The FBI basement episode was the worst. Not even a good Guinan/Q scene can save it.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
The FBI basement episode was the worst. Not even a good Guinan/Q scene can save it.
Something like the fictional but realistic leftover WW I minesweeper USS Caine pressed into service for miscellaneous duties during WW II in The Caine Mutiny? Where lots of things are broken, everything is dirty, and all the crew even the officers are as likely to be shirtless as in uniform?
Yes, actually I thought "flying around the Enterprise" was the best part of the movie.
Gotta disagree.
The average gross of TWOK, TVH, and FC is 236.22m.
Average all the old films except TMP (which can never be repeated because there will never be another 'first star trek film') and you get 176.27m. Even if you throw TMP in there, it's still only 204.07m.
The Abrams films' average is 426.38m, and that's including Beyond which was considered a disappointment at best or arguably an outright failure. Leave Beyond out and you get 466.09m.
There are pretty consistent differences of around (sometimes well over) 200m. Those are clearly dramatically better results.
The Abrams' films were still not as successful as Paramount clearly wanted them to be, but they were absolutely on a completely different level compared to previous trek movies in general.
Last edited:
The phasers aren't being displayed in a threatening manner, nor is there anything showy about how they are being held, so they aren't being "brandished." It's the exact opposite of brandishing, in all senses of the word.I've always been a little creeped out by the Starfleet Honor Guard in TOS. There's something about the crossed-arms pose that always looked wrong to me. It's a military greeting that seems more at home in the Mirror Universe than the Prime Timeline.
Also, for all the people who want to argue Starfleet isn't a military, I don't think many scientific organizations greet diplomats/government officials brandishing firearms.
There are hand phasers aplenty on the ship, and the honoree knows this whether they can be seen or not. Here, they are being held peacefully, in essence presented to the honoree as a salute. Definitely military, but not brandished.
I like the stern looks on the honor guard's faces and how they pose their arms. Starfleet IS a form of military, after all, despite what the utopian naysayers want to believe.
I think a more "traditional" pose would have either been with rifles or with a salute. They weren't going to spend the money on rifles (heck, the whole reason for the scene was so they didn't have to spend money on a transporter FX shot) and Starfleet does not salute. The guards should ALSO be in dress uniform, yes? So this is a best case scenario.
It's a show of force that the Enterprise takes its security role of safeguarding the dignitaries very seriously. It's more about security than military might, if we want to split hairs. They should have set up an airport-type body scanner for everyone to pass through to detect knives and secret radio transmitters hidden in fake antennaI like the stern looks on the honor guard's faces and how they pose their arms. Starfleet IS a form of military, after all, despite what the utopian naysayers want to believe.
. YMMV 
.
I mean, secret service, State Department and other such federal agencies have civilian special agents who are certified to carry, are assigned to security details for officials and are presumed under arms.I've always been a little creeped out by the Starfleet Honor Guard in TOS. There's something about the crossed-arms pose that always looked wrong to me. It's a military greeting that seems more at home in the Mirror Universe than the Prime Timeline.
Also, for all the people who want to argue Starfleet isn't a military, I don't think many scientific organizations greet diplomats/government officials brandishing firearms.
They may not be saluting, but their presence is known by visitors as responsible for their safety.
I like how in the newer shows they’ve adopted standing at attention with arms crossed behind the back as the “Starfleet salute”.
I don't know why anyone other than executives, shareholders and investors cares for these numbers. ST6 is considered one of the best movies and is at the bottom of the list. Into Darkess is the opposite. I therefore conclude there's no relation between quality of a film and box office results.
There's not.
But they do care about making money and will lean on things that they believe are popular and will bring in money. Khan was super popular a film, so bring back Khan. The Borg are one of Picard's biggest nemeses so bring them back. Kirk and Spock are still considered among the more easier and recognizable and popular in culture.
So, what will make money is the question. And they will go with what seems most familiar and will appeal to the biggest audience.
Absolutely.
Success is a difficult thing to gauge. Because the Abrams films also cost a lot more to produce.
And also release in an era when a $10 movie ticket is the norm or even lowballing the price. TMP cost a small fraction of that to see in 1979 and 1980 and many times those movies went to places like 99-cent theaters.
Totally agree and that's exactly the problem keeping Paramount paralyzed, imo. They don't want to go back to go back to a low cost/low gross model but can't figure out how to make high cost/high gross model work for them the way they want it to.
No conversion will ever be perfect, but this kind of thing is the reason the numbers quoted were already adjusted for inflation.
Plus there are such factors going both ways, for instance TVH or FC didn't have to compete with streaming services or high quality video games for peoples' time nor did they have so much massive competition in theaters, either.
And I was still visiting second run theaters ($3 a ticket) in Ohio as late as 2007. I don't know if they've died out since, but they weren't dead yet then.
It was the '90s, but every summer as a teenager, I went to see a movie on a Tuesday at the second-run theater near my house, because they'd show movies for a dollar.
That would be unheard of today. I discovered a lot of movies that way, that I probably never would've bothered to see otherwise. Well, maybe when it would hit VHS six months to a year later, and I could go rent it at Blockbuster. But it would've been a loooong wait.
That's how I first saw the original Jurassic Park in 1993. At the only remaining 99-cent theater in my area.
Similar threads
- Locked
