Or... crazy thought... they had some general disagreement about the budget or something else that had nothing to do with the script? Until someone talks about the split, no one actually knows.
Roberto Orci Not Directing Trek XIII
- Thread starter MvRojo
- Start date
Or... crazy thought... they had some general disagreement about the budget or something else that had nothing to do with the script? Until someone talks about the split, no one actually knows.
For all we know, he had to step down for personal reasons.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/star-trek/11277394/star-trek-edgar-wright.html.
According to this news report. Roberto Orci is still producers.
I'm going to put two and two together, make a guess and said that the probable reason he drop out or was remove from the director seat, is that he had to much on his plate to handle.
According to this news report. Roberto Orci is still producers.
I'm going to put two and two together, make a guess and said that the probable reason he drop out or was remove from the director seat, is that he had to much on his plate to handle.
Orci is producing four movies - Now You See Me: The Second Act, The Mummy, Star Trek 13, and Van Helsing.
This makes no sense to me. What if a movie did equally as well overseas as Iron Man 3, but made twice as much domestically - would the movie then be considered a flop?
A
Amaris
Guest
That's because it doesn't make sense. Apparently, even if a movie is highly regarded by critics, by the audience, at the box office, it's still, somehow, not really good, not until some ineffable quality that only a few seem to grasp. So even though you like the film, even though it made lots of money, even though it's critically acclaimed, and popular with general audiences, it's not really really real, because I do believe in fairies, please clap your hands.
Meta scores are a barometer of popularity at specific points in time. I shouldn't need to draw you a map for you to figure out the distance between that and being a barometer of quality. There's a tangential relationship, but it's not strong enough to make quoting metascores as proof of quality a defensible exercise.
There's is no correlation between a film's popularity and it's Rotten Tomatoes score.
Last edited:
A
Amaris
Guest
Not only that, but disregarding a movie because critics and general audiences like it right now instead of waiting to see how it looks 2, 10, 20 years from now? Absurd.
There's a correlation between its popularity with a certain batch of critics and its Tomatoes score. That is the purpose of the site. That's all it does. And it does no more than that.
For those who like to understand what I was saying about the international market, here is an article from BBC.
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20130620-is-china-hollywoods-future
Here is a quote from that article that explains the situation better than I can.
Star Trek: Into Darkness is a "big budget extravaganza". Paramount had high hopes that this film would do well in the overseas market.
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20130620-is-china-hollywoods-future
Here is a quote from that article that explains the situation better than I can.
Star Trek: Into Darkness is a "big budget extravaganza". Paramount had high hopes that this film would do well in the overseas market.
the goal here, after all, is an international blockbuster, and old trek fans bring absolutely nothing to the table where insight or support for making that happen is concerned.
the goal here, after all, is an international blockbuster
How cynical.
Do you have any interest, at all, in seeing a good Star Trek film? Or are you motivated entirely by the box office results of whatever garbage is spat out? What actually motivates you to be a member of the Trekkie community? Would you rather see a *good* movie - the kind that made you Trekkie in the first place - or just a profitable one?
Would you be happy if the Trek franchise pumps out a lot of middling, mediocre movies, so long as they're profitable?
If the answer to this question is 'no', then can we stop talking about box office returns and 'blockbuster' status? The success of the Transformers movies - and they HAVE been 'successful' - hasn't resulted in good movies or a franchise that anyone is interested in. It hasn't resulted in an explosion of Transformers media; no return to Saturday morning cartoons; no littering of toys on the shelves; no excitement of where the Transformers world is headed; no new legion of fans. Sure, they're profitable blockbusters, but what does that serve other than the studio in charge?
It's the same with these Trek movies. They're fine performers at the box office, but they're almost completely forgettable. Modern Trek isn't attracting hearts and minds like the old days.
For most of us longtime Trek fans, Star Trek was a game-changer for us. It was the show (and movies) that taught us new ways to look at the world; a narrative that wasn't afraid to delve into questions of philosophy, asking both the characters and the viewers to re-examine themselves in the face of strange new worlds and new ideas, and come away from the experience at little more open-minded, if not more educated.
Not getting any of this from the new Trek movies. They've been shoot-em-ups, basically. Pew pew bad guys. And I don't give a shit how successful they've been at the box office; they're pedestrian, convoluted, and shallow as fuck. They don't tell good stories, and they don't have anything interesting to say about the human condition. They have a lot of sound and fury and therefore make back their production costs, but by Surak, this is all a shallow parody of the show I adored growing up.
And before it's assumed that I'm an old bastard complaining about the new kids - I'm 32 years old. I got into Trek in the mid-90's in syndication. I only watched DS9 in its entirety a few years ago. It's not like I'm an old fart that doesn't 'get' the new stuff.
But I know good when I see it, and ST09 and STID were crap, crap, crap.
Orci getting booted is great news. I only hope he's really and truly out, and that someone sane, with a sense of perspective, can come in and rescue this franchise. Because, right now... it stinks.
Variety, the most reliable of the Hollywood newspapers, states that
I will trust what Variety reports over any other source.
There are two major variables which have an effect on blockbuster movies.
1. The pervasive desire of movie studios to recoup the cost from making and marketing a movie. The domestic market is far too small for films which can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. People are speaking now of the $300 million film.
2. The book "Save the Cat! The Last Book on Screenwriting You'll Ever Need".
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/...snyder_s_screenwriting_book_save_the_cat.html
There won't be another "pure" Star Trek movie.
I will trust what Variety reports over any other source.
There are two major variables which have an effect on blockbuster movies.
1. The pervasive desire of movie studios to recoup the cost from making and marketing a movie. The domestic market is far too small for films which can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. People are speaking now of the $300 million film.
2. The book "Save the Cat! The Last Book on Screenwriting You'll Ever Need".
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/...snyder_s_screenwriting_book_save_the_cat.html
There won't be another "pure" Star Trek movie.
This perfectly describes a good portion of the 90s Trek you "adored growing up." And most of that wasn't financially successful either.
Praise be to Allah.
This has nothing to do with nothing. It's a silly generalization. And, for the record, Dennis is the oldest bastard around.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Yep, and I think that's partly why these new movies failed to capture the younger audience that may have been experiencing Trek for the first time. This is a demographic that Paramount was hoping to pull new life long Trek fans from.
From The Wrap:
"Only 25 percent of those who went to see “Into Darkness” were under 25 years of age. That's considerably less than the 35 percent that the previous film attracted, and it's far more older-skewing than the first-weekend audiences for Disney's “Iron Man 3,” which was 45 percent under 25, 27 percent families and 21 percent teens."
What gave you the impression that what I adored was '90's Trek' other than the fact that I was an adolescent during those years? I was raised on TOS and TNG. And furthermore, what does it matter?
Okay, what?
That explains the crabbiness of his attitude and the senility of his comments.
If you're trying to suggest that people who have been registered to this board have more weight or something, you're welcome to look at my own posting history. It precedes the NuTrek films, if that's worth anything to you. Or did you mean physical age, and if so, what does that matter?
Last edited:
That was uncalled-for.
I've seen a few other unnecessarily personal comments made in this thread (you know who you are) and that really ought to stop. Any point worth making can surely be made without taking swipes at other posters.
Not apologizing. Dennis is acerbic without cause, never contributing anything other than snarky comments. I mean that. I've never seen the guy contribute to a conversation, he just sarcastically swipes at people he disagrees with. He apparently keeps it beneath a certain level so that you don't moderate him, or otherwise he's been slow-building enough that you've built up an immunity to him. Either way, he and people like him are poison to a community that actually engenders discussion and discourse.
Ban me for saying so, if you wish. I've been a member here for six years and a lurker for much longer. I've always tried to contribute and be positive - or at least explain my thinking - but the attitude on these boards has become downright acidic lately, especially where the 'reboot' and the future of the films is concerned. There's a groupthink here, and outside opinions aren't welcomed kindly. Outright insults may be banned, but dripping sarcasm and condescension seem to rule the roost - and my own snarkiness in my previous comment was regrettably in kind, for which I am ashamed - I'm finding myself sinking to that level. It's getting painful to read these threads. Sorry to bring up another sci-fi franchise, but I frequent the Doctor Who forums, and that community is as pleasant as sunshine and roses, and they are able to debate about the quality of the show without being so hateful toward one another; I don't know why we can't have that here.
If I've stepped out of line, I'll take my punishment and leave, but this is my takeaway of how things stand here. I'd hate for my time here to end on this note, but then, it hasn't been so pleasant recently anyway.
Last edited:
Why not? Star Trek has been pumping out mediocre movies that weren't profitable for 35 years.
Too bad we know differently.
....it's a Star Trek film, not a college lecture.
I know good when I see it, and ST09 and STID were great, great, great. Funny how OPINIONS (which aren't a fact you get to decide for everyone else) work.
No offense, but you are one person. They aren't out to please you personally. They aren't to suit my every needs either, why would they? If you don't like it, that means nothing more than you don't like it. It doesn't mean that the franchise is in trouble, etc. Obviously, as we know from little things such as fact, this is the opposite case for most of everyone else (and I can say most because fact supports that, based on all of the previous evidence already presented in this thread.)
Orci is still involved. The scriptwriters weren't fired (which includes Orci.)
Orci is on record now saying that he is still involved with Trek3. They are working to have the film out by the planned release date. It's just simply a change of director is all.
Last edited:
Yeah, I honestly believe Abrams understands Star Wars better than the guy who created it.
