RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 145,527
Posts: 5,731,388
Members: 25,802
Currently online: 443
Newest member: JE Smith


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 4 2014, 10:59 PM   #121
Alex1939
Captain
 
Alex1939's Avatar
 
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

BillJ wrote: View Post
Alex1939 wrote: View Post

I know right. That's why Transformers Dark of the Moon and The Phantom Menace are vastly vastly better and superior movies than Star Trek into Darkness.
You may have a point when Hollywood begins making films for any other purpose than making money.
Might as well delete the forum then. Nothing to discuss if total profit is the only determining factor of what makes a movie or tv show "good".
Alex1939 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2014, 11:04 PM   #122
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

Might as well delete the forum then. Nothing to discuss if total profit is the only determining factor of what makes a movie or tv show "good".
If your job is dependent on a film making money, do you greenlight John Carter II or Transformers IV? Are you going to allow a small, loud group of people sway your decision making? Hollywood is making movies people are willing to pay to see. Any arguments about quality are, as always, subjective. What one person sees as awesome, another will see as trash.
__________________
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2014, 11:09 PM   #123
Alex1939
Captain
 
Alex1939's Avatar
 
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

BillJ wrote: View Post
Alex1939 wrote: View Post

Might as well delete the forum then. Nothing to discuss if total profit is the only determining factor of what makes a movie or tv show "good".
If your job is dependent on a film making money, do you greenlight John Carter II or Transformers IV? Are you going to allow a small, loud group of people sway your decision making? Hollywood is making movies people are willing to pay to see. Any arguments about quality are, as always, subjective. What one person sees as awesome, another will see as trash.
I am not and would not argue against that a studio's first thought in greenlighting a film is profit.

But it's totally bogus to say that how much a film makes determines its quality as is being suggested in this thread.


Or do you support that the Phanton Menace and Transformers Dark of the Moon are two of the top 15 quality movies of all time?
Alex1939 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2014, 11:13 PM   #124
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

Or do you support that the Phanton Menace and Transformers Dark of the Moon are two of the top 15 quality movies of all time?
It really doesn't matter what I think. The Phantom Menace was okay. I don't like the Transformers movies (But my wife loves them. Whose right?). People try to promote their very subjective opinions as somehow objective and it simply isn't the case.
__________________
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 01:05 AM   #125
Alex1939
Captain
 
Alex1939's Avatar
 
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

BillJ wrote: View Post
Alex1939 wrote: View Post

Or do you support that the Phanton Menace and Transformers Dark of the Moon are two of the top 15 quality movies of all time?
It really doesn't matter what I think. The Phantom Menace was okay. I don't like the Transformers movies (But my wife loves them. Whose right?). People try to promote their very subjective opinions as somehow objective and it simply isn't the case.
So you believe profit is the sole factor that determines the quality of a movie?

So The Phantom Menace is the best Star Wars movie then? Obviously the people must agree since it was the highest grossing...
Alex1939 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 01:19 AM   #126
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

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.
__________________
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 01:32 AM   #127
2takesfrakes
Commodore
 
2takesfrakes's Avatar
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

martok2112 wrote: View Post
And one other chick the movie needed more of: the cute, pixie haired blonde that was at the port forward section of the bridge who got one close up (when Kirk was pleading with Admiral Marcus for the lives of his crew). She had one line after the ship recovered from its planetfall. That chick is so damned CUTE! Given that she had a close up in STID, I hope she has a bigger role in the third movie. She did seem to have a bigger role in the comic book arc of Star Trek: The Khitomer Incident....so here's hoping to see more of her in the third film.
Don't skimp on the Eye Candy -- that's our message!!!
__________________
— Don't Monkey with My Business.™
2takesfrakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 03:48 AM   #128
Lance
Commodore
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

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.
Yeah, absolutely. Whatever the subjective opinions of the audience about the relative merits or otherwise of a movie, the reality is that the only barometer that makes a movie a success are it's box office takings. Plenty of lousy movies have gotten sequels off the back of the first one doing well financially. That's just how it rolls.

The reality is that if the box-office take is that big, then it doesn't matter if an objective analysis of a movie indicates it's got flaws, the simple fact is that studio heads will draw the conclusion that there's a broader audience out there who are voting with their wallets and who liked it.

So yeah. In Hollywood opinions mean nothing, box office is everything.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 03:50 AM   #129
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

Or do you support that the Phanton Menace and Transformers Dark of the Moon are two of the top 15 quality movies of all time?
It really doesn't matter what I think. The Phantom Menace was okay. I don't like the Transformers movies (But my wife loves them. Whose right?). People try to promote their very subjective opinions as somehow objective and it simply isn't the case.
So you believe profit is the sole factor that determines the quality of a movie?
No. But it IS the most reliable indicator of the movie's SUCCESS. Success does not equal quality. But it is also a bit ridiculous for the self-appointed members of The Committee for the Way Things Ought to Be (TM) to decide that because a film is not to their liking, it is somehow a failure in a general sense. The most successful film in the Alien series (adjusted for inflation) is, IIRC, the James Cameron instalment, Aliens. I would never dispute this (unless I'm completely off kilter in terms of revenue). However, it is the least favourite of the Alien movies to me. In a very narrow sense, I guess, it could be considered a "failure" because it "failed" to make it on my list of favourable Alien films. But that would be pointless as a label, as the "failure" is specific only to me. I can certainly say (and have done so often over the years) that I prefer the other films in the series (just as some prefer some, perhaps all, the non-Abrams films) but I cannot, in a coherent fashion, argue Aliens was a "failure" in general. Nor can anyone make such an argument about the Abrams films. By the only readily available and measurable criteria around (critical reviews, audience reviews and financial gain), they were a resounding success.
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 04:45 AM   #130
johnjm22
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: California
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

My feelings on STID haven't changed.

Fast paced action is my least favorite genre, so I was predisposed to not liking it to begin with, but what I disliked the most was the script's constant pandering to the established Star Trek fan base.

It was as if the filmmakers felt the need to appease long time fans by throwing in as many pointless references to past Trek as possible.

Ever since the original cast signed off, I've always felt as if Trek movies have been insecure about what they are. TNG movies were forced into being more action oriented than the cast was suited; they worried non-Trek fans wouldn't like it otherwise.

Now with nuTrek, you have the opposite problem. The cast and the filmmakers are clearly suited for action, they want to make an action film, BUT, they're afraid doing so will anger or offend old school Trek fans, so they rehash old ideas and throw in as many paleoTrek references as possible in attempt to appease them.

For the first time in two decades I wish Star Trek film writers would stop worrying about what certain demographics think, and just focus on writing the best script they can.
johnjm22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 04:48 AM   #131
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

johnjm22 wrote: View Post

For the first time in two decades I wish Star Trek film writers would stop worrying about what certain demographics think, and just focus on writing the best script they can.
I think the problem there is that franchise feature-film writers have very little say in the final product. I see so many people that don't like these films blaming the writers, which I think is putting the blame on the wrong people.
__________________
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 06:03 AM   #132
quanchi112
Cadet
 
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

iguana_tonante wrote: View Post
The idea that the "reputation" of Into Darkness (or ST09, for what matters) has changed over the years is laughable. People who loved it still loves it, and people who hated it still hates it.

The only difference is that people who liked the film simply moved on, while the many of those who disliked it are still seething with the fury of a thousand burning suns. But they are still just a (very) vocal (but tiny) minority.
I agree. I for one loved the movie. I can't honestly see how anyone wouldn't enjoy it. I'm not an old school trek fan and only like the Nu trek films thus far.
quanchi112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 10:35 AM   #133
martok2112
Fleet Captain
 
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

2takesfrakes wrote: View Post
martok2112 wrote: View Post
And one other chick the movie needed more of: the cute, pixie haired blonde that was at the port forward section of the bridge who got one close up (when Kirk was pleading with Admiral Marcus for the lives of his crew). She had one line after the ship recovered from its planetfall. That chick is so damned CUTE! Given that she had a close up in STID, I hope she has a bigger role in the third movie. She did seem to have a bigger role in the comic book arc of Star Trek: The Khitomer Incident....so here's hoping to see more of her in the third film.
Don't skimp on the Eye Candy -- that's our message!!!
Indeed. That's been Star Trek since 1966.
martok2112 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 12:31 PM   #134
J. Allen
Literary Osmotic
 
J. Allen's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Send a message via ICQ to J. Allen Send a message via AIM to J. Allen Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to J. Allen Send a message via Yahoo to J. Allen
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

martok2112 wrote: View Post
2takesfrakes wrote: View Post
martok2112 wrote: View Post
And one other chick the movie needed more of: the cute, pixie haired blonde that was at the port forward section of the bridge who got one close up (when Kirk was pleading with Admiral Marcus for the lives of his crew). She had one line after the ship recovered from its planetfall. That chick is so damned CUTE! Given that she had a close up in STID, I hope she has a bigger role in the third movie. She did seem to have a bigger role in the comic book arc of Star Trek: The Khitomer Incident....so here's hoping to see more of her in the third film.
Don't skimp on the Eye Candy -- that's our message!!!
Indeed. That's been Star Trek since 1966.
Don't be absurd. This is deep social commentary:

__________________

Like My Little Pony? Join us at Brony Kingdom!

-= St. John of Trenton, Patron Saint of Cute Ponies =-
Bestowed upon me by Pondwater
J. Allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 01:28 PM   #135
Alex1939
Captain
 
Alex1939's Avatar
 
Re: One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

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.
Alex1939 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 08:56 AM.

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