RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 145,289
Posts: 5,720,038
Members: 25,763
Currently online: 403
Newest member: jprybroek

TrekToday headlines

Where No Garden Gnome Has Gone Before
By: T'Bonz on May 22

Scotland Yard Trekkie Fear
By: T'Bonz on May 22

Koenig Joins Captain Pike Project
By: T'Bonz on May 22

Retro Review: Ex Post Facto
By: Michelle on May 22

Smallwood: Creating The Xindi
By: T'Bonz on May 21

Greenwood Joins O.J. Simpson Series
By: T'Bonz on May 21

The USS Enterprise Building
By: T'Bonz on May 20

Wheaton Guests On Mission Log Podcast
By: T'Bonz on May 20

Pegg: Star Trek 3 Less Trek-Y
By: T'Bonz on May 20

Two Trek Book Covers Unveiled
By: T'Bonz on May 19


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, 10:46 PM   #151
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Alex1939 wrote: View Post

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.


You haven't debunked anything because no one is saying what you believe them to be saying.

BillJ wrote: View Post

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.
I guess this doesn't count as me telling everyone why I liked the movie?
__________________
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 10:52 PM   #152
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
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.
Sure they did. The problem was nobody else did, and the fans didn't see it a second time.
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 10:54 PM   #153
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Harvey wrote: View Post
Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

Nailed it.
Except we know it's not true. "Nemesis" proved that trekkers don't always show up to the theater.
Sure they did. The problem was nobody else did, and the fans didn't see it a second time.
I saw it opening weekend.

Now I feel like an alcoholic admitting that I have a problem.
__________________
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 10:57 PM   #154
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

I saw it, too. In a half empty theatre.
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 11:10 PM   #155
BigJake
Vice Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Harvey wrote:
I saw it, too. In a half empty theatre.
I saw it, too.

I also didn't think it was that bad per se (aside from the silly dune buggy sequence, I mean what do we get next, turning the Enterprise into a submarine? ), just rather tired in its retreading of TWOK.

BillJ wrote: View Post
You haven't debunked anything because no one is saying what you believe them to be saying.
Changing the subject to box office returns in answer to supposed claims about "failure" is something that's been said in this thread, whether or not you specifically were doing it.

And be in no doubt, when that tactic emerges as a non sequitur -- as it looks to have done again here -- it does look an awful lot like an attempt to claim that profit determines quality. Yes, when pressed there is usually some subsequent waffling about it determining success and not "quality", but since that's usually paired with implications that success being "objective" is a more worthwhile topic than quality anyway, this really amounts to a distinction without much of a difference.

It all smacks of a fallacious attempt to claim that My Opinions Are Correct and In the Majority, Unlike Your Opinions, and the reason people react to it as bizarre is because it is.
__________________
"Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, Jake's had the most... Haterade."
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 12:07 AM   #156
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

BigJake wrote: View Post

And be in no doubt, when that tactic emerges as a non sequitur -- as it looks to have done again here -- it does look an awful lot like an attempt to claim that profit determines quality. Yes, when pressed there is usually some subsequent waffling about it determining success and not "quality", but since that's usually paired with implications that success being "objective" is a more worthwhile topic than quality anyway, this really amounts to a distinction without much of a difference.
The numbers are brought up when posters come in with broad generalizations about how all Trekkies hate the Abrams films, that the Abrams films are failures and that Into Darkness isn't "aging well" with audiences. I think the numbers burn many peoples asses because they don't support assertions that Abrams Trek is a failure.

If someone feels that personally a movie doesn't work for them, then they need to word their posts to that effect. I'm not a fan of First Contact, but for me to try and slant the field to present it as some kind of failure would just make me look stupid. It sold tickets and people generally seem to like it. Hard to qualify it as anything other than a success and good for the franchise.

You have some fans who are desperate to paint the Abrams films as an "objective" failure in some misguided hope that things will go back to the way they used to be. That simply isn't happening. No one has to like the movies and we've had many good discussions on what works for some people and not for others. But it's disingenuous for people to try and speak for all Trekkies and General Audiences to get pissed when they're shown numbers that don't bare out what they are saying. So they obviously don't want the numbers brought into the discussion.
__________________
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 12:16 AM   #157
BigJake
Vice Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

BillJ wrote: View Post
The numbers are brought up when posters come in with broad generalizations about how all Trekkies hate the Abrams films, that the Abrams films are failures
No, they aren't. They quite often come up without either of those things having been said or even implied, as in this thread.

Yes, quite often with a soupcon of accusations or implications that "You have some fans who are desperate to paint the Abrams films as an "objective" failure in some misguided hope that things will go back to the way they used to be" (this is the "You're a religious fanatic unlike Reasonable Old Me" gambit, typically delivered in very shrill and defensive tones that make it performatively unconvincing) -- another belief that seems to be much more alive in some people's assumptions, or would just seem to them be more convenient to argue against, than in any other sense.

that Into Darkness isn't "aging well" with audiences.
As to this (which question is at least the premise of this thread), the box office numbers and RT scores would be largely irrelevant whether this was someone's point or not. It takes years for shifts in public opinion about a movie, which of course happen perfectly routinely, to be evident in "the numbers."
__________________
"Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, Jake's had the most... Haterade."

Last edited by BigJake; June 6 2014 at 12:27 AM.
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 12:24 AM   #158
Relayer1
Rear Admiral
 
Relayer1's Avatar
 
Location: The Black Country, England
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

I'll continue to go and see new Trek movies. They'll continue to be OK and they'll do good business, which has got to be good for the franchise. And I'll continue to prefer DS9, other TV Trek and the novels.

I'm in no particular hurry for Trek 3, but I'm sure I'll go to see it...
__________________
Soon oh soon the light, Pass within and soothe this endless night, And wait here for you, Our reason to be here...
Relayer1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 12:28 AM   #159
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

All I know is that this is in the very first post...

Star Trek Into Darkness is so fast-paced, it actually outruns its own logic problems, another reason why it received such an unusual combination of initial positive reviews and subsequent negative buzz. Almost everyone who saw the movie enjoyed the experience. They only started to see the plot holes after thinking about it, watching it again, or reading the criticism that slowly started to cohere around the film.
An article writer speaking for fans in general...

We should remember what Greg Cox told us about an article writer who was handed an assignment about everyone hating the movie and when Greg said that wasn't the case, he was asked to point to a writer who would confirm the subject of the article.
__________________
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 12:31 AM   #160
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Relayer1 wrote: View Post
I'll continue to go and see new Trek movies. They'll continue to be OK and they'll do good business, which has got to be good for the franchise. And I'll continue to prefer DS9, other TV Trek and the novels.

I'm in no particular hurry for Trek 3, but I'm sure I'll go to see it...
I like the Abrams films, I like much of the TV series and pre-reboot films (just watched TMP and TWOK the other night) and read the occasional novel. I think it's great that Trek can support many different ways to tell a story.
__________________
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 12:54 AM   #161
BigJake
Vice Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

BillJ wrote: View Post
All I know is that this is in the very first post...
And it's a point to which box office returns are totally irrelevant.

An article writer speaking for fans in general...
Actually he's talking about audiences, not "fans." (And IMO you're reading that sentence wayyyy too literally.)

We should remember what Greg Cox told us . . .
Greg is an awfully kind and generous fellow and I like him a lot, based on what I've seen of him here I could say nothing but good things about him. However, you have a tendency to overrely on his anecdotes (one of which I think you're misquoting here) as sweeping refutations. It shouldn't be news to anyone that the media has a tendency to select and reinforce certain narratives at certain times, but it would be naive in the extreme to think that NuTrek hasn't also benefited hugely from that kind of editorial bias.
__________________
"Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, Jake's had the most... Haterade."
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 12:56 AM   #162
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

BigJake wrote: View Post
Greg is an awfully kind and generous fellow and I like him a lot, based on what I've seen of him here I could say nothing but good things about him. However, you have a tendency to overrely on his anecdotes (one of which I think you're misquoting here) as sweeping refutations. It shouldn't be news to anyone that the media has a tendency to select and reinforce certain narratives at certain times, but it would be naive in the extreme to think that NuTrek hasn't also benefited hugely from that kind of editorial bias.
So, once again, we should ignore any evidence that doesn't point to the Abrams movies not being a failure? Gotcha!
__________________
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 01:02 AM   #163
BigJake
Vice Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

BillJ wrote: View Post
So, once again, we should ignore any evidence that doesn't point to the Abrams movies not being a failure?
See, what I was saying about constantly trying to read this into people's posts whether or not they're saying it? That's an example right there. Really undercuts your ability to look like the reasonable party.
__________________
"Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, Jake's had the most... Haterade."
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 01:20 AM   #164
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

Watching Into Darkness now on EPIX. Still a fun ride.
__________________
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 07:58 AM   #165
martok2112
Fleet Captain
 
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

For the record, I saw Nemesis TWICE in the theater. (That's right! TWIIIIIICE! TWAAAIIIIIIIIIAAAIIIIIIICE!) (ok...I'm better now )

To be serious though, yes, I did see Nemesis twice. Is it a flawed film? Hell yes! Beyond belief! Did it bomb at the box office? It didn't even qualify as a bomb...it was a dud at the box office. (I think it barely lasted two weeks at the box office). Did I enjoy it? Hell yes! Why do you think I went and saw it twice, and then snapped it up the very day it came out on DVD?

That the movie dudded at the box office only meant to me that I might never be able to see another big screen Trek movie again. I mean, Nemesis damn near put the nail in the coffin, and it's my favorite of all four TNG movies. The first three were overblown episodes. Not that they weren't at all good. They were fine, with, in my opinion, First Contact being the best of the three...but they looked a lot better when they got onto the small screen in full-frame format....the action filled the screen properly then. Again, just my opinion.

I loved Nemesis, for reasons I've stated ad nauseam in other threads, so I won't repeat 'em here. Doesn't mean it was a success. It was a failure in pretty much every sense of the word. The overall quality of the film is lacking...and I'm sure for some folks, that would be a mild statement. But, in my eyes, the film rocked. Being the action oriented Trek lover (not fan), it was right up my alley. It succeeded for me, personally, but it did not for Paramount, and it did not for most Trek fans (or even casual movie goers) in the broad scope of things.

Just because there is a vocal minority of Trek fans that disliked the JJ Abrams films, it doesn't invalidate their opinions. The only time I consider an opinion invalid is if said opinion giver hasn't even bothered to watch the entire movie, or bothered to watch the movie period. But, if they did watch the whole movie, and disliked it, well, I respect their opinion of dislike. Many often give very good reasons as to why they disliked it. However, their reasons are just as personal and subjective as anyone else's reasons for liking it.
martok2112 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 01:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.