‘Star Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

Adjusting for inflation is how you make the comparison of revenue at different times actually meaningful. On account of the value of a dollar is not the same as prices inflate over time.

Couldn't say for sure but I'm reasonably confident people working for a studio would probably grasp that principle. I'm less sure why you have a problem with it other than its being polemically inconvenient for you in some way or other that is unclear to me.

 

But, once again, the business is very different than it was thirty years ago. Making one on one comparisons practically meaningless.

I don't know about you? But I've got thirty premium movie channels (not counting Pay-Per-View) where new movies go less than a year after theatrical release. In 1984, we had two, HBO and The Movie Channel and it took movies three to four years to make it to them. I could never go to the theater again and never run out of new movies to watch.

 

I have yet to have ONE (let alone several) conversations with people who saw STiD and disagreed about the plot, never mind not understanding it (they understood it just fine).

And to a larger point (addressing visual and written fiction) raised in the Meyer quotation--since when do we as the viewers (or readers) have to be spoonfed every element of a plot or explanation? It is a lazy and, frankly, absurd expectation, not to mention somewhat insulting.

The first Mission Impossible movie, back in 96, IIRC, was criticized by some people as too complicated to follow. Same thing applied to Syriana about a decade later (I'm sure there are many more examples, but I'm familiar with these two as I like each film). Yes, they were more complex than typical movie stories. And they required viewers to fill in some blanks on their own. THAT'S what I enjoy most about them (The Usual Suspects also comes to mind). Also, they weren't really all that difficult to follow.

People are free to dislike any and all of the films above. They're even free to complain that the plots of each have missing bits that make it "difficult for them to follow". But they are not entitled to have every detail spoonfed to them simply because they are either unwilling on unable to do any of the "filling in of the blanks" themselves. I'd actually prefer if far FEWER films served up everything in a nice tidy little package. But maybe that's just me.

 

Yeah, nice try, but there's nothing interesting to be said about those changes that would let you plausibly get away with declaring basic math like adjustments for inflation irrelevant*. Sorry.

Also odd that I never see you bring that up when people are comparing NuTrek to OldTrek box office as proof of Abrams' allegedly superior mojo. Of course one wouldn't want to suggest that these comparisons suddenly become "meaningless" when the data isn't being skewed to present the picture you want; that would be crazy talk.

* Actually the changes in the business are a genuinely interesting subject about which there's plenty to be said. But not as part of a polemical pissing contest.

Since I have yet to see even its superfans here come up with a single coherent rendition of what Marcus' and Khans' plans are supposed to be, I frankly don't believe you.

I've had many conversations with people who don't care about the plot as presented on screen (either because they can build a personally satisfying fan theory, or because plot and story just isn't that important to them), which is perfectly fair but not the same thing.

Strawman. When you're ready to talk about what I actually said, by all means do so.

 

I don't think anyone is saying the comparisons are totally meaningless, just that without context, they're not very useful. There's a lot more competition for the entertainment dollar out there today, and a lot more ways for a movie to make money outside of the box office than there was even ten years ago, let alone over thirty.

SW adjusted domestic box office gross is over $1.4 billion (behind only "Gone with the Wind" at $1.6 billion). "The Empire Strikes Back" is the number two SW movie at $781 million, just over half SW when controlling for inflation. Does that really say something? Only that both movies were wildly successful, and one was truly a phenomenon.

Controlling for inflation shows that Abrams's Trek movies actually bring in more box office receipts today with more and other competition than Trek movies brought in in the days when multiplexes and pay-per-view were just gleams in a developer's and cable company's eyes.

If there were fewer things out there barking for the movie-goer's dollar, it's possible (pure speculation, but I'd say logically possible) that Trek and Spiderman, and Iron Man, and so on would do even better at that one place we call the box office. A lot of folks saw SW in the theater dozens of times because that was going to be their only chance to see the movie for God knew how long. By comparison, how many people went to STID, enjoyed it a lot, so they saw it a couple more times in the theater, then decided they wait for the DVD to watch it more.

 

So, forgive me if you said this earlier, BigJake, but exactly where did the narrative of STID go off track for you? At what point in the movie did you get confused about what was going on and just give up trying to figure it all out?

 

Except that the person I was replying to just said precisely that in so many words. But I do appreciate that you're wise enough not to be saying that.

Yes, context is useful. The context of higher on-average budgets, heavier competition for movies in the overall media environment, significant countervailing forces like the existence of robust international markets that were simply not there in yonder days (which allowed STID to post its numbers), all factor in.

For that matter there are also significant revenue streams like DVD and BluRay today that probably factor in, too, and for that matter all the other various merchandising and shenanigans that makes up a franchise. All of that context would be lovely, and the picture we have is very incomplete.

Not so much a question of being confused about what the filmmakers were going for as being unconvinced by the underpinning. In general it's not hard to work out that Marcus has some complicated scheme going about trying to provoke war with the Klingons because he thinks war is inevitable and it might as well be gotten on with, and likewise that Khan's agenda is to revenge himself on Marcus and free his people and steal his ship.

It's just that none of the components supposedly selling those motivations fit, since (for instance) Marcus and his people apparently had the means to just beam things to Kronos, or at the very least had a secret badass superweapon staffed with fanatically loyal mooks that could have done the whole job without involving the Enterprise and its crew at all. Those (and various related nonsenses like Khan smuggling people in torpedoes for some reason) are the elements for which no coherent explanation exists that I can detect. It's not so much a single moment that broke it for me as an accretion of things. (Different from ST09, which finally broke for me during the rapid sequence of spectacularly unlikely coincidences because mumble-mumble Destiny on Delta Vega.)

 

+1


And BTW to the other posters in this thread talking to incoherent plot points in STiD remember the following:

The BIG plotholes (that nobody minded much) in the 1982 STII:TWoK fim was the fact that a Federation starship's sensors (or crew, including Chekov) COULDN'T tell:

1) There were LESS planets in the Ceti-Alpha system then during previous visits. (And there was a new uncharted asteroid field.)

2) That Ceti Alpha VI no longer existed.

3) That Ceti Alpha V's orbit had shifted/changed.
^^^
So, if you're going to ding STiD's script, remember the big flaws in STII:TWoK's script as well; and why no one really minds them -- because the other elements of the film (and characters are damn entertaining and enjoyable and that goes for both STII:TWoK AND STiD.

 

I said exactly what I said. I doubt the person greenlighting Star Trek 3 gives two shits about The Voyage Home's inflation adjusted box office gross.

Just so we are all clear.

 

Yes, I know you did.

I know, I know. It's time for a distraction!



It's to your credit that you at least came up with something better than the usual "what about Chekhov" gambit. Still not comparable to what I'm talking about, of course, but A for effort. (The Ceti Alpha V business is, don't get me wrong, a genuine plot hole. But it doesn't have a patch on "the bad guy has a technology that renders the story irrelevant" or "the bad guy also has a supership on standby that renders the story irrelevant.")

 

Let me try to coherently address your three points.
1. Marcus had the transwarp beaming technology, but as been speculated about on these boards before, it's quite likely the technology was limited in what could be beamed. It could also be that Khan, himself "took it" from Scotty "for Starfleet" (forged the paperwork) and kept it for himself, installing it on the jump ship. Or, he simply stole it from Starfleet and kept it until he needed it. He's a smart and capable man.
2. He didn't send the Vengeance and his "loyal mooks" after Khan because that would be too blatantly aggressive. When Kirk volunteered to go get Khan himself, Marcus adapted to the windfall that landed in his lap and tried to turn Kirk into his unwitting stooge. Let the Enterprise start the war, and the Vengeance can swoop in heroically to intervene.
3. Khan hid his people in the missiles because it would be the least conspicuous way to get them on the Vengeance. It was probably a last-minute thing, loading just before the missiles were to go to the Vengeance so they'd already be there and thawed when they were missed on Earth. When Marcus found out what (who) was in them, Khan had to abandon them and save himself. He assumed Marcus destroyed them. But Marcus was apparently biding his time looking for a way to do it that wouldn't raise a lot of questions about their disappearance. He used the luck of having the overheated Kirk's bloodlust to get Khan to his advantage, seeing it as a chance to get rid of the missiles, kill Khan, and get his war all in one shot (well, 72 shots). Thinking on the fly, it was. Very efficient, and no questions asked because the weapons were used for what they were designed for.

Seems coherent enough to me.

 

Yours is a fine attempt at an explanation, really it is, but I'm afraid it misses the point.

The point isn't that you or anyone else couldn't come up with a perfectly serviceable fanwank to close the apparent gaps in the plot. The point is that all of us could, and they will all be different, because there is not enough information on the screen for anything else to happen. That's what "coherence" means; it means there's critical information missing from what's on the screen that's necessary to make very basic plot points make sense, which makes various fan theories about those basic things necessary.

This of course is not demanding that every tiny little detail have an explanation on screen. Fanwank and coming up with our own little theories about things is part of the fun. It's only a problem for me when it afflicts extremely fundamental things like the need for the story to happen at all.

 

It's an especially pointless view, given that TMP is the reason TWOK didn't do as much business, since it scared off so many general filmgoers that they didn't come back to the theater till TVH (and homevid for TWOK probably helped build that.)

 

But, obviously, enough people enjoyed the movie overall that they didn't mind the missing information or were happy enough to fill in the blanks themselves. It still all comes back to a simply question: did Star Trek Into Darkness entertain the people who saw it? From everything I've seen here and elsewhere, it did satisfy the vast majority of people who saw it.

I think that would qualify it as a success overall. YMMV.

 

The problem is, you can't have a four hour movie. If the there's no need for the story because you can't think of a reason for why what is happening on the screen is happening, then why not fill in the blanks? If everyone can come up with perfectly serviceable answers (or our own little theories or fanwank) for why things happened as they did on the screen, then what's the problem? Problems exist when you walk out of the theater after a movie, have time to digest it, and then start realizing too many things happened for which there are no explanations at all. Like Khan not beaming Kirk up to the Reliant when he had him cornered in TWOK (beam up Kirk THEN beam up Genesis, if you want it). Looking Kirk in the eye and exacting his revenge was his goal for fifteen years, and he passed up the chance when he had it on a silver platter. I mean, Kirk was supposed to have been killed for Khan by Captain Terrell, anyway.

If the explanations themselves seem far-fetched, then there may be a problem with the story. But within the context of what was going on, the explanations for what seemed to make the story not coherent for you seem reasonable for me, at least.

Have you ever given any thought to creating your own "fanwank" to make the story coherent or more believable? What key element did the writers leave out of the story that would've made it easier for you to swallow what was happening on screen? What would you have done to have made the story more coherent for you? Bear in mind a movie can't be full of exposition (or people sitting around a conference table talking a problem to death).

 

Why do you bring that up when the conversation wasn't about what "enough people enjoyed"? I'm puzzled by people who seem to need constant reassurance that Their Opinions Are Right and In the Majority. You do realize that it would be perfectly okay for you to love the heck out of STID no matter what I or anyone else think about it even if only two other people had seen it, right?

 

Come off it, man, you would need four hours to make a coherent story? No, you wouldn't, and I don't believe that you believe that. That's not even trying, now.

No, I'm not interested in rewriting the movie because its plot didn't work. I'd rather just write my own stories.

 

Because you are the guy, for a long time now, that has tried to sell everything from the movie isn't aging well with audiences to Abrams didn't understand Trek so he made a deliberately campy movie with zero proof of either.

The problem is that you try to promote your views as objective when, like the rest of us, they are nothing but subjective to your personal taste. You don't want anyone to mention how audiences overall like the films and you don't want the Abrams movies compared to past Trek. Because when those two things are introduced into the discussion, your arguments evaporate (or worse, look silly).

We all get it at this point. Everyone who likes the film are clumsy oafs who don't understand "plot logic" in the same "objective" manner that you do.

 

If you filled it with exposition, rather than leaving something to the imagination of the audience, yes, you would have a damn long movie.
For example, why Marcus just didn't have his operatives take the Vengeance and the missiles to Kronos and do the deed to Khan and his people themselves while getting his war is a legitimate question. But there are logical answers for it that aren't far-fetched and not hard to think up.

To me, coherency is lost in a story when certain information is absent and the effect of its absence on the plot can't be well-explained. I thought most of it in STID could be explained quite satisfactorily. You don't. We conflict. I'm right. You're right. That's part of the joy of living in a pluralistic society.

 

To this day, I can't figure out why the Borg went all the way to Earth and battled Starfleet in Star Trek: First Contact instead of going back in time in the Delta Quadrant and cake-walking all the way to Earth. But, damn, there are a Hell of a lot of people who enjoy that movie immensely.

Who am I to tell them that they're wrong?