Tom Servo wrote:
The Castellan wrote:
I don't read/watch film reviews.
Plus seeing as how popcorn action flicks are what masses watch, it's a no brainer.
So instead of arguing the point, you ignore it? You still haven't shown how it was dumbed down for the masses, despite the fact that you INSIST it was.
And going by this list:
In the top ten of the highest grossing films of all time, I count...two...popcorn action flicks, and that is if you include Avatar in that category of film.
Your argument isn't based in reality. Sorry.
Really The Castellan has a good point. Mindless, generic "popcorn" movies do well. JJ's Star Trek was meant for the masses that aren't serious fans of Trek and in that regard it did very well. However, to many of the serious Trek fans this movie was an utter abomination and in that regard it was a failure. I've never watched it and never will, just seeing the promos made me think "Yuck!". I won't however disregard it's success on a general level, I just keep in mind that it's really not a Trek movie in the true sense of the term.
Whats a Trek movie in the true sense of the term? Who and what determines this? Does it have to bomb at the BO to be a true Trek film?
In your guys' personal canon, fine, you have all the right to say that this isn't a real trek film, just as much as I would have the right to say that TOS isn't part of my Star Trek canon (it is, but just for example). However, to those that matter, i.e. Paramount, the people making the decisions, and the rest of the universe, this film as as "true" Trek as TNG is.
And I disagree with the idea that this was an abomination to serious Trek fans. Most Trek fans I know loved the film, and it's a small minority of fans who feel that they were wronged in some way, that are the most vocal detractors of it.