Sign in to follow this  
Stephen of Borg

"Not Your Father's Star Trek"

The New Trailer  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. Does The Phrase In The Trailer Bother You?

    • Yes
      14
    • No
      14
    • Other
      1


Recommended Posts

Has anyone else seen the new trailer that makes that claim? I'm in support of the new movie, but I have to say, that kind of got me mad. It is says to me "the old Trek sucks and we have improved it". Why would they do that? Anyway, you can find it on youtube if you haven't seen it on TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, doesn't bother me. To me, the line "not your fathers Star Trek" means Alive Again.

 

Near it's end old Trek had bad baggage attached to it, it was considered too nerdy by mainstream and had become a rotting corpse of mediocrity. Only we hard core fans were following along anymore but we weren't enough to keep sustaining Trek in that form. ENT, INS & NEM were largely critical failures for the franchise, it couldn't continue in that state. Something had to change.

 

Abrams has taken the nerds-only factor out of it, made it accessible to more people and (hopefully) breathed new life in to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, doesn't bother me. To me, the line "not your fathers Star Trek" means Alive Again.

 

Near it's end old Trek had bad baggage attached to it, it was considered too nerdy by mainstream and had become a rotting corpse of mediocrity. Only we hard core fans were following along anymore but we weren't enough to keep sustaining Trek in that form. ENT, INS & NEM were largely critical failures for the franchise, it couldn't continue in that state. Something had to change.

 

Abrams has taken the nerds-only factor out of it, made it accessible to more people and (hopefully) breathed new life in to it.

Voted the same way for pretty much the same reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally like the "Not Your Father's Star Trek" line. To me, it's saying to the average person "just cause it's got the name Star Trek doesn't mean it's campy or nerdy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The phrase doesn't bother me in the least.

I just want an entertaining movie.

And I think that it's going to be just that.

Entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that a part of me, like my fellow trekker Stephen says, feels, in my words, a....little cringe inside when seeing such a line. About a week or two ago, I caught one of the more recent trailers, at the end of which was the phrase, ''Forget everything you know''..and it bothered me. I'm not saying they are wiping the slate totally clean. Noteable changes, which we older-school fans in many cases have to get our heads, and hearts around....but it's that kind of blurb, that hits at a classic-TOSer's heart a bit. I do know why they are saying that-to bring in the 'uninitiated' or those who have not been interested in the original(It's clear this fan loves other treks!) but I get both sides.....let's be kind to the old fogies like me, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind it. My guess as to why they put that phrase in was so that it could attract a new Trekkie Generation, the kids that were too young to see Generations or first contact but were never introduced to the Original Star Trek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a couple of ways to look at it - it's just a meaningless marketing ploy attempting to entice younger viewers by suggesting anything their parents did was "wrong" - this is what I'm hoping for - just meaningless hype.

 

On the other hand it is meant to be offensive - to the parent generation- it's meant to imply that there is something old fashioned or certainly lacking in entertainment value in the original series - and by association something wrong with anyone that would have liked TOS. I don't really care for that implication.

 

And it also is troubling because it suggests the film will merely reflect the juevenile mentality of Hollywood; fights, explosions and people taking off their clothes. (Wonderful take on this in the Alan Alda movie Sweet Liberty)

 

Obviously, special effects and tecnology have come a long way since the 60's so that's good - I don't like cheesy effects. But if it's all special effects, explosions and naked people with no plot or character development - I will be disappointed. One way or the other I'm going to see it - I just hope I don't come away disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are a couple of ways to look at it - it's just a meaningless marketing ploy attempting to entice younger viewers by suggesting anything their parents did was "wrong" - this is what I'm hoping for - just meaningless hype.

 

On the other hand it is meant to be offensive - to the parent generation- it's meant to imply that there is something old fashioned or certainly lacking in entertainment value in the original series - and by association something wrong with anyone that would have liked TOS. I don't really care for that implication.

 

And it also is troubling because it suggests the film will merely reflect the juevenile mentality of Hollywood; fights, explosions and people taking off their clothes. (Wonderful take on this in the Alan Alda movie Sweet Liberty)

 

Obviously, special effects and tecnology have come a long way since the 60's so that's good - I don't like cheesy effects. But if it's all special effects, explosions and naked people with no plot or character development - I will be disappointed. One way or the other I'm going to see it - I just hope I don't come away disappointed.

The first interpretation is the correct interpretation. However, "Not your father's Star Trek" doesn't necessarily imply that the original was wrong or bad. All it truly implies is that this movie is different from what came before it and it is therefore designed to get younger and non-Trekkies to at least try the movie. This TV spot has been primarily used to target these markets. I believe it premiered on UFC Fight Night on Spike and I think I've only seen it myself during Blue Jays Baseball, which are not likely to be watched by the core Trek fanbase.

 

I will admit this could be taken as offensive I do not believe for a second it was intended as such. All those involved have nothing to gain from alienating the core Trek fanbase. We are still a target market, just not the only target market. No one ever has anything to gain from offending a portion of the audience, especially a target market.

 

Star Trek needed to be rebranded and it needs to bring in new fans. That may involve stepping on the toes of the old fans a little, but its in the long term best interest of the franchise.

 

Additionally, while there are explosions and fights, there is no nudity in the movie and only one sexual situation, which is shown in pretty much all the trailers. And by all accounts, the movie does do a good job with the characters (aside from perhaps Nero, who is apparently a somewhat thinly-drawn villain, but still well performed) and I've heard varied discussion of the plot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is hype to get the Star Trek Base Fans out to see it, the grandparents as Van Roy says. By the way this grandparent has a kids as young as his grandkid. As for nudity Star Trek is not the place I want to see it, as the plan is now to take my kids and grandkid to see it. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is hype to get the Star Trek Base Fans out to see it, the grandparents as Van Roy says. By the way this grandparent has a kids as young as his grandkid. As for nudity Star Trek is not the place I want to see it, as the plan is now to take my kids and grandkid to see it. :laugh:

 

I was thining of taking my ten year old niece but I am concerned she might get more of an education than she needs right now - I mean Kirk is Kirk and movies in 2009 show a lot more than tv in the 60's did - even though ST was groundbreaking back then in "costumes."

 

I was thinking of going opening weekend but I may wait until I hear from people that have seen it whether it is child friendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
movies in 2009 show a lot more than tv in the 60's did

 

Maybe, but movies now are a lot tamer than movies from previous decades despite being more explicit in presentation. In 1980 The Blue Lagoon was nominated for several awards. Today it would be illegal to make the film, even as an XXX porno, because it contained underage sex portrayed by underage actors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Not your father's Star Trek" bugs me for perpetuating the stereotype that only the male of the species is into sci-fi and Trek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I felt like they were saying that they were throwing a party.....and I'm not invited. (Since the generation they are referring to is mine.) :laugh:

 

I've gotten over it, though, and I'm going anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Not your father's Star Trek" bugs me for perpetuating the stereotype that only the male of the species is into sci-fi and Trek.

Let's be honest here. When it was our father's Star Trek that is pretty much the way it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, I did find the phrase a little sexist. While technically it was my father who was the bigger ST fan, my mother also watched and enjoyed it--as did I, of course.

 

But I did cringe at it a little for other reasons too. While I agree that it probably wasn't intended to be insulting, my first reaction was, "But I like my father's Star Trek!" I guess it may have been a good way to attract more viewers, but it didn't and still doesn't sit particularly well with me. And I had many reservations about the film...but I loved it. :D So I'll forgive them that one bit of marketing that I didn't like. Okay, two if you include the music on the TV ads. :P

 

Diana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, doesn't bother me. To me, the line "not your fathers Star Trek" means Alive Again.

 

Near it's end old Trek had bad baggage attached to it, it was considered too nerdy by mainstream and had become a rotting corpse of mediocrity. Only we hard core fans were following along anymore but we weren't enough to keep sustaining Trek in that form. ENT, INS & NEM were largely critical failures for the franchise, it couldn't continue in that state. Something had to change.

 

Abrams has taken the nerds-only factor out of it, made it accessible to more people and (hopefully) breathed new life in to it.

This.

 

As far as the perception that the phrase is sexist, I disagree. Van Roy's right; when ST premiered, female sci-fi fans were few and far between. The cold hard truth is that they're very much the minority still, actually. Regardless, the fact that one gender was mentioned hardly indicates a derogatory swipe at the other. The old "not your father's Oldsmobile" commercials didn't mean that they didn't want women to buy the cars. Similarly, "Not your father's Star Trek" is catchier than "Not your parents' Star Trek", plain and simple, and that's what they're doing here. It's an advertising hook, nothing more. Reminds me of the time I was a restaurant hostess and a customer actively took offense that I asked "Smoking or non?" instead of putting the non-smoking option first, and demanded to know why I worded it that way. I said, "Um, because I say it a thousand times a night and "Smoking or non" is faster and easier to say than "Non-smoking or smoking." She blinked, said, "Oh," and dropped it. Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It bothered me but more so because Star Trek was something that my father and I enjoyed together very much as I was growing up and even after I grew up. He passed away in 2004 so he of course never had the chance to see this movie but in my mind I wonder what he'd have thought of it. So for me, for them to say "Not your Father's Star Trek" was almost like saying "Your Father probably wouldn't like this...". So for me, it was just more on personal lines that it bothered me, because I lost my father 5 years ago.

 

That said, I really feel that my father's views would probably mirror mine on the movie. He'd like it but there'd be things that bugged him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, doesn't bother me. To me, the line "not your fathers Star Trek" means Alive Again.

 

Near it's end old Trek had bad baggage attached to it, it was considered too nerdy by mainstream and had become a rotting corpse of mediocrity. Only we hard core fans were following along anymore but we weren't enough to keep sustaining Trek in that form. ENT, INS & NEM were largely critical failures for the franchise, it couldn't continue in that state. Something had to change.

 

Abrams has taken the nerds-only factor out of it, made it accessible to more people and (hopefully) breathed new life in to it.

This.

 

As far as the perception that the phrase is sexist, I disagree. Van Roy's right; when ST premiered, female sci-fi fans were few and far between. The cold hard truth is that they're very much the minority still, actually. Regardless, the fact that one gender was mentioned hardly indicates a derogatory swipe at the other. The old "not your father's Oldsmobile" commercials didn't mean that they didn't want women to buy the cars. Similarly, "Not your father's Star Trek" is catchier than "Not your parents' Star Trek", plain and simple, and that's what they're doing here. It's an advertising hook, nothing more. Reminds me of the time I was a restaurant hostess and a customer actively took offense that I asked "Smoking or non?" instead of putting the non-smoking option first, and demanded to know why I worded it that way. I said, "Um, because I say it a thousand times a night and "Smoking or non" is faster and easier to say than "Non-smoking or smoking." She blinked, said, "Oh," and dropped it. Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one.

Where the heck did you find a restaurant that still has a smoking section? I can't even find a bar or a park where you can smoke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roy up until very recently smoking was allowed in almost all restaurants here in AZ. It's not now.

 

As for the poll...seriously? No really, is this serious? :P Now we're just looking for things to be upset about. No, it doesn't offend me in the least and it's not sexist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the poll...seriously? No really, is this serious? :P Now we're just looking for things to be upset about. No, it doesn't offend me in the least and it's not sexist.

Seriously, yes. It bothered me. As I said, Star Trek was something that I shared with my father. My father has died so I can no longer share it with him and the statement "Not your fathers Star Trek" brought a flood of negative emotions back to me. So that's why I was bothered by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If by not being my father's Star Trek it means this will gross 300 Million domestic and get raves from a large cross section of fans and casual movie-goers alike as opposed to being my fathers star trek and giving me a rehash of Insurrection and gross under a hundred million causing Paramount to slash Trek production and budgets even further I can live without it being my father's Star Trek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this