RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,183
Posts: 5,435,853
Members: 24,947
Currently online: 585
Newest member: CaptainJaymez

TrekToday headlines

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


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 June 5 2014, 02:13 PM   #136
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Alex1939 wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Alex1939 wrote: View Post

So you believe profit is the sole factor that determines the quality of a movie?
It is the only vaguely reliable scorecard that studios have. The only factor that dictates the quality of a movie to me is whether I like it or not. But I think that it's non-sense that I should be trying to pass off my opinion as objective and everyone (especially the studios) should acknowledge the brilliance of it.

If you don't like a movie then you don't like a movie. Great. But the studio shouldn't be beholden to the whims of a small group of loud, obnoxious fans who don't seem to have anything better to do than bitch about how J.J. Abrams raped their childhoods. Dozens of movies are released every year, I go to some and don't go to others. The few that I like I debate whether they're worth a purchase on home video. With Star Trek, I'll spend time debating the finer points of the movies to a degree. The films I don't like, I move on from.
I think it's extremely narrow-minded to be unable to differentiate between the profit a film makes and it's overall quality.

But I guess in your world The Phantom Menace is the best Star Wars movie and better than all Star Trek movies.

There are of course many reasons why that isn't true, but if you are unable to judge the overall quality of a film by anything other than the profit it makes, then I guess it is.
You are again conflating the pointing out of the film as a success with an assertion of quality. For the filmmakers (i.e., those who pay to make the movie) the only tangible measure of success is return on investment. If they deem they have a sufficient ROI, they consider the movie a success. Quality, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder (not entirely, but mostly). As such, it is a far less reliable indicator of success to the filmmakers than profit.

Specific elements can be examined for quality within their respective domains (acting, direction, cinematography, screenplay, art design, sound design, etc.). However, even here we find a considerable degree of subjectivity, which again, makes these elements less reliable as a measure of success.

Now, added to profit (in the case of Abrams Trek), are critical acclaim and popular acclaim. Neither of these is as precise a measure as profit, but they offer supplemental evidence of success. The movie made a lot of money, it was critically acclaimed (unlike a lot of other movies that made a lot of money) and it was popularly acclaimed (not all movies that make a lot of money are popularly acclaimed, though there is a stronger correlation here than with critical response). No manner of "revision" by those who disliked the movie (a small minority of those who saw it) can change these facts: made a lot of money, popular with the general audience and popular with the critics. This doesn't mean that individuals cannot dislike the movie. It does make efforts to re-define the movie as a "failure", though, rather absurd.
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 02:31 PM   #137
Alex1939
Captain
 
Alex1939's Avatar
 
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

For fucks sake...

I am not arguing that the film was not a commercial success. Shit I haven't even stated my personal opinion of the film.

What I dislike greatly is that people are using commercial success as the most important factor of whether or not STID was a good movie. And they are using it to berate contradictory opinions of the film. That's ridiculous.


Take every Star Wars fan on the planet and survey them. Do you think The Phantom Menace is going to win the vote of best Star Wars movie? Honestly?
Alex1939 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 02:49 PM   #138
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Alex1939 wrote: View Post
What I dislike greatly is that people are using commercial success as the most important factor of whether or not STID was a good movie. And they are using it to berate contradictory opinions of the film. That's ridiculous.
Yet no one has done that. People have pointed to the box office as a barometer that the film was a success for Paramount and based on that, they aren't going to change the course they are on. Some folks keep trying to peddle that the films really weren't successful because they personally don't like them. Box office would show this isn't the case. But then they pull out that the films aren't "aging well" with audiences. Polls from places like Rotten Tomatoes and CNN show this simply isn't the case.

For good or ill, Paramount is going to stay the course and make little in the way of real changes to the formula based on the fact that the current formula is successful. What I think is immaterial to the process.

For the record, I believe that Star Trek Into Darkness is a damn good movie. Solid acting, great special effects, stylishly directed with a story, that while flawed, has its heart in the right place.
__________________
"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   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 03:17 PM   #139
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Alex1939 wrote: View Post
For fucks sake...

I am not arguing that the film was not a commercial success. Shit I haven't even stated my personal opinion of the film.

What I dislike greatly is that people are using commercial success as the most important factor of whether or not STID was a good movie. And they are using it to berate contradictory opinions of the film. That's ridiculous.

It is. But that's not what has been going on. People pointing to the financial success of the films have been doing so as a rebuttal to the absurd claims that the film is somehow a failure. You came along and interpreted those rebuttals as an assertion that profit = quality. It doesn't, and they weren't.

References to profit are not invoked to rebut individual opinions on whether one liked or disliked the films. They are invoked to rebut the claims made by some who try to redefine "success" to mean "failure".
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 04:07 PM   #140
Jeyl
Commodore
 
Jeyl's Avatar
 
Location: Asheville, NC
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

When it comes to reviews, box office success and what not, all it really comes down to is one's opinion on the product itself. For me, STID sucks and I don't like the direction these films seem to be taking. Not liking something that's successful and well liked is not unique to Star Trek, You can enforce the numbers and view points, but all that really does is say that they agree with you.

That's not to say that you shouldn't use numbers. if you like where this Star Trek is going, by all means let the numbers vindicate your views. It's good to know that something you like has a chance at continuing on. I do it myself sometimes, just not to tell people that their opinions are wrong.
Jeyl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 04:43 PM   #141
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Those who think the movie is a success are trying to point to evidence that one would say measure the success of a movie: box office and critical acclaim. The consensus seems to be it was successful financially and critically.

Good natured debating back and forth between two people over why one liked the movie and why the other didn't is different than debating whether or not the movie was a success in the aggregate. In the aggregate, the movie was a success. That doesn't make the individual negative opinions of the movie invalid, but it means they are not the predominant view of the movie.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain

Last edited by Franklin; June 5 2014 at 05:15 PM.
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 05:19 PM   #142
Alex1939
Captain
 
Alex1939's Avatar
 
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

I saw Prometheus in the theatre and thought it sucked. Everyone I know that saw it in the theatre also thought it sucked. But I guess we made it a success and it is one of the best movies of the alien franchise?

And maybe success is the wrong word, we can interchange a lot of words. Just because a movie made a lot of money in the box office does that make it a success? It may be a success financially but was it a successful quality film?
Alex1939 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 05:56 PM   #143
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Alex1939 wrote: View Post
I saw Prometheus in the theatre and thought it sucked. Everyone I know that saw it in the theatre also thought it sucked. But I guess we made it a success and it is one of the best movies of the alien franchise?

And maybe success is the wrong word, we can interchange a lot of words. Just because a movie made a lot of money in the box office does that make it a success? It may be a success financially but was it a successful quality film?
My point, and I think the point others are trying to make, here, is that Hollywood cares more about financial success than artistic success.

Prometheus got decent reviews, but it didn't perform very well at the box office. Still, it brought in over twice as much domestically as Twelve Years a Slave did.

Twelve Years a Slave got 251 of 260 positive reviews on RT (97%), but didn't even bring in $60 million domestically ($131 million outside U.S.) A success? Artistically? Definitely. The studio would also call it a financial success because its budget, according to Box Office Mojo, was only $20 million.

Consider that Adam Sandler movies get universally panned in reviews, but he continues to make movies because apparently on the budgets he gets, his audience will still turn out in numbers sufficient enough that the movies make money for the studio. So financially, his movies are a success even though he'll never get an award for them.

On the other hand, artistic films often get great reviews, but take in middling amounts at the box office. Many don't even get wide distribution. These are successes, too, but not the ones that build Hollywood studios. The ability of a studio to put out an "artistic" or limited audience movie stems from putting out the large-grossing popcorn flicks like Iron Man.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 07:12 PM   #144
Alex1939
Captain
 
Alex1939's Avatar
 
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Franklin wrote: View Post
Alex1939 wrote: View Post
I saw Prometheus in the theatre and thought it sucked. Everyone I know that saw it in the theatre also thought it sucked. But I guess we made it a success and it is one of the best movies of the alien franchise?

And maybe success is the wrong word, we can interchange a lot of words. Just because a movie made a lot of money in the box office does that make it a success? It may be a success financially but was it a successful quality film?
My point, and I think the point others are trying to make, here, is that Hollywood cares more about financial success than artistic success.

Prometheus got decent reviews, but it didn't perform very well at the box office. Still, it brought in over twice as much domestically as Twelve Years a Slave did.

Twelve Years a Slave got 251 of 260 positive reviews on RT (97%), but didn't even bring in $60 million domestically ($131 million outside U.S.) A success? Artistically? Definitely. The studio would also call it a financial success because its budget, according to Box Office Mojo, was only $20 million.

Consider that Adam Sandler movies get universally panned in reviews, but he continues to make movies because apparently on the budgets he gets, his audience will still turn out in numbers sufficient enough that the movies make money for the studio. So financially, his movies are a success even though he'll never get an award for them.

On the other hand, artistic films often get great reviews, but take in middling amounts at the box office. Many don't even get wide distribution. These are successes, too, but not the ones that build Hollywood studios. The ability of a studio to put out an "artistic" or limited audience movie stems from putting out the large-grossing popcorn flicks like Iron Man.
Ok great I agree with all of that.

So by that logic, a person can argue or opine that Star Trek into Darkness sucked and was a failure because it's a crap movie regardless of it's financial "success" or a metric provided via the braindead popcorn eating masses.


For the record I think STID is okay. My opinion has soured since initial viewing in the theatre but I wasn't walking out of the theatre considering it amazing anyway, merely pretty good. Still not the worst Trek movie and imo nowhere near as good as Trek 2009.
Alex1939 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 09:09 PM   #145
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Alex1939 wrote: View Post
I saw Prometheus in the theatre and thought it sucked. Everyone I know that saw it in the theatre also thought it sucked. But I guess we made it a success and it is one of the best movies of the alien franchise?

And maybe success is the wrong word, we can interchange a lot of words. Just because a movie made a lot of money in the box office does that make it a success? It may be a success financially but was it a successful quality film?
Success does not equal Quality, Success equals did the movie do what the makers set out to do (make a profit)

That is your disconnect. Yes, if a movie makes a good profit and it is critically and Popularly acclaimed it is a success. That tells you zero about the Subjective Quality of the film, it merely tells you alot of folks saw it and liked it.

If you think it sucks and it failed to impress you, that doesn't make it a failure, since the Studio doesn't care if you personally enjoyed it, they care if enough people paid to see it to make a profit for them. Just as a movie that is a box office failure (John Carter) that i like suceeded in impressing me, but, it doesn't make it a success, because the Studio doen't care what I personally think of the movie, they care that it didn't make the kind of profit they wanted it to make
__________________
One Day I hope to be the Man my Cat thinks I am

Where are we going? And why are we in this Handbasket?
Sindatur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 09:18 PM   #146
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Alex1939 wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post
Alex1939 wrote: View Post
I saw Prometheus in the theatre and thought it sucked. Everyone I know that saw it in the theatre also thought it sucked. But I guess we made it a success and it is one of the best movies of the alien franchise?

And maybe success is the wrong word, we can interchange a lot of words. Just because a movie made a lot of money in the box office does that make it a success? It may be a success financially but was it a successful quality film?
My point, and I think the point others are trying to make, here, is that Hollywood cares more about financial success than artistic success.

Prometheus got decent reviews, but it didn't perform very well at the box office. Still, it brought in over twice as much domestically as Twelve Years a Slave did.

Twelve Years a Slave got 251 of 260 positive reviews on RT (97%), but didn't even bring in $60 million domestically ($131 million outside U.S.) A success? Artistically? Definitely. The studio would also call it a financial success because its budget, according to Box Office Mojo, was only $20 million.

Consider that Adam Sandler movies get universally panned in reviews, but he continues to make movies because apparently on the budgets he gets, his audience will still turn out in numbers sufficient enough that the movies make money for the studio. So financially, his movies are a success even though he'll never get an award for them.

On the other hand, artistic films often get great reviews, but take in middling amounts at the box office. Many don't even get wide distribution. These are successes, too, but not the ones that build Hollywood studios. The ability of a studio to put out an "artistic" or limited audience movie stems from putting out the large-grossing popcorn flicks like Iron Man.
Ok great I agree with all of that.

So by that logic, a person can argue or opine that Star Trek into Darkness sucked and was a failure because it's a crap movie regardless of it's financial "success" or a metric provided via the braindead popcorn eating masses.


For the record I think STID is okay. My opinion has soured since initial viewing in the theatre but I wasn't walking out of the theatre considering it amazing anyway, merely pretty good. Still not the worst Trek movie and imo nowhere near as good as Trek 2009.
Yeah. Hell, it's fun to go around with someone in a friendly way about the strengths and weaknesses of the movie (or why post here?).

I do understand how some must've felt when they walked out of the movie disappointed. We're all fans, here and want to see the franchise do well. Right? I nearly peed my pants in excitement way back in 1978 when I heard that a Trek movie was coming out in December, 1979. I bought every issue of Starlog and any other magazine that even had a paragraph about the movie or one picture from the set in it. I couldn't wait. But to be honest, TMP disappointed me. I can't say I didn't like it, but it wasn't satisfying to me, either. It wasn't worth the wait. Yet I appreciate that the movie was very well-liked by others. I'm also glad that it was successful enough that things have gotten to the point that we can debate the success or failure of Abrams's movies over thirty years later.

So, cheers to those for whom STID wasn't their cup of tea. Bad luck, there. I reach.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 09:19 PM   #147
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

BillJ wrote: View Post
The casual moviegoers that propelled Star Trek Into Darkness to $467 million worldwide thought it was an entertaining science-fiction adventure with a fun cast and strong special effects. They didn’t care about the whole “Is Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan?” controversy or the hamfisted callbacks to Wrath of Khan or the 9/11-truther undertones. It was the hardcore Star Trek fans who took to the Internet to proclaim the film to be the “worst Star Trek film ever.” But Paramount (a division of Viacom, Inc.) knows that most of those ”Trekkies” will still show up for Star Trek 3 in summer 2016 no matter how much they disagree with the choice of Roberto Orci as director.
Nailed it.
Except we know it's not true. "Nemesis" proved that trekkers don't always show up to the theater.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 09:29 PM   #148
BigSnake
Rear Admiral
 
BigSnake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

[Redacted, because does having this same argument for the five hundredth time really appeal to me? No.]

2takesfrakes wrote:
Don't skimp on the Eye Candy -- that's our message!!!
I would be all for eye candy that wasn't about catering to creepy sexism. I love me some sexy women, but I don't want more Alice Eve when her character serves absolutely no narrative purpose except to strip off occasionally.
__________________
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
BigSnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 10:16 PM   #149
Alex1939
Captain
 
Alex1939's Avatar
 
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Sindatur wrote: View Post
Alex1939 wrote: View Post
I saw Prometheus in the theatre and thought it sucked. Everyone I know that saw it in the theatre also thought it sucked. But I guess we made it a success and it is one of the best movies of the alien franchise?

And maybe success is the wrong word, we can interchange a lot of words. Just because a movie made a lot of money in the box office does that make it a success? It may be a success financially but was it a successful quality film?
Success does not equal Quality, Success equals did the movie do what the makers set out to do (make a profit)

That is your disconnect. Yes, if a movie makes a good profit and it is critically and Popularly acclaimed it is a success. That tells you zero about the Subjective Quality of the film, it merely tells you alot of folks saw it and liked it.

If you think it sucks and it failed to impress you, that doesn't make it a failure, since the Studio doesn't care if you personally enjoyed it, they care if enough people paid to see it to make a profit for them. Just as a movie that is a box office failure (John Carter) that i like suceeded in impressing me, but, it doesn't make it a success, because the Studio doen't care what I personally think of the movie, they care that it didn't make the kind of profit they wanted it to make
But a movie can be a financial success and still be a failure as far as an enjoyable film/story to the majority of viewers or a large minority.

That's really the point here. Again, Phantom Menace. I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me it is there favorite Star Wars movie...




Edit: Maybe I should make a clearer point. If you want to defend or talk about STID as a fantastic story movie and how its da best trek eva.... okay, but can you actually do that without just saying "look at the box office numbers, obviously it was amazing" as others are here. That's really my beef. People that want to discredit or belittle those that aren't rah rah about STID and are using profit as the only means to do so. Hopefully I've debunked that profit should be used as the determining factor of a movie's quality, but I'm sure I haven't.
Alex1939 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 10:27 PM   #150
BigSnake
Rear Admiral
 
BigSnake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Alex1939 wrote: View Post
If you want to defend or talk about STID as a fantastic story movie and how its da best trek eva.... okay, but can you actually do that without just saying "look at the box office numbers, obviously it was amazing" as others are here. That's really my beef.
Changing the subject to box office and Rotten Tomatoes scores is a method essentially of silencing fire rather than engaging in a conversation; the truth is that some people want a method of ending any dispute about the films and are galled that they cannot have one. We've had the same go-round in this forum many times before.
__________________
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 BigSnake; June 5 2014 at 10:38 PM.
BigSnake 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 07:45 PM.

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