RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,854
Posts: 5,474,417
Members: 25,043
Currently online: 486
Newest member: denver23

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Trek Business Card Cases
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

February IDW Publishing Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

Retro Review: The Siege of AR-558
By: Michelle on Nov 15

Trevco Full Bleed Uniform T-Shirts
By: T'Bonz on Nov 14


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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 2 2014, 08:07 AM   #196
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: 全tar Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

Christopher wrote: View Post
Not during most of shooting, but definitely toward the end and in editing and post-production. You'd be surprised how much a film's content can be changed after filming by redubbing and selectively editing the dialogue. I recall reading an article about how they were actually able to use CGI to alter Leonard Nimoy's mouth movements to fit redubbed dialogue. My understanding is that the entire Spock Prime mind-meld sequence, which contains the most ludicrous science in the movie (the whole ridiculous portrayal of the supernova and how it's "stopped"), was constructed quite late in post-production and was substantially altered from what was originally planned.
Although there are differences between this November 2007 script and the finished movie, the supernova/black hole "science" remains the same. I have to assume they intended all along for the movie to use this kind of fantasy dressed up in the loosest science-fiction concepts.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline  
Old May 2 2014, 12:52 PM   #197
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: 全tar Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

YARN wrote: View Post

Everything other than $$$ is purely subjective?
What other yardstick are we suppose to use? Rotten Tomatoes has nearly 300,000 people rating Into Darkness as a 4.3/5 overall and critics generally like the movie. The movie sold a decent amount of tickets and did well on home video. But we're consistently told by some (over and over and over) that the movie is some type of colossal failure and the worst Star Trek ever. Which is non-sense. I'd rather see Will Ferrell and Jack Black play Kirk and Spock than subject myself to something like "Fair Haven" again.

So what yardstick are we suppose to use?
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline  
Old May 2 2014, 01:16 PM   #198
Agenda
Fleet Captain
 
Re: 全tar Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

BillJ wrote: View Post
YARN wrote: View Post

Everything other than $$$ is purely subjective?
What other yardstick are we suppose to use? Rotten Tomatoes has nearly 300,000 people rating Into Darkness as a 4.3/5 overall and critics generally like the movie. The movie sold a decent amount of tickets and did well on home video. But we're consistently told by some (over and over and over) that the movie is some type of colossal failure and the worst Star Trek ever. Which is non-sense. I'd rather see Will Ferrell and Jack Black play Kirk and Spock than subject myself to something like "Fair Haven" again.

So what yardstick are we suppose to use?
The yardstick of "Did I like the movie or not"?
Agenda is offline  
Old May 2 2014, 02:31 PM   #199
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: 全tar Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

YARN wrote: View Post
Seeing as how Paramount only cares about making money, this is not surprising.
And so long as they do make money with Star Trek we'll get new movies.

No one cares if you don't like what you see so long as enough of the rest of us like what we are presented with.

That is the only objective measurement of "good" a studio is interested in: mass-marketability.
beamMe is offline  
Old May 2 2014, 02:41 PM   #200
Dennis
The Man
 
Dennis's Avatar
 
Location: America
Re: 全tar Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

YARN wrote: View Post

Everything other than $$$ is purely subjective?
What part of that is hard for you?

YARN wrote: View Post
You have, from this moment forward, no logically consistent basis for aesthetic judgments (binding on others), save for questions of profit. You have to grounds to praise or blame films, ship designs, acting, etc., save to say, "I like/didn't like it" (which is not rationally binding on others) or "It made money."
You're saying that I don't get to "critique" popular culture? That I have to just like or not like something, and say so?

Color me devastated. Boo-fucking-who.

As for the rest of that rant...Pass.
__________________
"And they say I didn't have a talent...try balancing a champagne glass on your ass." - Kim Kardashian

Last edited by Dennis; May 2 2014 at 02:55 PM.
Dennis is online now  
Old May 2 2014, 02:47 PM   #201
Dennis
The Man
 
Dennis's Avatar
 
Location: America
Re: 全tar Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
I have to assume they intended all along for the movie to use this kind of fantasy dressed up in the loosest science-fiction concepts.
It's what Star Trek does.
__________________
"And they say I didn't have a talent...try balancing a champagne glass on your ass." - Kim Kardashian
Dennis is online now  
Old May 2 2014, 02:48 PM   #202
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: 全tar Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

All of those attempting to refute Dennis are missing the point. It's not about "good" or "bad", it's about commercial "success" or "failure". He is simply, and quite unambiguously, pointing out that the only measure of a film's success that can be objectively assessed, as far as those paying for its production, is money. Furthermore, that is the only yardstick that matters as to whether to make more such films in the same style/with the same creative team.

Anyone who doesn't like a particular film is free to hold that opinion. But whether anyone in particular likes or dislikes a film is irrelevant. A film, to its producers, is a success if it makes a decent ROI. Critical acclaim and support of the diehard "fans" is nice, but ultimately superfluous.
Ovation is offline  
Old May 2 2014, 02:51 PM   #203
Dennis
The Man
 
Dennis's Avatar
 
Location: America
Re: 全tar Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

Ovation wrote: View Post
All of those attempting to refute Dennis are missing the point. It's not about "good" or "bad", it's about commercial "success" or "failure". He is simply, and quite unambiguously, pointing out that the only measure of a film's success that can be objectively assessed, as far as those paying for its production, is money. Furthermore, that is the only yardstick that matters as to whether to make more such films in the same style/with the same creative team.

Anyone who doesn't like a particular film is free to hold that opinion. But whether anyone in particular likes or dislikes a film is irrelevant. A film, to its producers, is a success if it makes a decent ROI. Critical acclaim and support of the diehard "fans" is nice, but ultimately superfluous.
Bingo!

It's not hard, guys.
__________________
"And they say I didn't have a talent...try balancing a champagne glass on your ass." - Kim Kardashian
Dennis is online now  
Old May 2 2014, 03:07 PM   #204
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: 全tar Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

Ovation wrote: View Post
All of those attempting to refute Dennis are missing the point. It's not about "good" or "bad", it's about commercial "success" or "failure".
I actually do remember that specific point coming up and Makeshift quite specifically saying he was talking about good or bad, not commercial success or failure, which it seems to me -- even it wasn't reasonably obvious from what came before -- should have cleared that up. Right? But then after that we have a post by the estimable Dennis talking about box office as an "objective" standard or yardstick or what have you. And it is an objective measure of commercial success (at least short term) but unfortunately that has nothing to do with measuring quality which the guy he was supposedly talking to (or at least at or around) was specifically talking about and he knows that.

See how that's a problem? It's a problem. Responding with box office numbers to conversations about quality does not make sense. It is a non sequitur. It looks almost like the avoidance of a conversation about quality in favour of choosing to answer an unasked question about something else entirely and pretending that unasked question is what the other guy was really talking about. (And you can choose to bang the "studios care only about commercial success or failure" drum if you like, which is great, but it's pretty hard to make that relevant to audience members who are best placed to judge whether they liked the film. Which incidentally is why subjective does not mean the same thing as irrelevant.)
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig

Last edited by BigJake; May 2 2014 at 03:38 PM.
BigJake is online now  
Old May 2 2014, 03:57 PM   #205
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: 全tar Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

BigJake wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
All of those attempting to refute Dennis are missing the point. It's not about "good" or "bad", it's about commercial "success" or "failure".
I actually do remember that specific point coming up and Makeshift quite specifically saying he was talking about good or bad, not commercial success or failure, which it seems to me -- even it wasn't reasonably obvious from what came before -- should have cleared that up. Right? But then after that we have a post by the estimable Dennis talking about box office as an "objective" standard or yardstick or what have you. And it is an objective measure of commercial success (at least short term) but unfortunately that has nothing to do with measuring quality which the guy he was supposedly talking to (or at least at or around) was specifically talking about and he knows that.

See how that's a problem? It's a problem. Responding with box office numbers to conversations about quality does not make sense. It is a non sequitur. It looks almost like the avoidance of a conversation about quality in favour of choosing to answer an unasked question about something else entirely and pretending that unasked question is what the other guy was really talking about. (And you can choose to bang the "studios care only about commercial success or failure" drum if you like, which is great, but it's pretty hard to make that relevant to audience members who are best placed to judge whether they liked the film. Which incidentally is why subjective does not mean the same thing as irrelevant.)
Then the point is still being missed.

Premise: I think the movie sucked, therefore it was a failure.
Counter: No. Your individual opinion is irrelevant to establishing success or failure in this case. The only objective measure is ROI. By that measure, the film was a success, because so many people saw it.
Premise: I don't give a shit what others think of it. It sucked.
Counter: Good for you. Still irrelevant as to success or failure.
Premise: But I want to talk about quality.
Counter: Again, good for you. Still irrelevant to success or failure, which was the original point raised. And I don't give a shit about quality...as a measure of a commercial film's success. Because it's irrelevant.

It all comes down to whether "I didn't like the movie so it's a failure" is a statement with value. To an individual, of course it is. But it's only binding on that one individual. Collective behaviour is the relevant issue for the producers, not individual disappointment.

Incidentally, I see nothing in any of Dennis's posts that argue that anyone who does not like a film with a strong box office should change his mind because the film made money. I do see that he argues such criticism does not equate with failure for the film itself. On that point he entirely correct.
Ovation is offline  
Old May 2 2014, 04:04 PM   #206
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: 全tar Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

Ovation wrote: View Post
Premise: I think the movie sucked, therefore it was a failure.
No.

Let's stop right there. Whose posts are you reading that second clause into, and why? Quote something.
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is online now  
Old May 2 2014, 04:08 PM   #207
Gep Malakai
Vice Admiral
 
Gep Malakai's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Gep Malakai Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Gep Malakai
Re: 全tar Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

And also: who (outside Ovation and Dennis) is defining "failure' as meaning "financial failure?" Because that's really the only definition of the word that citing box office can possibly rebut. It's perfectly fair to call a movie one hated a creative failure, or a narrative failure, or a failure to give one exactly what one wanted. It's a personal assessment that appeals to consensus have zero bearing on.
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline  
Old May 2 2014, 04:09 PM   #208
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: 全tar Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

Agenda wrote: View Post
Amazing Spider-Man 2 just racking up the great reviews, now at 56% tomatometre. Or maybe Orci is still a genius and it's everyone else's fault that this flick is apparently a mess.
There are too many factors involved in the quality of a film to use any one film in isolation as a benchmark for a given creator's success. I mean, the same people made The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, but one was a much better film than the other.



King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Although there are differences between this November 2007 script and the finished movie, the supernova/black hole "science" remains the same.
Oh. I hadn't known that. I guess I've been drawing some erroneous conclusions from the information I had.

Orci's comments on TrekMovie over the years had demonstrated to me that he does know his science pretty well. But I guess I should know from his involvement in things like Fringe and Sleepy Hollow that he doesn't particularly feel the need to bring that to the screen.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline  
Old May 2 2014, 04:57 PM   #209
Dennis
The Man
 
Dennis's Avatar
 
Location: America
Re: 全tar Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
And also: who (outside Ovation and Dennis) is defining "failure' as meaning "financial failure?" Because that's really the only definition of the word that citing box office can possibly rebut.
It's the only one that's not personal opinion.
__________________
"And they say I didn't have a talent...try balancing a champagne glass on your ass." - Kim Kardashian
Dennis is online now  
Old May 2 2014, 05:03 PM   #210
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: 全tar Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

Dennis wrote: View Post
It's the only one that's not personal opinion.
So? Is there any particular reason it should be relevant to personal opinion, then?

I asked earlier when was the last time someone changed your opinion of a movie by citing its box office revenue at you. Can you remember any such time? Because basically that still seems to be what you're expecting to happen here.
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig

Last edited by BigJake; May 2 2014 at 05:31 PM.
BigJake is online now  
Closed Thread

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 01:39 PM.

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