One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

It really doesn't matter what I think. The Phantom Menace was okay. I don't like the Transformers movies (But my wife loves them. Whose right?). People try to promote their very subjective opinions as somehow objective and it simply isn't the case.

 

So you believe profit is the sole factor that determines the quality of a movie?

So The Phantom Menace is the best Star Wars movie then? Obviously the people must agree since it was the highest grossing...

 

It is the only vaguely reliable scorecard that studios have. The only factor that dictates the quality of a movie to me is whether I like it or not. But I think that it's non-sense that I should be trying to pass off my opinion as objective and everyone (especially the studios) should acknowledge the brilliance of it.

If you don't like a movie then you don't like a movie. Great. But the studio shouldn't be beholden to the whims of a small group of loud, obnoxious fans who don't seem to have anything better to do than bitch about how J.J. Abrams raped their childhoods. Dozens of movies are released every year, I go to some and don't go to others. The few that I like I debate whether they're worth a purchase on home video. With Star Trek, I'll spend time debating the finer points of the movies to a degree. The films I don't like, I move on from.

 

Don't skimp on the Eye Candy -- that's our message!!!

 

Yeah, absolutely. Whatever the subjective opinions of the audience about the relative merits or otherwise of a movie, the reality is that the only barometer that makes a movie a success are it's box office takings. Plenty of lousy movies have gotten sequels off the back of the first one doing well financially. That's just how it rolls.

The reality is that if the box-office take is that big, then it doesn't matter if an objective analysis of a movie indicates it's got flaws, the simple fact is that studio heads will draw the conclusion that there's a broader audience out there who are voting with their wallets and who liked it.

So yeah. In Hollywood opinions mean nothing, box office is everything.

 

No. But it IS the most reliable indicator of the movie's SUCCESS. Success does not equal quality. But it is also a bit ridiculous for the self-appointed members of The Committee for the Way Things Ought to Be (TM) to decide that because a film is not to their liking, it is somehow a failure in a general sense. The most successful film in the Alien series (adjusted for inflation) is, IIRC, the James Cameron instalment, Aliens. I would never dispute this (unless I'm completely off kilter in terms of revenue). However, it is the least favourite of the Alien movies to me. In a very narrow sense, I guess, it could be considered a "failure" because it "failed" to make it on my list of favourable Alien films. But that would be pointless as a label, as the "failure" is specific only to me. I can certainly say (and have done so often over the years) that I prefer the other films in the series (just as some prefer some, perhaps all, the non-Abrams films) but I cannot, in a coherent fashion, argue Aliens was a "failure" in general. Nor can anyone make such an argument about the Abrams films. By the only readily available and measurable criteria around (critical reviews, audience reviews and financial gain), they were a resounding success.

 

My feelings on STID haven't changed.

Fast paced action is my least favorite genre, so I was predisposed to not liking it to begin with, but what I disliked the most was the script's constant pandering to the established Star Trek fan base.

It was as if the filmmakers felt the need to appease long time fans by throwing in as many pointless references to past Trek as possible.

Ever since the original cast signed off, I've always felt as if Trek movies have been insecure about what they are. TNG movies were forced into being more action oriented than the cast was suited; they worried non-Trek fans wouldn't like it otherwise.

Now with nuTrek, you have the opposite problem. The cast and the filmmakers are clearly suited for action, they want to make an action film, BUT, they're afraid doing so will anger or offend old school Trek fans, so they rehash old ideas and throw in as many paleoTrek references as possible in attempt to appease them.

For the first time in two decades I wish Star Trek film writers would stop worrying about what certain demographics think, and just focus on writing the best script they can.

 

I think the problem there is that franchise feature-film writers have very little say in the final product. I see so many people that don't like these films blaming the writers, which I think is putting the blame on the wrong people.

 

I agree. I for one loved the movie. I can't honestly see how anyone wouldn't enjoy it. I'm not an old school trek fan and only like the Nu trek films thus far.

 

Indeed. That's been Star Trek since 1966.

 

Don't be absurd. This is deep social commentary:

 

I think it's extremely narrow-minded to be unable to differentiate between the profit a film makes and it's overall quality.

But I guess in your world The Phantom Menace is the best Star Wars movie and better than all Star Trek movies.

There are of course many reasons why that isn't true, but if you are unable to judge the overall quality of a film by anything other than the profit it makes, then I guess it is.

 

You are again conflating the pointing out of the film as a success with an assertion of quality. For the filmmakers (i.e., those who pay to make the movie) the only tangible measure of success is return on investment. If they deem they have a sufficient ROI, they consider the movie a success. Quality, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder (not entirely, but mostly). As such, it is a far less reliable indicator of success to the filmmakers than profit.

Specific elements can be examined for quality within their respective domains (acting, direction, cinematography, screenplay, art design, sound design, etc.). However, even here we find a considerable degree of subjectivity, which again, makes these elements less reliable as a measure of success.

Now, added to profit (in the case of Abrams Trek), are critical acclaim and popular acclaim. Neither of these is as precise a measure as profit, but they offer supplemental evidence of success. The movie made a lot of money, it was critically acclaimed (unlike a lot of other movies that made a lot of money) and it was popularly acclaimed (not all movies that make a lot of money are popularly acclaimed, though there is a stronger correlation here than with critical response). No manner of "revision" by those who disliked the movie (a small minority of those who saw it) can change these facts: made a lot of money, popular with the general audience and popular with the critics. This doesn't mean that individuals cannot dislike the movie. It does make efforts to re-define the movie as a "failure", though, rather absurd.

 

For fucks sake...

I am not arguing that the film was not a commercial success. Shit I haven't even stated my personal opinion of the film.

What I dislike greatly is that people are using commercial success as the most important factor of whether or not STID was a good movie. And they are using it to berate contradictory opinions of the film. That's ridiculous.


Take every Star Wars fan on the planet and survey them. Do you think The Phantom Menace is going to win the vote of best Star Wars movie? Honestly?

 

Yet no one has done that. People have pointed to the box office as a barometer that the film was a success for Paramount and based on that, they aren't going to change the course they are on. Some folks keep trying to peddle that the films really weren't successful because they personally don't like them. Box office would show this isn't the case. But then they pull out that the films aren't "aging well" with audiences. Polls from places like Rotten Tomatoes and CNN show this simply isn't the case.

For good or ill, Paramount is going to stay the course and make little in the way of real changes to the formula based on the fact that the current formula is successful. What I think is immaterial to the process.

For the record, I believe that Star Trek Into Darkness is a damn good movie. Solid acting, great special effects, stylishly directed with a story, that while flawed, has its heart in the right place.

 

It is. But that's not what has been going on. People pointing to the financial success of the films have been doing so as a rebuttal to the absurd claims that the film is somehow a failure. You came along and interpreted those rebuttals as an assertion that profit = quality. It doesn't, and they weren't.

References to profit are not invoked to rebut individual opinions on whether one liked or disliked the films. They are invoked to rebut the claims made by some who try to redefine "success" to mean "failure".

 

When it comes to reviews, box office success and what not, all it really comes down to is one's opinion on the product itself. For me, STID sucks and I don't like the direction these films seem to be taking. Not liking something that's successful and well liked is not unique to Star Trek, You can enforce the numbers and view points, but all that really does is say that they agree with you.

That's not to say that you shouldn't use numbers. if you like where this Star Trek is going, by all means let the numbers vindicate your views. It's good to know that something you like has a chance at continuing on. I do it myself sometimes, just not to tell people that their opinions are wrong.

 

Those who think the movie is a success are trying to point to evidence that one would say measure the success of a movie: box office and critical acclaim. The consensus seems to be it was successful financially and critically.

Good natured debating back and forth between two people over why one liked the movie and why the other didn't is different than debating whether or not the movie was a success in the aggregate. In the aggregate, the movie was a success. That doesn't make the individual negative opinions of the movie invalid, but it means they are not the predominant view of the movie.

 

I saw Prometheus in the theatre and thought it sucked. Everyone I know that saw it in the theatre also thought it sucked. But I guess we made it a success and it is one of the best movies of the alien franchise?

And maybe success is the wrong word, we can interchange a lot of words. Just because a movie made a lot of money in the box office does that make it a success? It may be a success financially but was it a successful quality film?

 

My point, and I think the point others are trying to make, here, is that Hollywood cares more about financial success than artistic success.

Prometheus got decent reviews, but it didn't perform very well at the box office. Still, it brought in over twice as much domestically as Twelve Years a Slave did.

Twelve Years a Slave got 251 of 260 positive reviews on RT (97%), but didn't even bring in $60 million domestically ($131 million outside U.S.) A success? Artistically? Definitely. The studio would also call it a financial success because its budget, according to Box Office Mojo, was only $20 million.

Consider that Adam Sandler movies get universally panned in reviews, but he continues to make movies because apparently on the budgets he gets, his audience will still turn out in numbers sufficient enough that the movies make money for the studio. So financially, his movies are a success even though he'll never get an award for them.

On the other hand, artistic films often get great reviews, but take in middling amounts at the box office. Many don't even get wide distribution. These are successes, too, but not the ones that build Hollywood studios. The ability of a studio to put out an "artistic" or limited audience movie stems from putting out the large-grossing popcorn flicks like Iron Man.