Orci talks about Star Trek 3

Creating a whole world out of thin air wasn't far fetched?

Bones was right, it literally was Genesis.

 

One was highly rated and well liked by audiences, the other not so much.

And as Nerys pointed out, SW has always been more popular than Trek.

 

Both were highly rated and well liked by audiences at the time of release.

As opposed to complaining by internet types years after the fact.

 

No it wasn't. People saw TPM to satisfy their cursiosity only and almost immediately tore it to shreds via word of mouth. Only very young kids enjoyed it--because they didn't know any better--and adopted it as their generational touchstone for future unwarranted nostalgia. The ticket sales do not equate to audience satisfaction. Of course, studio heads don't care as long as they get your money.

 

The Phantom Menace made the most money of all Star Wars movies which makes it the best of the Star Wars movie and made Star Wars more accessible to general audiences. This is the logic used for the new Star Trek movies, so how can you say it's true for nuTrek and not true for Star Wars?

 

And it is now generally reviled as the worst SW movie (tied with Attack of the Clones).

Personally, I don't see financial success as being the ONLY indicator of popularity. As was pointed out, TPM was seen because it was the first SW movie in 30 years. So, because it had Star Wars in the title people ran to see it.

Star Trek 09 and Into Darkness had least had more interesting characters and social commentary and fun that reminded me of TOS than TPM reminded me of Star Wars.

 

Well, now you've lost all semblance of credibility whatsoever, but I'm starting to think you don't even care about such things. That is not only a patently false statement on its face, but is also sneering trollish douchebaggery. Perhaps you don't know any adults in an offline context who enjoyed it -- though even that much is less than certain -- but you've likely read posts on this site and others from people who enjoyed the film and who were not "very young kids". And somehow you also missed the professional reviewers who enjoyed the film. Maybe you only associate with people irl who share your views on everything. Who knows? But you're living in denial and your lack of respect for those whose opinions differ from your own speaks volumes.

 

While some professional reviewers did enjoy it, that's a far cry from "both were highly rated and well liked by audiences at the time of release."

Reviews at the time were pretty much as split as they are now. And the audiences knew pretty much right away, although some I think were in denial at first. Yes, people still complain about it on the internet, but well, that's the internet.

It's definitely not the worst movie ever, but compared to reviews of Star Trek, it did not perform as well.

As far as money being the only metric used here, I don't think that's true. I think it's been said that money is the only objective metric here. At least, that is if we had full understanding of budgets, advertising, distribution, etc. And we don't, so personally I don't think money says much more than how many people went to see it. It doesn't always correlate to quality.

 

No one is saying making the most money equals the best. Why is it when ever someone mentions that a film is financially successful, there are people who assume that means they're saying the film was the best?

 

Infraction for Flaming for the bolded part above. Comments to PM.

 

That's certainly untrue. I enjoyed The Phantom Menace.

I rank it less than Return of the Jedi, my least favorite film of the OT, in terms of Star Wars films I enjoy. All that means is that there are things about The Phantom Menace that I didn't enjoy as much as I enjoy other things. There are things about The Phantom Menace that I didn't enjoy at all and still don't, but I still enjoy rewatching the film. The title alone is a clever multifaceted play on words, in the guise of something cheesy, that is remarkably sobering to contemplate.

The challenge of making a successor to the OT was that, except in only very slight ways, there was no place to go but down.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about in this case. Or do you just make up whatever sounds plausible and comforting and shoot it out here to see if anyone buys it at all?

 

Star Trek 2009 was the first Star Trek movie in however many years so people ran to see it.

It doesn't matter what YOU think.

That is what many members here will tell you. Box office results determine everything to many diehards here.


See I'm more in the 2009 was pretty good, STID was only okay camp but to some here that is blasphemous because it's ALL about the box office numbers. Of course box office numbers don't equal quality which is the entire reason I'm using TPM as an example.

 

I have long given up on my opinion mattering in the scope of discussing Abrams Trek

However, TPM is a fine example to use in the box office numbers, as well as other metrics to discuss. I personally think that 09 was a good film, and ID was ok, but could have been more.

 

You people are wrong about TPM. WRONG.

 

TPM is better than ROTJ in every conceivable way.

 

What is this??? A difference of opinion!!! Non-monolithic thinking!!!
[/Dalek voice]

 

Apples and oranges

 

No, not really. The reference to box office results has been raised as the only objective measure of success for the studio--NOT the viewer--as a counter to the ridiculous attempts at painting the Abrams Trek movies as some sort of financial failure. That is all the box office receipts have been referenced for. When arguing about the Abrams Trek films as being popular, box office numbers are one part of three components--the other two being the very high critical ratings found at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for each film (something some people try very hard to deny by utilizing a degree of mental gymnastics that would be impressive, if a prize for an ability to distort reality was up for grabs) AND the very high audience-driven ratings for each (with hundreds of thousands of people, taken across the general movie-going audience, not fans per se). These are not iron-clad "scientific results", but they are strong indications of A) financial success for the filmmakers, B) critical appreciation of the films and C) a high degree of popularity among the general public.

These three things might be infuriating to those who did not enjoy the films, but they remain true. No one has been (seriously) arguing that any individual MUST enjoy the films--but when some who have not enjoyed them attempt to categorize the films as "failures" (usually financial), "critically unappreciated" (usually by suggesting the positive critical reviews were really all "back-handed compliments" or some other such nonsense) and "unpopular" (usually by pointing to a tiny, disgruntled group within the fan base, because relying on the general audience makes this argument untenable), they should not expect to have their erroneous views, which are clearly contradicted by the facts, to go without comment or challenge.

 

If you subtract the foreign receipts and the revenue generated by 3D and IMAX ticket sales, Star Trek Into Darkness is a definite financial failure.