RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,590
Posts: 5,424,209
Members: 24,809
Currently online: 548
Newest member: Super Scout

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12

New Wizkids Attack Wing Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Coto Drama Sold To Fox
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Braga Inks Deal
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Remastered Original Series Re-release
By: T'Bonz on Sep 11

UK Trek Ships Calendar Debuts
By: T'Bonz on Sep 10


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 23 2013, 03:31 AM   #31
Gojira
Commodore
 
Gojira's Avatar
 
Location: Stompin' on Tokyo
Re: JJ's Trek - The critics - and STID

I think a lot of people, fans and non-fans alike, that enjoyed the last one will check this new movie out. If the critical reviews are positive and if word of mouth is strong then this one will also be a big success.
__________________
My Science Fiction-Fantasy movie review Blog: http://foleyfunfilmfacts.wordpress.com/
Gojira is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23 2013, 09:28 AM   #32
mos6507
Captain
 
mos6507's Avatar
 
Re: JJ's Trek - The critics - and STID

Franklin wrote: View Post
What is a "lowest common denominator demographic," anyway? How do I know it when I see someone who fits that description?
In medieval times, storefronts used to avoid words and use pictures to describe what they were selling because the public was so illiterate. That's kind of where we are now with movies because they have to not only be mainstream for US audiences--they have to be able to resonate for international ones as well.

Therefore everything waters itself down to "good guys" and "bad guys", so the dialogue (which is going to be subtitled or dubbed) won't matter and any localized cultural references will be few and far between.

This is how Hollywood today operates.

And you also have to think about the thought process that goes into deciding whether or not to plunk your money down for a ticket. Why is it that these CG kids movies are so popular, for instance? Over the weekend I will probably offer to take my daughter to see The Croods. I've already gotten wind of lackluster reviews of it. Why would I do that? Because I need to take her out and do something special since it's been a long time. The money I plunk down is not a validation of the movie. It's because the movies are a sociological phenomenon. We've got a 3D flat-screen at home now. We don't specifically need to go to the movies at all. But we go to "go to the movies". And that's what LCD is. The minimum entertainment experience people will want when they "go to the movies" is spectacle. And that's what Transformers, ST, Marvel comic book movies, that's what they all do.

Back before home-video and all the other competition for people's attention arrived, movies were a more dominant medium that covered a more complete spectrum of topics. And that includes sci-fi. Compare Prometheus to Alien, for instance. Alien was a rather intimate horror movie compared to the epicness of Prometheus. The difference in tone reflects the different role that movies play in people's entertainment now vs. then. Audiences demand to be bludgeoned by shock and awe. If they want something more cerebral they will watch an HBO drama.
__________________
Fem Trekz on Facebook
mos6507 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23 2013, 11:23 AM   #33
yousirname
Commander
 
yousirname's Avatar
 
Re: JJ's Trek - The critics - and STID

mos6507 wrote: View Post
In medieval times, storefronts used to avoid words and use pictures to describe what they were selling because the public was so illiterate. That's kind of where we are now with movies because they have to not only be mainstream for US audiences--they have to be able to resonate for international ones as well.

Therefore everything waters itself down to "good guys" and "bad guys", so the dialogue (which is going to be subtitled or dubbed) won't matter and any localized cultural references will be few and far between.

This is how Hollywood today operates.
Paul Thomas Anderson doesn't seem to have noticed. Someone ought to tell him.

Back before home-video and all the other competition for people's attention arrived, movies were a more dominant medium that covered a more complete spectrum of topics.
Hollywood's always been primarily genre-driven. The difference, aside from short term influences like the economic circumstances of the last 4 or so years, has been that marketing departments have been more readily able to identify niche markets. So niche market films are marketed to their respective niches. Other films, mainstream or tent-pole fare, are aggressively marketed everywhere. And sure, they're tailored to satisfy a 'lowest common denominator' audience. They always have been. Hollywood studios didn't gradually transform from noble, art-for-art's-sake intellectuals to base purveyors of watered-down pabulum. They've always been purveyors of watered-down pabulum.

There was a period from some time in the late '60s to some time in the early '80s where the culture of the primary market was undergoing rapid changes and it wasn't clear what kind of movies it would best respond to. Some small number of younger people were able to prove with unexpected successes that they knew better than the studios what would and wouldn't succeed. And so you got the much-vaunted time of the Hollywood auteur, many of the films made by whom are unwatchable today, their other successes notwithstanding.

All that's happened since then is that marketing techniques have improved.

And that includes sci-fi. Compare Prometheus to Alien, for instance. Alien was a rather intimate horror movie compared to the epicness of Prometheus. The difference in tone reflects the different role that movies play in people's entertainment now vs. then.
Alien was a half-formed idea greenlit with a minimal budget solely because of the success of Star Wars, which underwent numerous rewrites by studio executives (Ash being an android is probably the biggest such change).

All too often when examining the past, we commit a form of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. It was thus, and so it was intended to be thus, and there were numerous justifying reasons behind its having been thus. When in fact most often these are primarily accidents of circumstance.

Audiences demand to be bludgeoned by shock and awe. If they want something more cerebral they will watch an HBO drama.


HBO dramas aren't replacing something that movies have stopped giving us. They're an entirely new phenomenon giving us something movies have never been able to. The analogy I like to draw is that of short stories versus a novel.
yousirname is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23 2013, 02:49 PM   #34
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: JJ's Trek - The critics - and STID

yousirname wrote: View Post
mos6507 wrote: View Post
In medieval times, storefronts used to avoid words and use pictures to describe what they were selling because the public was so illiterate. That's kind of where we are now with movies because they have to not only be mainstream for US audiences--they have to be able to resonate for international ones as well.

Therefore everything waters itself down to "good guys" and "bad guys", so the dialogue (which is going to be subtitled or dubbed) won't matter and any localized cultural references will be few and far between.

This is how Hollywood today operates.
Paul Thomas Anderson doesn't seem to have noticed. Someone ought to tell him.

Back before home-video and all the other competition for people's attention arrived, movies were a more dominant medium that covered a more complete spectrum of topics.
Hollywood's always been primarily genre-driven. The difference, aside from short term influences like the economic circumstances of the last 4 or so years, has been that marketing departments have been more readily able to identify niche markets. So niche market films are marketed to their respective niches. Other films, mainstream or tent-pole fare, are aggressively marketed everywhere. And sure, they're tailored to satisfy a 'lowest common denominator' audience. They always have been. Hollywood studios didn't gradually transform from noble, art-for-art's-sake intellectuals to base purveyors of watered-down pabulum. They've always been purveyors of watered-down pabulum.

There was a period from some time in the late '60s to some time in the early '80s where the culture of the primary market was undergoing rapid changes and it wasn't clear what kind of movies it would best respond to. Some small number of younger people were able to prove with unexpected successes that they knew better than the studios what would and wouldn't succeed. And so you got the much-vaunted time of the Hollywood auteur, many of the films made by whom are unwatchable today, their other successes notwithstanding.

All that's happened since then is that marketing techniques have improved.

And that includes sci-fi. Compare Prometheus to Alien, for instance. Alien was a rather intimate horror movie compared to the epicness of Prometheus. The difference in tone reflects the different role that movies play in people's entertainment now vs. then.
Alien was a half-formed idea greenlit with a minimal budget solely because of the success of Star Wars, which underwent numerous rewrites by studio executives (Ash being an android is probably the biggest such change).

All too often when examining the past, we commit a form of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. It was thus, and so it was intended to be thus, and there were numerous justifying reasons behind its having been thus. When in fact most often these are primarily accidents of circumstance.

Audiences demand to be bludgeoned by shock and awe. If they want something more cerebral they will watch an HBO drama.


HBO dramas aren't replacing something that movies have stopped giving us. They're an entirely new phenomenon giving us something movies have never been able to. The analogy I like to draw is that of short stories versus a novel.
Well said.
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.