Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by SalvorHardin, Dec 12, 2012.
So you would have dismissed it. Okay.
No, but it wouldn't have as easily caught my attention. If it had been done that way and word of mouth and reviews called it a really good movie, I'd have probably seen it, anyway. I went to "Iron Man" and the first and third of the recent Bond movies based on that. I've never followed either, but I was told they were worth seeing.
There's something intangible and awesome about revisiting famous characters. It brings a nostalgia that enhances the experience somehow. That's why they're remaking Superman again, instead of just inventing PowerMan 3000.
Once one admits the hypothetical, any conclusion one likes can be arrived at by logic.
42 million domestic. 17 million foreign.
I am sooo glad I like Star Trek for what it is...
Not what I want it to be.
This. Likely this would've been the box office as well if the name Star Trek wasn't attached at all.
True. Before Star Trek, the last Trek movie I had the opportunity to see in a movie theater was First Contact. The next two were straight-to-DVD here.
So you're the one to blame.
I'm not making myself clear. What I'm saying is that these movies, Insurrection and Nemesis, were not distributed in Switzerland due to lack of interest. I couldn't have seen them in a theater even if I had wanted to.
You were clear enough. That was just Jarod being funny.
Why would you make a Star Trek movie that is not for Star Trek fans? This is why I don't like this dude. He doesn't care about the lifelong Star Trek fans such as myself. Why should I care about him or anything that comes out of his mouth?
This is what I am talking about. This is why I DGAF about this guy. This is why he pisses me off. He loves that they didn't make the movie for the fans? What is that? Who did you make it for then? He's not even a fan. I wish someone who was a fan was doing the new movies. Someone who loves Star Trek would have done a much better job at making me care about the "NuTrek".
I'll stand in line for that.
I'm going through the conversation. But YES to Jaro Stun!
You do understand that Paramount studios is a "for profit" business that does not have as its primary mission the goal of ensuring a tiny group of purists will have their expectations met at the expense of attaining commercial success, right?
Moreover, you are being far too literal-minded in your quest to feel offence at what Abrams said. The context of his statement is clearly meant to indicate the film was made to be intelligible and interesting to the general public, as well as Star Trek fans (rather than for Trek fans first and everyone else later). As a fan since 1973, having seen every episode ever made (many in multiples of ten, for TOS, the rest at least 3 time each, if not more), every movie (again, multiple times each) and having read over 100 novels and nearly as many comics set in the Trek universe, I have ZERO problems with Abrams' statement--I applaud it wholeheartedly. He's not dismissing Trek fans, he's trying to enlarge the scope of its fan base. So far, he's doing quite well in that endeavour.
Does every last Trek fan have to like Abrams' version? Of course not. It's like ice cream. I love ice cream. I'm the biggest fan of ice cream I know. I don't like every flavour of ice cream out there, though (I loathe pistachio ice cream, for one thing). Others love pistachio ice cream. Good for them. I don't but I also don't deny pistachio ice cream is actually ice cream. Different flavours for different tastes.
As for your statement that "someone who loves Star Trek would have done a much better job"--no guarantees there. I love Star Trek (inasmuch as one can "love" an entertainment franchise) but I have no skills in filmmaking that even remotely rival those of Abrams and co. And while I may be going out on a limb here, neither, I suspect, do you.
If he made a film for Star Trek fans only, it would have had Nemesis box-office results, as I'm sure we're the only ones that saw it in theaters.
*My* trek would have been lauded as one of the greatest Trek films ever produced...would have made $15million and been responsible for killing off the franchise.
Oh yes, I understand that. But my understanding of it in no way contributes to me liking it. I understand that people want money and devise all kinds of schemes to get it. And okay, when it comes to Star Trek I am a purest, but it's because I have loved it so much for so long that when someone comes in and admits to not being a fan and admits to not making his Star Trek movies for the fans I do take issue with that. If I didn't say this, I meant that someone who loves Star Trek would do a much better job at making me like the new movies. And my movie making abilities have nothing do to with any of this. Just because I am not making movies doesn't mean I don't have a right to dislike and complain about them. They want me to pay my money to see them, that gives me a right to have an opinion.
Sure. Just as I have the right not to like pistachio ice cream (though my opinion is more meaningful, if only to myself, if I've actually tasted pistachio ice cream--same applies to the latest Trek movie, incidentally). I even have the right to complain about pistachio ice cream. What I don't have the right to do is suggest that those who like pistachio ice cream are not really lovers of ice cream or that that particular flavour is not real ice cream. I also have no right to expect that anything but pistachio will be made in the future, when it comes down to it (even if I would be highly disappointed if that were the case).
No one is forcing anyone who doesn't like the flavour of Trek served up by Abrams to watch it. It really is that simple. No one is "owed" any particular type of entertainment from any creator of such. You are simply free to choose whether or not it is to your liking.
Separate names with a comma.