‘Star Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

Absolutely this.

I've posted a variant on that theme here many times. I couldn't agree more.

 

Exactly so.

I've missed these guys for decades.

 

Yes, indeed. Well said. And I can't wait for more.

 

Sure. It's just that for my purposes, for logic and physics to yield to dramatic storytelling to some extent is quite different from their being ignored.

Stories that don't make sense lose their dramatic power for me; it's still possible to enjoy them at some level as effects showcases or silly romps, maybe, but that's different from thinking they're particularly good stories. This is why, for example, STID's attempt at being "deep" in Kirk's final monologue against revenge ultimately falls flat for me: everything around it is too silly and incoherent for the sentiment to have any real weight.

No.

I mean, its subjective importance for your enjoyment is, sure. Its existence really isn't. Just like the basic logic of a sentence isn't "subjective" in any usefully descriptive sense. words and letsret ni redro mon , with Other gninaem ew out ew out obviously esiw gnicidudjerp dar which can't could put.

Also, that Nicholas Meyer quote is great, but I don't think you really understand what he's saying. (Hint: he's not saying that it's not his job for the stories in his movies to make sense. He is saying something about visual and sensory overkill which someone like J.J. could certainly learn from.)

 

Yeah, I don't agree. Plenty of posters like myself can and do follow along with the plot of STiD without any difficulty. Some details are omitted and are left for us to fill in. Does that 'break' the plot of the movie. You'll say yes. I'll say no.

Subjective.

I understand it just fine, thanks, and I certainly don't need any 'hints' from you when it comes to gleaning intent. The quote applies equally well to story questions as it does to visual ones and I used it thusly.

It's not up to the film to lead us by the nose through events, it's up to the film to make us feel something. It's also a matter of emphasis: the specific details of Marcus's plot to drive the Federation into war with the Klingons don't matter, except insofar as they inform his actions.

 

"Some" details aren't. The most basic details driving the action are. When it's left up to the audience to fill in what the villain's basic plan is supposed to be, you're right, some people are less bothered by that than others. But the issue of coherency doesn't change at all.

If the movie is providing a basic, coherent narrative, most people leaving the theatre will be able to give you the same basic answer to that most basic of questions without referring to deleted scenes and their own personal theories. This simply cannot be done with the plot of STID. Trying to play that off as cool arthouse ambiguity is all well and good, but you'll have to forgive me if it doesn't impress me.

No.

 

Sure it does.

 

Now I'm just trying to figure out what that emoticon is...

... yeah, this is gonna bug me.

 

Posting from an IPad right now, so please forgive me if my grammar is a bit weird in this post.

Really, just because JJ Trek earns so much money doesnt mean that these movies are brilliant. Transformers earns much more, and all those movies are terrible. And JJ Trek still earns, more or less, the amount of money that the original Trek movies(adjusted for inflation) earned(yes, Into Darkness may be the top grosser, but if these movies have got so many new fans in as people like to state, then, it should earn a lot more, and not slightly more. It earned less then the 2009 movie in the US, and about the same in the UK. Now that's hardly showing an increase in popularity for the franchise, in fact it only shows that the original fan base is getting pissed off, for the UK and the US are the two countries where Star Trek has always been popular)

 

As many times as you try to paint Star Trek Into Darkness as "broken", it simply isn't. Marcus is trying to start a war with the Klingons, everything feeds into that theme. For all the issues you claim to have following the plot, me and many others simply don't have them.

Are there nits I could pick with this particular version of Star Trek? Sure. Absolutely. Just like I can pick nits at the other seven-hundred plus hours that preceded it.

I know you have a tough time with folks finding the film fun to watch. I know that you have a tough time when folks take your points and show you the dozens of other times where Trek acted in a very similar manner. But, in the end, those are your problems. For me, the Abrams films are the closest the franchise has gotten to "feeling" like TOS in a very, very long time. I am tickled by that. When I walk into the Abrams films, I feel like a kid again taking in the wonder and excitement of the universe through characters I love.

 

The original fan base is getting old, too. Nothing is worse than a pissed-off old person. "Stay away from my Star Trek, you young whipper-snappers!" Abrams was a shot of Khan's blood to the franchise.

Also, as someone said in some Trek movie, "People can be very frightened of change."

 

Star Trek Into Darkness ranks very well among audiences. Many sites show that the film was pretty well liked. Even 75% of the people that voted at this site ranked it as a 'B-' or better.

TWOK earned less than TMP, does that make TMP the better movie? Into Darkness was sandwiched between Iron Man 3 and The Fast and Furious 6, it had far more in the way of direct competition around it than Star Trek (2009) did.

Sometimes things just don't line up for a film to be a mega box office hit. It is what it is.

 

See, that's one of the examples why I don't care. TMP and TWOK are very different kind of films, and I like them both equally. I'm a fan, not a producer.

 

Off topic briefly...

Honestly, I stopped caring about my spelling/grammar here a long time ago! I often post from my iPad/iPhone - and have made some whopping mistakes.

Even when I'm at the PC, I usually type really quickly - continuing a litany of errors! I sometimes miss key words out altogether. Screw it, I'm not at work, so constructing my posts to the absolute best of my ability is just not very important frankly - I'm here for fun.

If another poster wants to "correct" you - just ignore it. If it gives them a "rush of superiority", so be it.

 

No.

 

I'm curious: does the "adjusted for inflation" amount for a thirty-year old film mean anything to anyone that currently works at a studio? Or is it simply an inaccurate measuring of dick length among fans?

 

I remember the days where 50 cents bought 5 packs of baseball cards, a Bubs Daddy, a comic book, two packages of sweet tarts, and a root beer. And there was still enough left over for a movie and popcorn, and the bus ride home!

Given all the other outlets for movies these days besides the box office, and the different types and amounts of competition for entertainment dollars, I doubt the comparisons mean much to bean counters at the studios. In other words, controlling for inflation means nothing unless you're also controlling for the context in which the box office was taken, and I'm not too sure what that accomplishes that matters in the end.

 

When you properly adjust for inflation, you basically compare the amount of tickets sold. I'd say that's one of the more accurate dick length measurement techniques.

 

But thirty-years ago the market was entirely different. Home video was still in its infancy, movies took years to make it to TV and no one could download an HD version of the film in 30 minutes.

There are many more way to access the material now.

It's like comparing Joe Montana vs. Tom Brady. The latter may have superior numbers but the rules between the two era's play a big part.

 

For me, TMP is simply a better movie--not by much (TWoK is just behind it my fanboy esteem, with the two Abrams film lagging further behind in the 3 and 4 slots, before TSfS and FC) (The rest of them suck, imao) but better, But hat's a matter of taste and, though we will argue it, it probably won't be changed.