I think it's entirely fair to say that some people want to complain or boycott.
I'm not saying everyone who complains is doing it because they get a kick out of it, but there's a percentage where that's true.
In which case, those people would have to have nothing else going on in their lives! I honestly don't see any genuine
Star Trek fan enjoying the idea of a Trek movie they think is going to be bad. For a lot of people ~ just as VF said ~ the idea that a TOS will be essentially remade is positively painful based on past experience because it could be an extremely indifferent result and they are entitled to their opinion without being accused of having a closed mind. I am pretty certain that many of these people would be happier than many of the rest of you if Abrams could reverse recent history and produce a product that makes a return to TOS genuinely worthwhile. However, for a lot of these fans, "commercial success" would ensure a sequel, but beyond that, opening weekend grosses are far less important than actual quality.
I, for one, don't subscribe to the argument that bad
Star Trek is better than no
Star Trek, and was already reconciled to the idea of there being no new Trek until somebody came up with an imaginative idea. I also don't agree that a good story makes a movie. It doesn't, it is one important element, but the performances are very important, and it isn't just a case of "plugging" in new actors just because the old ones wore out. I've been watching TOS quite a bit recently and I've come to the conclusion that TOS works because of the consistently fine performances of the cast. In an age when there was no CGI, a lot of the tension in TOS is derived from very simple cut away camera techniques to deliver visual shocks, and the ability of the cast to make the peril seem believable. Because of CGI and short attention spans, a lot of that subtlety has entirely disappeared from film making, so, what we are likely to see is a version of TOS with pretty young actors of indifferent quality trying to mimic classic performances in a film bloated with CGI action and explosions galore. To me, that doesn't sound appealing, and I could care less that
Transformers made money and some people here like it, I wouldn't go and sit through that movie if I was paid to, and I don't want to see that treatment meeted out to my favourite franchise. I don't think that is being awkward, I see that as wanting to hold onto to some more ephemeral standards that will outlast the current vogue for mindless blockbusters with a short lifespan and even shorter influence.
Trying to pander to a mass market audience torpedoed
Nemesis and made
Enterprise into a moving flesh-fest that ultimately failed. There is ~ or there ought to be ~ something more to
Star Trek that resists such trends and if Paramount says it can't, then there are a significant number of potential audience for this movie who can. These people are not being awkward ~ they may even go and see other blockbusters ~ but "Trek" and "Trendy" have simply never gone together, because Trek used to be about standards, and yes! I am including Rick Berman in that statement because I as much as some unhappy fans get up some other people's noses, the ingrates who bash the guy (just because he was in the job too long) who kept Trek going for 18 years
really get up mine.
I'm not out to start a flamefest either, but it strikes me that the fanbase ~ already divided ~ needs to embrace IDIC and respect the opinions of both sides of this argument as valid, and not dismiss the other side as being either "too easily pleased" or "impossible to please". As for where I stand, I am awaiting reassurance ~ in whatever form Abrams wishes to give it out ~ that this movie will be a thoroughly worthwhile recast of TOS and a genuinely bright new beginning for this franchise ~ not just a kick in the exhaust to keep the old bus chugging along for a few more years to wring money out of it.
I don't think that's being unreasonable.
