Star Trek was completely shut out at the MTV Movie Awards!

[Mr. B]

Shunned by the prestigious MTV awards... what a pity.

It's no loss to a flick that was hardly cinematic genius.

[Captain Robert April]

BriGuy wrote:

---

I guess Trek isn't hip anymore. At least not hip enough for the MTV crowd.

Didn't last long, did it?

I wonder if the geeks will have y'all back

(checking Magic 8 ball)

"Doubtful"

[The Keeper]

Cornholio wrote:

---

only one:

MTV - the 'M' stands for moron.

Dayton Ward wrote:

---

MTV is to awards as...well...MTV is to music.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

They may have been shut out of awards this year, but wasn't there a Star Trek skit done during the 2009 awards -- and (IIRC) didn't Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto perticipate as presenters?

[Ryan8bit]

Dennis wrote:

---

Right, that's why it outperformed every other version by a hundred miles.

Why does comparison even matter in terms of how many people saw it? If people make decisions on quality based on how popular something is, then said people need to take a lesson in thinking for themselves. Otherwise they should just accept that Twilight: New Moon is a better movie than Star Trek just because it performed better...

[WarMaster1701]

Star Trek cleaned up at the SpikeTV Awards, which is voted on just like the MTV movie awards

[irunthis]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

No one is asking the big question: which is how did Angelina Jolie get nominated for a movie ("Salt") that hasn't even opened yet?

Holy temporal paradox!

(I suspect red matter was involved.)

I was questioning the same thing too. But then I stopped with my thought processes after remembering that the MTV Movie Awards isn't really known for being prestigious. I mean, how did Sandra Bullock win that major award? Was it just because of her trials and tribulations in her personal life?

[Devon]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

Why does comparison even matter in terms of how many people saw it? If people make decisions on quality based on how popular something is, then said people need to take a lesson in thinking for themselves. Otherwise they should just accept that Twilight: New Moon is a better movie than Star Trek just because it performed better...

Outperformed most other Trek critically too. Obviously doing something right with everyone that Trek could barely do with in its fanbase before.

Next question?

[Ryan8bit]

Devon wrote:

---

Outperformed most other Trek critically too. Obviously doing something right with everyone that Trek could barely do with in its fanbase before.

Next question?

It's pretty obvious that you missed the point entirely. It doesn't matter what other people think in terms of your own enjoyment of it. You can cite all the box office records, professional reviews, and movie awards, and that still shouldn't change your own enjoyment of the movie by one bit. Think for yourself.

[MvRojo]

WarMaster1701 wrote:

---

Star Trek cleaned up at the SpikeTV Awards, which is voted on just like the MTV movie awards

Exactly. No one here bitched about those awards when they're exactly the same, except Trek won some.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

irunthis wrote:

---

I was questioning the same thing too. But then I stopped with my thought processes after remembering that the MTV Movie Awards isn't really known for being prestigious. I mean, how did Sandra Bullock win that major award? Was it just because of her trials and tribulations in her personal life?

Uh, Bullock won an Oscar this year - more "prestigious" than either an MTV award or any kind of award that skiffy fans have dreamt up.

[Locutus]

I'd be a little more worried if the movie hadn't come out more than a year ago. The voting for this movie happened WEEEEELLLLLLLL after the movie had finished its theatrical run, and therefore its main moment in the sun. For as much as DVD / BluRay sales are the real money for Paramount these days, the key time for visibility is the Theatrical Run. Trek 09 did well at the Spike awards, which is a much better sign of the place that Trek had when it was out in the theatres.

And, as someone else mentioned, do we really WANT Trek to get lumped in with Twilight?!

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

Why does comparison even matter in terms of how many people saw it?

Why does your opinion of quality matter? Or mine?

Why shouldn't the opinions of millions and millions of other people matter as much or more?

The "popularity doesn't equal good" assertion generally only comes up when it's useful in ignoring the success of something one doesn't like. The idea that Trek fans in general, or the fans on this board, represent some exalted standard of taste as regards these things is arrant nonsense.

As far as I'm concerned, this movie was better than most Trek since TOS (the actual series) - and I've seen and liked most of those shows and movies.

[Ryan8bit]

Dennis wrote:

---

Why does your opinion of quality matter? Or mine?

Why shouldn't the opinions of millions and millions of other people matter as much or more?

The "popularity doesn't equal good" assertion generally only comes up when it's useful in ignoring the success of something one doesn't like. The idea that Trek fans in general, or the fans on this board, represent some exalted standard of taste as regards these things is arrant nonsense.

As far as I'm concerned, this movie was better than most Trek since TOS (the actual series) - and I've seen and liked most of those shows and movies.

See, what you're partly getting at is that there can be some sort of objective truth when it comes to opinions, and that's just wrong.

It doesn't matter if some idiot on this board likes/dislikes the movie or even goes against the grain. It doesn't matter if MTV shut it out or if it won any other awards. It doesn't matter how much money it made. All that will possibly do is ensure another movie by the same creative team, or make people who agree feel like their opinion is validated.

But what really matters is one's own opinion, and they shouldn't feel threatened if a majority (or selective subset perceived as a majority) disagrees with them. Brett's comment seemed to be just his own opinion despite some possibly poor wording, but countering that with a declaration that the movie made a lot of money just seems strange to me. So what if the movie made a lot of money? Is the guy with that opinion supposed to just roll over, admit some sort of defeat, and join the majority? I dunno, that just sounds weird to me.

[Joeman]

As far as I'm concerned, the less anything that I like is associated with MTV, the better. That channel has been a joke for a long time, and I even have it deleted from my channel list. Their opinions mean nothing to me.