappointment to fans as well as to general audiences, as was NEMESIS. By the time of ENT, much of the goodwill of the fans had simply dried up. We’d stuck through an entire series (VOY) and a string of feature films which had all failed to live up to their predecessors. The TNG films got progressively worse after FC.

So, while there are those fans (God bless them) who will simply put up with and support literally anything with the Star Trek label on it, that particular breed of devotee is not representative of the entire “fan” base and, as the article states, those unconditional Trek lovers are not numerous enough to keep a bad show on the air.

51. Cygnus-X1 - June 26, 2014

25. Captain Conrad – June 26, 2014

@1Spot on. Clicked on this pretty much to say that, Don’t get me wrong, there are some writers and directors who do care, but overall the producers want money and they don’t care how it’s made as long as it makes money. Both the new Trek films have been successful because they are both Space Action Adventure Films… In Space

And that’s pretty much the stereotype of the acquired property.

Some corporate exec just isn’t going to care as much about Star Trek as the people who created it and contributed so much creatively to it. Frankly, it’s surprising that there was so much good Trek turned out by Paramount after GR got sick and passed away.

In his Movie Memories book, Shatner depicts GR as something of a curmudgeon whose involvement was limited to firing off memos of complaints about the films during production, memos which were largely ignored by the producers. But it sure seems like GR’s presence had some effect on those movies. Or maybe it was just lucky that Paramount put Harve Bennett in charge? And/or maybe it was just a different era, when Paramount was content to balance quality and substance with profits? Maybe there was a residual artistic conscience at Paramount in those days?

It’s hard to know exactly what accounts for the good and bad in Trek. My impression is that the culture in place while GR was alive kept on for a while in his absence—and GR’s decision to put Michael Piller in charge of the TNG writing was obviously a good one. But eventually, that culture obviously ended. Berman Trek was very different from the Trek made while GR was alive.

52. Ahmed - June 26, 2014

An interesting review from Matt Goldberg at Collider

==========================
TRANSFORMERS: AGE OF EXTINCTION Review

Going into Transformers: Age of Extinction, I wondered who was excited for this movie? What in the marketing convinced them that, to quote the tagline, “The Rules Have Changed”? If anything, these movies hew closely to the rules of the franchise: Create as much mayhem as possible, make the plot insultingly stupid, the characters should be dull as dishwater, and bonus points for squeezing in any racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Yes, these movies are “criticproof”. They’re not for people who watch movies for a living; they’re for people who want to “turn off their brains”.

But the latest Transformers is the most mind-numbing yet. It’s an exhausting experience that tries to do everything, and yet accomplishes absolutely nothing. It doesn’t excite. It doesn’t engage. It just wastes time and space.[...] Shouldn’t ticket-buyers want these movies to be better instead of just more of the same? Or are these pictures just fast food where you know what you’re getting, and even though they aren’t fine cuisine, at least they’re nourishing? The problem is that the food has gone stale.

There’s nothing fresh about the series, or at least as far as Bay is concerned. Age of Extinction isn’t just redundant; it’s transparent. The movie exists to sell toys, and that’s why Joyce has created a bunch of new Transformers.

China is an expanding market, and worldwide box office is where studios make their money, so that’s why the characters go to Hong Kong even though we’re already exhausted from the Transformers destroying Chicago again.

http://collider.com/transformers-age-of-extinction-review/

53. Disinvited - June 26, 2014

#43. Trekbilly – June 26, 2014

I’m with you. I think given the historic thinking in traditional corporate Paramount, at the moment, he’s the best compromise Trek is going to get out of that group mind.

I am a bit concerned that apparently he hasn’t joined the Director’s Guild of America, yet. Even though he’d be in good company with George Lucas, it smells funny. Someone who was chomping at the bit to direct for a major motion picture studio, well it just seems they’d have eliminated any possible impediment to not being hired long ago.

It is a puzzle how he went from one fourth of a creative team consisting of Abrams, Lindelof, Kurtzman and himself to the scapegoat for everything that their 2 Treks is found wanting as if he packed all the others up, sent them to Tahiti and told them “don’t worry. I’ve got it covered.”, and put the first two films together all on his own?

54. Keachick (Rose) - June 26, 2014

Posters star trackie #20 and LogicalLeopold #28 have been about the only posters to make sense on this thread.

I agree with you both. And – nothing is more ridiculous and insulting than having to read posters referring to casual movie goers and mediocrity in the same sentence and ranting on about who they think are the “real” “true” Star Trek fans. I am sick of the arrogant, supposedly all-knowing snobbery.

@Bob Orci – these are *interesting* times for you. “May the wind be at your back”, as someone once said.

*Refer old Chinese proverb…hmmm

55. Hat Rick - June 26, 2014

A bout of negativity here, I see, about Star Trek 3 already. I would shy away from that. Trek truly is broad enough for many points of view.

I’m very open-minded about Mr. Orci’s directorial position. That’s because my personality is generally easy-going and tolerant. So even though he may be a complete newbie to the directorial position, I’m willing to give him a chance.

What I haven’t heard much about are the two new writers that have been signed on. Nothing posted lately about them on this site or, apparently, anywhere else. I’d like to get to know them better. Perhaps some enterprising fan or staff member can ask to interview them and ask them where they are at this stage of their thinking regarding Trek 3.

The fact that they are adherents of the Church of Latter Day Saints, reportedly, means almost nothing to me, except that my understanding of traditional Mormonism means that outer space is actually a fairly significant component of their faith. And as I recall, one of the early and very influential NASA Administrators was Mormon. We should not prejudge people by their religion — at all; and I think we might want to keep this in mind as enlightened Trek fans.

Primarily, I would like to know what qualifies them to be writers, and what drives them. I want to know more about their background and what they think of the entire Trek mythos. There’s a lot still to be explored, and the answers are still to be discerned.

56. boborci - June 26, 2014

55 They are huge Trek fans. And we all (me and Bad Robot) like their writing.

57. boborci - June 26, 2014

53. Disinvited – June 26, 2014

You join the guild after directing.

Same with writer’s guild. Alex and I joined after writing our first episode. You CAN’T join until you’ve written something.

Just one of a million things about this industry that you learn when you’re in it.

58. Ahmed - June 26, 2014

@55. Hat Rick

“What I haven’t heard much about are the two new writers that have been signed on. Nothing posted lately about them on this site or, apparently, anywhere else. I’d like to get to know them better.”

These are the only information about them so far :

================

JD Payne

http://mormonartist.net/interviews/jd-payne/

To Boldly Go Where No Mormon Has Gone Before

http://ldsliving.com/story/75007-to-boldly-go-where-no-mormon-has-gone-before

================

Would you like to know more ?

Writer J.D. Payne Talks ‘Star Trek 3′

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnOmQrCVaq0

This Trekcore video is only 7 minutes long, the original video was 90s minutes but it was taken down after Trek sites posted the video!

59. Ahmed - June 26, 2014

@ 57. boborci – June 26, 2014

“You join the guild after directing.”

Interesting, according to this article you should be a DGA member in order for Paramount to hire you as a director.

“Paramount is a signatory to the DGA’s basic agreement, which means that all directors, assistant directors, and unit production managers it hires must be guild members.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2005/04/why_not_quit_the_directors_guild.html

60. Hat Rick - June 26, 2014

Thanks, Bob and Ahmed, for the responses.

61. Kenji - June 26, 2014

Bob Orci cares about the fans, obviously. I’ve never seen another filmmaker engage one on one on message boards in such an open way, and given his workload and career heat it’s pretty wild that he would do it.

By all accounts Orci is a massive Trek fan. I’d even argue (and have as a newspaper film critic) that the perceived problems of Into Darkness stem from an excess of love for Trek, WoK in particular, which they were trying to cleverly manifest to the point where the plotting forced Kirk into taking some strange and very unlikeable turns.

Does Orci engage with us for fun or to get ideas or to court the base?

I don’t know and I wouldn’t expect him to answer (Bob, does any of us ever understand our own motivations 100% anyway?) but I do like it and it makes sense.

Even if the fanboy/fangirl audience is small, I think that we are critical early adopters and setters of tone regarding the buzz, because who else is going to be on the web constantly speculating about a film that we won’t see for two years?

It is smart to appeal to the nerdcore, and therefore every action-adventure flick now has a panel at Comic Con or an equivalent like D3.

That said, no director would be smart to take any instructions from us. I’ve made suggestions in the spirit of amity and fellow fannishness (T’Pring! The Wounded Sky!) and would be stoked if the Bad Roboteers agreed.

But writers and directors have to make the movie the best way they see it. They have to say to themselves that this is the finest, smartest, tightest, most compelling way to go and then stick with their plan, right or wrong, because if they are right then outside input can only dilute their vision, and if they are wrong, well, no amount of fan support is going to effect fundamental change in the filmmaking.

That’s my $0.02

The

62. Disinvited - June 26, 2014

#57. boborci – June 26, 2014

“Just one of a million things about this industry that you learn when you’re in it.” – boborci

Thank you for your reply and explaining the path that you’ve chosen.

But I don’t think you’ve learned quite as much as you think being in it, if you don’t realize it is after all, a Guild, and as such offers apprenticeships.

63. Vultan - June 26, 2014

#34

Thoughts? Well, Bob, you’ve been linking to Forbes articles lately. That’s interesting. Articles about money and box office trumping critical opinion, even when those critical are a vocal minority, yes? So… are you seeking some validation…? If so, don’t feel that way. Good, bad or so-so, Trek 3 will make a lot of money (if the marketing department does its job), and Forbes will probably write an article or two about it. Nothing to worry about.

64. Cygnus-X1 - June 26, 2014

59. Ahmed – June 26, 2014
62. Disinvited – June 26, 2014

“Paramount is a signatory to the DGA’s basic agreement, which means that all directors, assistant directors, and unit production managers it hires must be guild members.”

Maybe he lopped off the head of the hiring guy at Paramount and absorbed his energy, too. ;-)

65. Cygnus-X1 - June 26, 2014

34. boborci – June 26, 2014

on related note, thoughts?

Yeah, where’s the article on cookie-cutter crap fatigue.

66. Ahmed - June 26, 2014

@Cygnus-X1

“Maybe he lopped off the head of the hiring guy at Paramount and absorbed his energy, too. ;-)”

LOL

“Yeah, where’s the article on cookie-cutter crap fatigue.”

Have no fear, it is coming your way soon :-)

67. Disinvited - June 26, 2014

#59. Ahmed – June 26, 2014

Here’s what the DGA says:

First the employer’s paperwork,

http://www.dga.org/employers/dealmemos.aspx

http://www.dga.org/The-Guild/Departments/Membership/Joining-the-DGA.aspx

Joining the DGA

Upon the DGA’s receipt of a deal memo or commercial project listing form (“CPLF”) from a DGA signatory Employer which confirms your bona-fide employment in a DGA-covered category, you will be sent an application for membership which will include your required initiation fee and other information. The DGA does not provide applications for membership upon request.

Your membership in the DGA is subject to approval by your category Council. Applications for membership are submitted to the appropriate Council upon submission of a completed application form and payment of the requisite initiation fee. The DGA membership application form requires endorsements from three members within your application category, your resume and brief biography, your home address and other contact information. Your application must be notarized.

Your DGA membership start date is the start date listed on the deal memo or CPLF of your first DGA-covered employment. Accordingly, you may be required to report earnings and pay dues retroactive to your start date if it is prior to the fiscal quarter in which your membership is approved by your Council.

Once your membership is approved, you will receive your DGA membership card and new member information package.

Initiation fees are determined by your employment start date and the classification of the project on which you join the DGA. Following are the initiation fees for the periods indicated, initiation fees are subject to change. Initiation fees are confirmed in writing and accompany your membership application.

DGA Initiation Fees

(July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014)

DGA Category

Initiation Fee

Director:
Feature/Television

$10,694.00

68. boborci - June 26, 2014

have linked to these two articles because they are unique. Most other articles on these subjects are the same. Cookie cutter fatigue articles have been ubiquitous. So have articles concerning fan reaction to developments in Trek.
Figured you’d all read some version of the latter and few of the former, since there are so few.

69. Paul - June 26, 2014

I think Paramount need to care more as STID was an insult to many Trek fans myself included. So please if your listening give us brave new worlds, new characters & new peril the Trek universe is so large surely you have enough time to please everyone & make a must see movie like ST 2009 was.

Please include the original actors surviving for Kirk,Spock, Sulu, Chekov,Uhura in a sub plot to tie it all together for 1 last adventure! I guarantee as long as thats more than a blink it & your miss it scene it will add a lot of box office & is the one massive mistake Paramount have made since 1991 ignoring the original TOS crew actors.

70. Cygnus-X1 - June 26, 2014

68. boborci – June 26, 2014

Yeah…I suppose….

Thank you for your efforts at promoting a fair and balanced perspective. :-P

That Spidey 2 article wasn’t self-serving in any way. :-P

It’s really not hard to understand the concept of unreserved profit motive, “This makes me money, therefore I will do it.”

Still waiting for your thoughts on the studios don’t care about the fans article and why you posted it.

71. Disinvited - June 26, 2014

#57. boborci – June 26, 2014

You know, Bob, I support your directing. I’m even heartened by interviews where you make it clear that you are drawing on your “Rolodex” of directors as I had argued in your support.

So I hope you can forgive me if I overlook your haughty assurances, and still hold on to my anxiety that Paramount is not giving you proper respect — not that I’m advocating you adopt this anxiety as you have to do whatever it is you have to do to get the team motivated and rolling.

You show promise as a helmsman. I definitely like the way you’ve rolled out the management of your production’s PR with interviews and quizzical notes here and there. You definitely seemed to have ignited a fire, the good kind, here. Now do it, there, while the cameras roll.

72. Red Dead Ryan - June 26, 2014

#65.

“Yeah, where’s the article on cookie-cutter crap fatigue.”

Well, that’s an interesting request considering that most of us here have gotten “cookie-cutter crap fatigue” ourselves from having to read what you (and several others) have deposited continually on this site. :-)

73. Keachick (Rose) - June 26, 2014

#34 – Excellent article.
‘Studios will need to avoid bombarding us with too many films stuffed together into less than half the year’s release dates, if they want to avoid “wallet fatigue.”’
Yep on the “wallet fatigue” bit. Depending on a person’s preferred genre, it seems to have become something of a famine or feast, leading to people having to make choices they would rather not make, in order to avoid “wallet fatigue” if they can.

Yes, all the bs negative speculation that goes on (long) before movies even get made, let alone, released which the article talks about – I could not agree more. The vast majority of these prognostications are just mindf*ck. So much like this “destiny” and ” Spock/the universe trying to ‘right’ itself” rubbish.

Star Trek does not necessarily fit into this *big blockbuster and *superhero movie genre, but I can see how it can, with its expansive sci-fi notions and much of it dealing with outer space and technologically capable aliens. Really, however, it is a category all of its own (and probably always has been) and does not and probably should not be forced to sit within a particular genre, where parameters for the kind of story (ie how much/little action etc) is pre-determined.

The reality of being its own category and the makers acknowledging means that the production team are not necessarily bound by what other genre is expected to include, like lots of big, loud action scenes etc, nor is it bound by having its movies released at a certain time of the year as opposed to another.

#39 – “34. boborci: re: thoughts?
i’m really starting to dis-like you… =(”

Huh? What is there to specifically dis-like in anything Bob has written here on this thread?

74. apollo1701 - June 26, 2014

have you seen the merchandise they offer…. it sucks. i want toys !!!

75. Keachick (Rose) - June 26, 2014

Given how many fans have behaved at times (from what I read here, elsewhere), why should anyone care about them?

76. Aurore - June 26, 2014

Concerning fandom and box office.

(From the Forbes article) :

“…It’s not that Hollywood doesn’t care about or doesn’t appreciate the geek fandom. It’s just that said geek fandom doesn’t make up very much total box office for a given film.”

_________________

Yes.

As previously stated ( @ 13 ), to me, an “unnamed source ” already touched upon that subject ( regarding Star Trek )…years ago.

… Months after Star Trek ( 2009 ) was released, so did a fan who (unlike myself) is, I believe, familiar with the entire Star Trek franchise :

…So, now what ?

What, were they gonna make a Deep Space Nine movie or Voyager ? Or Enterprise after the show got f*cking cancelled? Seriously?

And, while there are lots of Star Trek fans that will go see these movies… primarily NERDS, they don’t come anywhere close to the number needed to turn a profit. General audiences just wouldn’t give a cr*p, etc, etc…

( Part One. Starts at 4 : 11) :

http://trekmovie.com/2010/09/01/red-letter-media-takes-on-star-trek-2009-and-likes-it/

77. Cygnus-X1 - June 26, 2014

72. Red Dead Ryan – June 26, 2014

Oh!

I must say, that is SO funny!

You really are a singular wit!

You and the “us” to whom you refer.

In other words, you.

(And M-J)

78. Ahmed - June 26, 2014

@77. Cygnus-X1 -

“You and the “us” to whom you refer. ”

RDR misses the days of “civil” discourse that he & his dear friend/s M-J ( K-7, Dave H, ..etc) contributed to the general discourse here at trekmovie!!

79. Disinvited - June 26, 2014

#77. Cygnus-X1 – June 26, 2014

That’s the funny thing about the writing on the cookie-cutter crap stall’s wall: nothing compels one to read it. And if it is fatiguing as some readings are, you find yourself drifting off to sleep and NOT actively scritching screeds in reply. When that occurs, the original author has done a craftsman’s job.

80. P Technobabble - June 26, 2014

From the personal POV, I go to see movies without thinking about anyone else but myself. I want to see it, I want to enjoy it, I want to buy it when it comes out on dvd, and lots more I, I, I. I don’t care about anyone else — whether they want to see it, whether they like it or not, and so forth.

Now, I imagine from a studio’s POV they don’t care about me, specifically. But they need a lot of “me”s to reap incomes like Avatar or Iron Man, etc. So I think the statement “Hollywood doesn’t care about the fans,” is both true and not-true. Hollywood doesn’t care specifically about anyone, any group, any particular aspect of fandom and they don’t have to. But they do have to care about the big picture of movie goers. If a studio makes a film that does tremendous numbers but pisses off a specific faction of the audience, do you think the studio is going to bend over backwards to please that specific faction and abandon the bigger audience that is driving the film into the high end of the box office? At the risk of sounding cliche, this seems perfectly logical to me.

Without getting into an argument over religion, look at some of the religious films that were either boycotted, or threatened to be boycotted by certain groups of people. The Da Vinci Code, for example, made some people angry but their ranting and lack of attendance was pretty ineffective in bringing that movie down or halting a sequel. The studio essentially ignored those angry people. I don’t think they set out to make a film to deliberately piss those people off but in the end that’s how it worked out.

The same thing happens with Star Trek and its collection of hard-core fanboys. They can rant and rave and threaten to boycott the film and whatever else. But in the end the studio is going to ignore them (regardless of how politely they listen to the complaints) because, as it’s been stated so clearly, the smaller faction doesn’t add up to a big box office. The studio must go after the masses and do whatever they can to win them over. I believe most average movie goers don’t give a rat’s butt about the size of the Enterprise’s nacelles or all the other crap that’s come up in this forum. They don’t worry about whether or not the script was good or bad writing. They don’t worry about 90% of the nonsense some people bring up on these threads over and over and over. The average movie goer is going to go into a movie like Star Trek, they’re going to like it or dislike it, and that’s pretty much it. If they liked it they might tell others how much they liked it and if they didn’t they would say that. They aren’t going to be wondering whether or not Scotty could really fix a thingamajig with a two-prong whatchamacallit.

Bottom line: the studios don’t care about “me.” Or “you.” They do care about everyone altogether. If 95% of everyone altogether loves their movie, then it’s to he!! with the other 5%. What do you expect?

81. Lurker - June 26, 2014

16. Oscar – June 26, 2014:
“Marvel cinematic universe is made for fans. Great success. Iron Man, The Avengers, Capt. America…”

Uh, no. Do you think the success of the Marvel movies is due to only the fans of Marvel? Really? Do you think it was only readers of Marvel comics that turned the Avengers into a $1.5 billion movie? Several of my female friends went to see Iron Man. Never picked up a comic book in their life – but they sure know who Robert Downey Jr is and think he is hot. These movies are pure escapist fun – something that anybody can enjoy – not just the “fans”.

Oscar: “The original thing is the best. If Paramount wants a extended trek universe, they will reboot this poor and badly made nu trek. Stid was a piece of garbage made for casual movigoers and it lost money in America…: “

Poor and badly made? 4 Oscar nominations and the only Star Trek movie (ST09) to ever win an Oscar?

Garbage made for casual moviegoers? Well, on IMDB, those casual movie goers rated ST09 and STID higher than TWOK. I’m sure Paramount is shaking in their boots because YOU think its garbage.

And it lost money in America? Proof please. And while you’re looking that up, look up the worldwide grosses of the top 100 movies. You’ll notice the overwhelming majority of movies make most of their money overseas like STID did. HP7P2 made over $1.3 billion – 71% of that overseas. I doubt Warner Brothers was freaking out it made less in America.

If you don’t like the new Star Trek that’s fine. Just stop making crap up – it’s sounding like the whiney kid in the toy store that can’t have what he wants – and ends up being ignored.

82. Keachick (Rose) - June 26, 2014

“I believe most average movie goers don’t give a rat’s butt about the size of the Enterprise’s nacelles…”

I don’t give a rat’s butt about the size of the Enterprise’s nacelles. However, when comparing the two (now I have managed to get all of TOS on DVD – son imported S1 and S3 from UK), I am more inclined toward Scotty’s appreciation of those “ample nacelles” over the original.

“Garbage made for casual moviegoers?” (ref – Oscar) Here we go again. More idiotic snobbery.
Now, just who are these casual moviegoers who you think are happy to accept “garbage”? I dunno – people go to see movies for various reasons and they tend to come in all shapes and sizes, sex, ages, most socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds with varied intelligences…I could be wrong, but that is who I consider the “casual moviegoer” will be one of.

83. Marja - June 26, 2014

The hardcore fans are the least important demographic for the likes of Walt Disney and Warner Bros. because they are already sold on the property in question … casual moviegoers that propelled Star Trek Into Darkness to $467 million worldwide thought it was an entertaining science-fiction adventure with a fun cast and strong special effects …. It’s not that Hollywood doesn’t care about or doesn’t appreciate the geek fandom. It’s just that said geek fandom doesn’t make up very much total box office for a given film.
—————————————————————————————————
And there we have it, folks. As long as Trek is a movie franchise, we may have to resign ourselves to “actioners.” I will next listen to Bob O’s interview to see what he has to say about Trek3. My hope is that while not catering to every single fan desire [like "bring back the old cast for an adventure"], he manages to craft a scientifically plausible, emotionally satisfying, somewhat action-oriented picture. But … that’s my hope, not the probable reality. My real hope is that Trek comes back to TV. With the present cast.

84. Marja - June 26, 2014

16 Oscar, Abrams said you cannot earn money with movies made for fans….hahaha, and he is shooting a star wars movie made for fans.

What utter nonsense. Star Wars is one of the most successful movie franchises of all time because:

Its storyline was easy to understand and magical versus scientific.

Its storyline was of “The Hero’s Journey,” a theme in fiction the world over.

It had great special effects [I'll never forget that shot of the huge Star Destroyer], great humor and sarcasm ["scruffy looking NERF HERDER!"], and dramatic, heart-tugging scenes. ["I'll never join yooouuu!"]

Adults and kids alike could enjoy and relate to it. Kids wanted to be Luke Skywalker, adults chuckled at the romantic misadventures of Han and Leia, the humorous foreboding ["I've got a bad feeling about this"] and both adults and kids found Darth Vader quite an intimidating figure.

It was not so much science fiction [like Trek] as it was science fantasy. It won millions of people over to “science fiction” because in 1977 nothing like it had been seen on the Big Screen before, at least not for the previous generation.

“Forbidden Planet” and “The Day the Earth Stood Still” were popular but more adult and Trek-like in orientation. But those were in the days before the “instant gratification” generation that attends movies now. So of course Star Wars will be a box office hit wonder. It’s accessible in ways Trek is not.

85. Marja - June 26, 2014

… not to mention it’s being produced by Disney, who have a HUGE marketing department, and a pretty successful one when it comes to promoting movies.

86. Marja - June 26, 2014

36 Ahmed, There are more serious problems with the new BR Trek, specially STID, which we talked about here for a million time & I assure you that bringing in new fans is NOT one of them :-)

ahem, but there are “Talifans” who resent extremely [and deride] the “popcorn-munching action fans who like BR Trek.” As if, perhaps, new fans are not welcome because they like BR Trek. And as if all of us who enjoy BR Trek are stupid or something. These “Talifans” are not so happy BR Trek made money, because they dislike the idea of “more of the same” — some of them seem to be elitists who want Trek to be for them and them alone.

Which strikes me as weird, if you want more people to like Trek, bring people in and show them some, and they’ll look up more. Many people discovered Trek from 2009′s film and have gone back and binge-watched every other Trek series. So when / if it finally gets to TV, there should be a pretty substantial audience.

Agreed, both Trek movies have had some problems, some, significant problems, but at least Bob is coming here to get the temperature of some of us. He knows, I’m sure, that there are people who’re going to hate whatever he does. And resent the audience who do appreciate it, to whatever extent.

87. Marja - June 26, 2014

51 Cygnus, Or maybe it was just lucky that Paramount put Harve Bennett in charge?

Damn straight. GR was pretty much in charge of TMP, which, I think, came out as well as it did because of its superior director, Robert Wise. GR’s story was a rehash of TOS’s “The Changeling,” for heaven’s sake, with a sexy sex-oriented Deltan thrown into the mix.

All the same the movie is ponderous; I seldom look back at it, whereas I’ve seen WOK and TVH a number of times. [WOK, a HUGE number of times.]

88. Disinvited - June 27, 2014

# 86. Marja – June 26, 2014

” ahem, but there are “Talifans” who resent extremely [and deride] the “popcorn-munching action fans who like BR Trek.” As if, perhaps, new fans are not welcome because they like BR Trek. And as if all of us who enjoy BR Trek are stupid or something.” — Marja

I think it is important that we, more experienced fans, make the younger ones aware that Trek fandom has always had its purists who think their version of enjoying Trek is the ONLY one true way and snidely deride any who pursue alternate paths.

My problem with the label “Talifan”, as it was my intent to draw attention in regards to the character Wesley Crusher, is I believe the term too harsh in regards to so-called BR “haters”. I mention that character because there are those who harbor such a special hate for him that they imagine a thousand ways that the character should have died. And in mentioning death, I would say that, for me, that is what “Talifan” always brings foremost to mind. If I had my druthers, I’d druther that the term be reserved for the special sort that crawled out of the woodwork to threaten the lives of Meyer and Bennett with “If Spock dies, you die.”

But then where would that leave one of my childhood idols?:

“The day Star Trek was cancelled, I could have cut off heads at the network. It was a marvelous show.” — Rod Serling

89. Disinvited - June 27, 2014

# 87. Marja – June 26, 2014

”GR was pretty much in charge of TMP, which, I think, came out as well as it did because of its superior director, Robert Wise. GR’s story was a rehash of TOS’s “The Changeling,” for heaven’s sake, with a sexy sex-oriented Deltan thrown into the mix.” — Marja

You recall, I’ve passed along the years the “Where NOMAD has gone before.” joke, but I don’t think it ever hit me until I read what you wrote that V’yger’s zapping of Ilia was just a made bigger version of NOMAD zapping Uhura.

90. Lemingsworth Bint - June 27, 2014

Very Good (and accurate) article.

However, I would change the title from “Hollywood Doesn’t Care About Fanboys” to “Hollywood Finally Knows About Sockpuppeting”

91. Greg2600 - June 27, 2014

Hollywood blockbusters are a popularity contest. Deep thought in scripts are totally removed. Random example, but Robert Redford did a film last year “All is Lost.” I saw it on epix last night, a fantastic movie! He’s the only person in the film, sailing in the Indian Ocean, and then nearly dying. He barely even speaks, but it’s still an amazing film. Anyway, probably barely made any money, but it was far more riveting than most of the comic book movies today. Sans any special effects.

92. Allen Williams - June 27, 2014

I refused to go to the theater to see into darkness the second I realized what it was. I didn’t even want to buy the blu-ray, but my OCD wouldn’t permit me to have 11/12 films. If they pull this crap off again, I probably won’t even buy it this time. I’m hoping that this next one is good and that I’ll want to spend money at the theater again.

I think the real catch though is to bring it back to TV where star trek belongs. Just leave Jar Jar Abrams out of it.

93. ety3rd - June 27, 2014

The article is right: the fans aren’t a big enough part of the population to make a film earn. Most of them will show up, no matter how much they whine.

As for ‘Into Darkness,’ every non-fan I know who saw it either liked it a lot or outright loved it. I’ve only heard (read) the over-the-top hate for it online from fans.

94. Eric - June 27, 2014

To paraphrase rule of acquisition 211:
“Fans are the rungs on the ladder of success. Don’t hesitate to step on them.”

95. Disinvited - June 27, 2014

#90. Lemingsworth Bint – June 27, 2014, #92. Allen Williams – June 27, 2014

No, Allen has it. New title:

Hollywood Banks on Fan OCD.

96. Commodore Adams - June 27, 2014

Granted a rather cynical view but need opinions on both sides of the spectrum where the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

Bottom line, I agree with the article. Hollywood is about making money, not pleasing the core fans but attracting audiences (fans and non fans alike).

97. Marja - June 27, 2014

89 Disinvited, I stand corrected. I remember the Wesley hate, and though I was never entranced with the character, realized he was there to draw the young male fans [why not a young female? but nevermind], and dismissed him pretty much until they started writing some interesting stuff for him in season …4, I think? I was quite amused in the TNG ep when everyone was irritated/out of character because of some phenomenon when everyone was telling him, “Shut up, Wesley!” … a popular T-shirt at the time said just that.

“Talifan” is a term I put in quotes because I know it’s a rather explosive term. I pretty much use it to describe the Trek “fundamentalists” for whom TOS and its original actor portrayals are the only valid Trek. Maybe I’ll just start calling them fundaTrekalists or something ….

98. Disinvited - June 28, 2014

#68. boborci – June 26, 2014

I just listened to Sharon Osborne give an eye opening dissertation on how cutthroat today’s television business is and how their written contracts are worthless in an interview on THE VIEW’s axings. Don’t see how you could ever let Paramount get the drop on you after you’ve successfully navigated that minefield.

99. Disinvited - June 28, 2014

# 97. Marja – June 27, 2014

“… realized he was there to draw the young male fans [why not a young female? …” — Marja

As I recall, that was why they introduced the Ashley Judd character.

Never quite sure why her character didn’t go anywhere but may have had something to do with Judd’s family drama?

As for true Trek fundamentalists, I doubt they’ve ever really showed up here. They are a lot that only revere the original series and its episodes as aired and only watch those on the 16mm film distribution for tv reels. They wouldn’t be caught dead on a Trek “movie” site but they might write a snarky letter or two to a publication or show up at conventions with some film crossovers.

As for what to call them, I wish Jonathan Harris was still alive to help with that.

Names that came to mind:

Phaser Philistines

Born Again Jims

Born Again Captains

Born Again Scotties

Born Again Vulcans

Archons

100. Cygnus-X1 - June 28, 2014

99. Disinvited – June 28, 2014

As I recall, that was why they introduced the Ashley Judd character.

Man, she was so cute….

101. boborci - June 29, 2014

97. Marja – June 27, 2014

Talifan is clever and hilarious

we can all behave like Talifans at times;)

102. Cygnus-X1 - June 30, 2014

Something that came up in a past thread which bears repeating here: http://screenrant.com/star-trek-darkness-villain-secret-discussion/

“The truth is because it was so important to the studio that we not angle this thing for existing fans. — JJ Abrams.”

How many times did we hear this kind of talk from Abrams during the making of ST09 and STID…quite a few as I recall. Paramount and Bad Robot have really gone out of their way to make sure that the general public doesn’t get the impression Trek fans are important to the franchise. They botched the whole roll-out of STID just to make sure that people didn’t think that this was a movie for Trek fans.

And this rationale…

“If we said it was Khan, it would feel like you’ve really got to know what ‘Star Trek’ is about to see this movie.” — JJ Abrams

Doesn’t make any sense to me. Is that why sequels do so well? Because the public is scared off at the prospect of characters previously presented in other films/TV shows/comic books, etc…? Is that why these comic-book movies based on characters from the 60s, 70s and 80s have done so well with audiences who were born decades later?

It makes no sense. If anything, a movie that looks to be good and has a character with whom some people are familiar as a very compelling character from a previous movie that was very well received (like TWOK), would generate curiosity about the movie. Hey, that Star Trek Into Darkness looks great, but it’s got a character that some people are familiar with from another movie, so there’s just nooo waaay that I’ll be able to follow the story…it’ll just be too confusing. Better skip this one.

Smells fishy as an explanation. I think it’s more likely what Bob said earlier this year: Paramount believes that Trek fans are bad for profits. And Bad Robot is only too happy to go along with that notion, of course.

103. Keachick (Rose) - June 30, 2014

I think that is twisting what JJ Abrams and Bob Orci meant in the statements they made respectively. You are reading into comments and making interpretations that do not make sense and I seriously doubt these two people meant what you think.

It is the truth that fans only make up a small percentage of an overall potential viewing audience, so the movie makers cannot hope to make back their investment by just relying on the patronage of fans alone. Therefore, they need to make the films in such a way as to have a wide appeal. That is not necessarily a bad thing.

104. Disinvited - June 30, 2014

#103. Keachick (Rose) – June 30, 2014

I’m not sure what you mean. Here it is from the horse’s mouthpiece MTV:

http://www.mtv.com/news/1718246/jj-abrams-star-trek-into-darkness-regret/

“The truth is because it was so important to the studio that we not angle this thing for existing fans. If we said it was Khan, it would feel like you’ve really got to know what ‘Star Trek’ is about to see this movie. That would have been limiting. I can understand their argument to try to keep that quiet, but I do wonder if it would have seemed a little bit less like an attempt at deception if we had just come out with it.” — JJ Abrams

JJ is being very clear that the idea didn’t originate with him but in service to the studio’s paranoia. Hollywood history is rife with stories where studios have ruined pictures with demanding this and that with the worst being implementing cuts contrary to the director’s wishes to better serve their perceived marketing needs.

And there’s no twisting of JJ’s words except, perhaps by himself as indicated when he said he was not a fan of 3D conversion, then pretended to be a convert when the studio forced it on him, and now says he doesn’t like 3D still. And again, it is clear the studio forced something on him and he tried to be diplomatic, but that doesn’t mean the idea came from him.

And after all, the word came out from BR that they were going to model STID development after the DARK KNIGHT Batman comicbook movie template so the notion that the idea, that they had to bleach out any and all fanservice, came from BR is ludicrous. As far as I know there has been no blockbuster comicbook movie that featured absolutely no fanservice in its narrative or its marketing, least of all the Dark Knight trilogy.

105. Keachick (Rose) - June 30, 2014

So it does appear that Paramount keeps getting it a bit wrong with how they treat their “golden goose” and those who try to provide for it (Bad Robot in this case), along with those who love it…oh dear.

I think it could be said that, in many ways, Star Trek remains a successful franchise, not because of Paramount, but in spite of it. Of course, the Paramount bank accounts have no problem receiving the monetary proceeds though, naturally…

106. Disinvited - July 1, 2014

#105. Keachick (Rose) – June 30, 2014

“I think it could be said that, in many ways, Star Trek remains a successful franchise, not because of Paramount, but in spite of it. Of course, the Paramount bank accounts have no problem receiving the monetary proceeds though, naturally…” — Keachick (Rose)

Now that, I think you have got exactly right. It may be a new Paramount, but it’s the same limited perspective as the old with regards to Trek. With them more than happy that it just dependably brings in regular dough to pay the rent and keep the lights on for their other endeavors.

107. Chris Roberts - July 1, 2014

Khan. Khan. Khan. Khan. Khan.

Firstly, I admit to finding Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance was much colder and largely lacking in the intense passion of Ricardo Montalban’s version. BC only occasionally recaptured what made Khan who he was. The viewscreen exchange between him and Spock, while threatening Kirk being the best example I can recall.

I do kind of wish there had been that visual reference of Montalban’s Khan from the history books. I too have issues accepting Cumberbatch playing a character with a surname implying a certain racial background. That’s illogical given the Mexican actor I associate with him but there you go. He was too strong to be shrugged off really. Wrath of Khan is still a critically rated film that floats in serious polls. From that Space Seed was continually referred back to, although whether or not it would have that classic status without it, is debatable.

I would’ve like to have seen some additional footage added to Star Trek Into Darkness featuring who Khan was, when Marcus found him. They could’ve dumped it into Deleted Scenes if it didn’t work.

Mileage varies, but I think whoever they’d have cast as Khan… to me, that scene in the brig needed us to see more. More to sell the reveal about his actual name. More to counteract the John Harrison mould Cumberbatch’s casting fits.

It would’ve silenced the critique about possibly having kept him that way… a rogue Starfleet agent. Engineered or not.

My attitude to that scene is, “Khan?!? Really? Prove it.” And that must be so in the minds of the writers too. So much so, that later in the film they have to produce Nimoy Spock to back it up. Only suddenly saying his full name kind of compounds the issue.

If visual references or a flashback to Montalban’s Khan were to happen… probably while Nimoy Spock gives his full name Khan Noonien Singh and breaks his promise not to give any information about his 23rd Century.

Or else, when John Harrison is in the brig and speaks of his past. Images should’ve
flashed by of Marcus boarding the Botany Bay with a security team, and Montalban Khan or somebody standing in for him at any rate, being discovered there. Shots of Doctors performing a surgical procedure and canisters being moved in a cargo bay, while Khan confesses to being used by Section 31, in return for the safety of his crew.

Like the trippy 24th Century scenes of Nimoy on Romulus, leaving in the Jellyfish, being captured by Nero and getting stranded on Delta Vega.

Or Newt’s family backstory, cut from Aliens with the ship from the original film shown.

The scene focused on Cumberbatch’s crying face for absolutely ages and could’ve benefitted from being broken up and cut away from. My reaction is generally that’s where the whole film disappears down the rabbit hole. It needed to show, as much as rely on the actor to tell us who he really is.

Zero chance of doing that now though. No such alternate or deleted scene was shot.

With occasional details going above the audience’s head, that they only pickup on them on rewatch, one more wouldn’t have hurt. There were ways of doing it, I’m sure. It wouldn’t quite have been the same thing as repeated shots from earlier, in the way a later revision to Star Trek VI reminded people of the conspirators. For one set of people it would’ve been the prisoner picturing Admiral Marcus finding the ship he and his crew came from. For another, a shot would be mixed in there establishing that Khan didn’t always look that way. Literally seconds and IIRC they’re onto Kirk calling Scotty in a bar, then onto the next scene after that. I would’ve loved it if there had been something in there, however oblique to tackle the issue.

Shatner came very close to appearing in Star Trek 2009… they wrote a scene involving a hologram of him belonging to Nimoy Spock. Supposedly used as a way of reinforcing to the younger Spock that they would become friends. And had Shatner said yes, the filmmakers wouldn’t have been unwilling to invite comparisons between the original and younger version recasts. The new actors were very carefully thought about when they were chosen, and came with the approval of the originals or their son in a certain case. By enlarge it’s the alternative universe lives that have been occasionally criticised (again rationalised onscreen particularly in Kirk’s case) and not that they don’t bear any likeness. So Khan remains the odd one out, even alongside yet another recast addition, Carol Marcus… whose English accent, again explained… albeit in a deleted scene. So, it’s deliberate change in approach for Khan only, in a film continuing to be consistent in other areas.

Whether Star Trek Into Darkness succeeded or failed – having images of Peter Weller, the Botany Bay and somebody who may or may not look like Montalban in one of those tubes, flash up while Cumberbatch tells us who he is – isn’t exactly going to have been responsible for it.

I’ve since learned the change has been explained away in comic-form, as deep-cover identity reassignment working at Section 31. For my own enjoyment, I would’ve liked that additional bit of Khantext IN THE FILM that’s all.

My own wish would be for something to be added to future editions of STID on Blu ray, like a way found to revise the scene where Khan’s identity is revealed. A flashback to some newly shot material right there… similar to what I’ve suggested above.

In helping me live with the choice made for who got to play Khan, that’s how you can make happy as a fan.

108. Disinvited - July 2, 2014

#101. boborci – June 29, 2014

Thoughts?

http://www.salon.com/2001/04/07/mcveigh_3/

“McVeigh was an intelligent man, but cartoonish ideas ruled large regions of his brain. He was a devoted Trekkie for whom “Star Trek: The Next Generation” “represented a utopian model for the future.” More disturbingly, he rationalized the deaths of the innocent men and women he was going to kill in the Murrah building with a moral argument drawn from “Star Wars.”

“McVeigh saw himself as a counterpart to Luke Skywalker, the heroic Jedi knight whose successful attack on the Death Star closes the film. As a kid, McVeigh had noticed that the ‘Star Wars’ movies showed people sitting at consoles — Space-Age clerical workers — inside the Death Star. Those people weren’t storm troopers. They weren’t killing anyone. But they were vital to the operations of the Evil Empire, McVeigh deduced, and when Luke blew up the Death Star those people became inevitable casualties. When the Death Star exploded, the movie audiences cheered. The bad guys were beaten: that was all that really mattered. As an adult, McVeigh found himself able to dismiss the killings of secretaries, receptionists, and other personnel in the Murrah building with equally cold-blooded calculation. They were all part of the Evil Empire. ” — Saturday, Apr 7, 2001 7:18 PM UTC, ‘The patriot’, Gary Kamiya, SALON

NOTE: Your comment may need approval from a moderator, please be patient if your comment disappears as soon as you post it, it will reappear as soon as it is approved.


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