Why is Star Trek not that popular in younger people?

[CorporalCaptain]

Gravity I think is the result when a product tries to go it on its own, no compelling world building or any other reference points for the audience to latch onto.

I'm a fan of the movie, but it's hardly a high grossing film.

What exactly is your definition of "high grossing film"?

Gravity made $716 million worldwide on a $100 million dollar budget.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=gravity.htm


Interstellar actually made less money...

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=interstellar.htm

I believe that not engaging in world-building can be advantageous for an SF/F movie, the reason being that it's less demanding on the audience. Gravity clearly engages in much less world-building than Interstellar. These box office returns are arguably one data point in support of the idea that a less demanding SF/F film can attract a broader audience.

However, I disagree with Autistoid about Gravity lacking "reference points for the audience to latch onto." In the first place, the drama was immediate, clear, visceral, and high-stakes life-and-death drama. The film clearly and straightforwardly operated on a very physical level. In the second place, main character backstory was concisely laid out, regarding the personal loss that Bullock's character had suffered, and physical symbolism was overt and direct, such as Bullock in the fetal position and Bullock raising herself up to stand upright, so that the film straightforwardly operated as an allegory for the grieving process and rebirth. The virtuosity of Bullock's performance isn't to be underestimated either.

 

[Autistoid]

Gravity I think is the result when a product tries to go it on its own, no compelling world building or any other reference points for the audience to latch onto.

I'm a fan of the movie, but it's hardly a high grossing film.

What exactly is your definition of "high grossing film"?

Gravity made $716 million worldwide on a $100 million dollar budget.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=gravity.htm


Interstellar actually made less money...

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=interstellar.htm

I believe that not engaging in world-building can be advantageous for an SF/F movie, the reason being that it's less demanding on the audience. Gravity clearly engages in much less world-building than Interstellar. These box office returns are arguably one data point in support of the idea that a less demanding SF/F film can attract a broader audience.

However, I disagree with Autistoid about Gravity lacking "reference points for the audience to latch onto." In the first place, the drama was immediate, clear, visceral, and high-stakes life-and-death drama. The film clearly and straightforwardly operated on a very physical level. In the second place, main character backstory was concisely laid out, regarding the personal loss that Bullock's character had suffered, and physical symbolism was overt and direct, such as Bullock in the fetal position and Bullock raising herself up to stand upright, so that the film straightforwardly operated as an allegory for the grieving process and rebirth. The virtuosity of Bullock's performance isn't to be underestimated either.

Lol the fact that gravity outdid interstellar says alot.

There's almost no meaningful dialogue in gravity.

With interstellar being dialogue heavy.

If you make something for people that don't speak a word of english your content will suffer.

No one is gonna convince me gravity had the long term impact of interstellar, it was an amusement ride.

There's no world building with gravity, ask anyone what they would want to see in a sequel to that movie it won't be much.

Compared to interstellar where I'm sure there would be huge interest if some form of sequel was made.

Interstellar is likely gonna be one of the top sci fi's of the century.

 

[Nerys Myk]

So it's the number of words that make a film "good"? Did not know that. I'd better start adding words to my latest screenplay. It's gonna be great, now that I've cracked the code!

 

[BillJ]

Interstellar is likely gonna be one of the top sci fi's of the century.

Fifteen year in is a little early to make such a claim.

 

[Autistoid]

So it's the number of words that make a film "good"? Did not know that. I'd better start adding words to my latest screenplay. It's gonna be great, now that I've cracked the code!

No where did I say that.

I think its obviously implied "oh no" "watch out now" etc don't even count as actual dialogue.

Dialogue are those memorable conversations between characters that add depth and nuance to a story.

Just look at a film like the godfather, in no way is it trying to be some high brow intellectual films.

Yet tonnes of people can remember scenes word by word, where dialogue was presented with a heavy context with deep characterizations of the primary cast.

 

[Autistoid]

Interstellar is likely gonna be one of the top sci fi's of the century.

Fifteen year in is a little early to make such a claim.

Id bet high dollar it would make it in the top 20 by centuries end, assuming current trends.

 

[BillJ]

Dialogue are those memorable conversations between characters that add depth and nuance to a story.

There are plenty of memorable conversations in the Abrams films. They just aren't long drawn out affairs where everyone sits around a table discussing things til they've sucked all the momentum out of the story.

 

[BillJ]

Interstellar is likely gonna be one of the top sci fi's of the century.

Fifteen year in is a little early to make such a claim.

Id bet high dollar it would make it in the top 20 by centuries end, assuming current trends.

Which is non-sense because we'll be a very different society by the end of this century. Just like we were a very different society at the end of the 20th century than we were at the beginning.

 

[Autistoid]

Dialogue are those memorable conversations between characters that add depth and nuance to a story.

There are plenty of memorable conversations in the Abrams films. They just aren't long drawn out affairs where everyone sits around a table discussing things til they've sucked all the momentum out of the story.

Like what , granted I think star trek is a mild exception, atleast in the second film.

Although that might have something to do with Star trek II

 

[Autistoid]

Fifteen year in is a little early to make such a claim.

Id bet high dollar it would make it in the top 20 by centuries end, assuming current trends.

Which is non-sense because we'll be a very different society by the end of this century. Just like we were a very different society at the end of the 20th century than we were at the beginning.

How different do you really expect us to be, we still hold Shakespeare in high regard 4 centuries later.

Mark Twain and the like have held relevance for over a century.

Lifeboat a film from 1944 seems to have kept its relevance 70 years later.

2001, has only grown as an established classic.

Alien 1979 etc.

I dont think its a stretch to think interstellar makes it for the long haul.

 

[BillJ]

Dialogue are those memorable conversations between characters that add depth and nuance to a story.

There are plenty of memorable conversations in the Abrams films. They just aren't long drawn out affairs where everyone sits around a table discussing things til they've sucked all the momentum out of the story.

Like what , granted I think star is a mild exception, atleast in the second film.

Although that might have something to do with Star trek II

Pike's conversation recruiting Kirk. Spock Prime's conversation with Kirk about taking command of the Enterprise. Spock and Kirk's reporting to Pike about Nibiru. Pike's informing Kirk they've taken away the Enterprise. Kirk and Spock discussing what is going on while they go and retrieve Khan to board the Vengeance.

Hell, Into Darkness even had great dialogue during their conference room scene prior to the firefight, and Spock and Kirk's conversation on the elevator on their way to the conference.

Great dialogue doesn't mean stopping the momentum of a movie and every one stand around. YMMV.

Some people are so blinded by their dislike of J.J. Abrams that they've missed some pretty solid movies (even if they physically sat through them).

 

[Starborn Dragon]

Science fiction has never really been very popular. Most people in America are incapable of understanding it or can't identify with some of the elements in it like how some people identify with Spock.

 

[BillJ]

Science fiction has never really been very popular. Most people in America are incapable of understanding it or can't identify with some of the elements in it like how some people identify with Spock.

That's non-sense.

Didn't you see the list earlier in this very thread that shows a whole slew of sci-fi/fantasy films as top earners. Studios don't keep making these movies for the nerd crowd. They make them because people like them and will pay to see them.

 

[BillJ]

Post this as a reminder. Thanks to Nerys Myk for doing the research.

Science Fiction isn't popular?

All-Time Box Office: USA

1. Avatar (2009) $760,505,847
2. Titanic (1997) $658,672,302
3. The Avengers (2012) $623,279,547
4. Jurassic World (2015) $569,287,130
5. The Dark Knight (2008) $533,316,061
6. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) $474,544,677
7. Star Wars (1977) $460,935,665
8. Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) $454,199,000
9. The Dark Knight Rises (2012) $448,130,642
10. Shrek 2 (2004) $436,471,036
11. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) $434,949,459
12. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) $424,645,577
13. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) $423,032,628
14. The Lion King (1994) $422,783,777
15. Toy Story 3 (2010) $414,984,497
16. Iron Man 3 (2013) $408,992,272
17. The Hunger Games (2012) $407,999,255
18. Spider-Man (2002) $403,706,375
19. Jurassic Park (1993) $402,348,347
20. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) $402,076,689

2014 Box Office: USA

1.Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) $333.1 million
2.The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 (2014) $323.7 million*
3.Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) $259.8 million
4.The Lego Movie (2014) $257.8 million
5.Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) $245.4 million
6. Maleficent (2014) $241.4 million
7. X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)$233.9 million
8. The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014) $220.6 million*
9.Big Hero 6 (2014) $211.2 million*
10. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) $208.5 million
11. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) $202.9 million ” - IMDb-Editors
12. Godzilla (2014) $200.7 million
13. 22 Jump Street (2014) $191.7 million
14. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014) $191.2 million ” - IMDb-Editors
15. Interstellar (2014) $182.8 million
16. How to Train Your Dragon 2 (2014) $177 million
17. Gone Girl (2014) $166.7 million
18. Divergent (2014) $150.9 million
19. Neighbors (2014) $150.2 million
20. Ride Along (2014) $134.9 million

And yes Superhero movies often fall under the SF heading. Not sure what "paranormal fantasy" is.

 

[Autistoid]

Pike's conversation recruiting Kirk. Spock Prime's conversation with Kirk about taking command of the Enterprise. Spock and Kirk's reporting to Pike about Nibiru. Pike's informing Kirk they've taken away the Enterprise. Kirk and Spock discussing what is going on while they go and retrieve Khan to board the Vengeance.

Hell, Into Darkness even had great dialogue during their conference room scene prior to the firefight, and Spock and Kirk's conversation on the elevator on their way to the conference.

Great dialogue doesn't mean stopping the momentum of a movie and every one stand around. YMMV.

Some people are so blinded by their dislike of J.J. Abrams that they've missed some pretty solid movies (even if they physically sat through them).

I think alot of that dialogue is relatively weak. Im happy its there and I do like the two movies.

However the idea that any of that is there to anchor the film is a bit much.

I do of course like some bits of it quite alot.

I especially like the part where spock meditates has hes about to be melted by the volcano. Its not even true dialogue but it builds a character.

Regardless I think alot of it is forced into a rather action orientated plot. You say it doesnt need to stop the momentum of a film and on some level I totally disagree.

Dialogue is a breather for the audience in some way allowing for them to take stock of the action.

 

[BillJ]

Dialogue is a breather for the audience in some way allowing for them to take stock of the action.

How hard were these films to follow? Really? I'm old and not real bright yet I had no issue following what was going on.

Nothing irritated more during the Berman years than to get a really interesting plot only to have it come to a complete stop for a conference room scene that add nothing to the story other than to add padding.

It was such a breath of fresh air when I saw Star Trek (2009) and there was enough plot that we didn't need random dialogue recapping what happened.

 

[Autistoid]

Dialogue is a breather for the audience in some way allowing for them to take stock of the action.

How hard were these films to follow? Really? I'm old and not real bright yet I had no issue following what was going on.

I meant in emotional terms.

 

[BillJ]

Dialogue is a breather for the audience in some way allowing for them to take stock of the action.

How hard were these films to follow? Really? I'm old and not real bright yet I had no issue following what was going on.

I meant in emotional terms.

Once again, I never had a problem with it.

 

[Mudd]

There was an attempt, in the past year, or so, with Jupiter Ascending to create a new franchise, but it didn't go anywhere, for many, many reasons.

Mainly because it was a terrible movie.

What made it terrible, exactly? And why, after one hundred years of cinema, and millennia of story-telling, have producers, writers, directors and actors still not learned how to get it more consistently right for their audience?

Because art, even popular art, is not a product. It's not like finding a mac-and-cheese recipe.

It's not like the studios don't try - there's only one plot/script structure they'll sign off on.

 

[JWPlatt]

Mainly because it was a terrible movie.

What made it terrible, exactly? And why, after one hundred years of cinema, and millennia of story-telling, have producers, writers, directors and actors still not learned how to get it more consistently right for their audience?

Because art, even popular art, is not a product. It's not like finding a mac-and-cheese recipe.

It's not like the studios don't try - there's only one plot/script structure they'll sign off on.

"Save the cat!," your mac-and-cheese recipe, suggests that it is a product. I guess that's actually an example of a learned formula where the audience begins to see a pattern, predictable plots, and lack of originality. So the answer to my question might be that if audiences always want new and original, there will be mistakes made on things that have never been tried before.

By the way, software - what I do - is an art where much creativity, invention and originality can be involved, but it's also a product that can be managed and structured under a deadline into a product. I don't think movies are much different.