Kevin Smith Hints that Trek-XI is "Phenomenal"

Didn't Nemesis already do that? Maybe now it's "odd = good, even = bad."

 

Indeed--in my book, only TMP and TWoK are truly good films. The rest vary from "meh" (TSFS, TUC, FC) to "feh" (all that remain, including TVH, which I hated at 16 and hate just as much at 38.

As to the topic at hand, I despise the movies of Kevin Smith but I can't really fault his taste in geek entertaiments. (The poster who pointed out that he praised Daredevil has to take into account that he was in it--that compromises objectivity; what Pegg says about this movie is likewise suspect.) If Smith says it is phenomenal, that means it probably does not suck.

 

Frankly, I don't trust anything an actor says about a movie that actor is in. They have a vested interest in how well the movie does and are a part of the movies' promotion machine.

As others have pointed out, Smith could have remained silent about the movie. But from reading the interview it sounded to me like the little Star Trek faux discussion was set up in advance -- like he wanted to talk about it and told the show's hosts so they would lead him into it.

I may or may not agree with Smith after seeing the movie myself, but for now, I consider him as objective and informed an opinion on the movie as is currently out there. And because his opinion is positive, I'm kinda geeked.

 

Kevin Smith is honest. He'll say when shit stinks bad. He even rips all of his own movies at any chance because he knows what type of movies they are. He praised Daredevil but he also had one of his best friends in that movie.

 

What's this "hint" BS in the thread title? He said it outright... Smith: "It was phenomenal."

 

The "hint" was that he was referring to Star Trek. He never comes right out and says the film he saw was the new Trek. but he does hint at it.

 

I thought Star Trek 6 was dreadful. It's down there with Star Trek 5 where I'm concerned.

Abrams and company are clearly in a new phase of this diffuse, informal promotion - they're showing parts or all of the rough cut to people with tacit encouragement to talk about what they've seen as long as they leave out specifics.

 

Good grief, Kevin Smith would be one of the last people I trust for an opinion.

RAMA

 

He's one of the very few people talking about this movie right now who's actually seen it. Of course I'm interested in what he thought of it.

 

This is an extremely funny way of promotion. Why spend money on ads when you can just show the movie to people who you know will talk about it and be quoted everywhere for free.

 

Yep. I thought that was fairly obvious myself, but I guess not. Thanks.

Why?

 

Well, they're still revealing but it's not as overt as them saying they love it or hate it until after the movie is totally history. It's far more subtle, it's in what they don't say and how enthusiastically they do praise it.

In the case of someone who has been priviledged enough to see a feature-length cut of the film, even if they were involved in the production somehow, we'd still be analyzing every syllable to see if we could figure it out. Yeah, it is great for publicity. The reputation for secrecy has been a potentially wise strategic move, promotionally because we do devour the crumbs.

 

And I appreciate the secrecy. Way before Nemesis came out, I knew that Shinzon was Picard's clone, B4 was controlled by him, that Data would die and a host of other plot details.
Some of that is going to come out in the natural promotion of trailers ect. But nothing about the movie was surprising. I knew it all. And if anything, it didn't meet the expectations I had built up in my mind regarding those plot points.

When I enter a theater, I don't mind knowing somethings, but not everything. If I know too far in advance, I'll stew it over in my mind and find a reason to not like it.
But when you are in the theater, you don't have time to question it.

kind of like M. Night Shymalan (spelling) movies. If someone told you going into The Sixth Sense that Bruce Willis was dead, well great.... the movie sucks...

 

Why, he hasn't made a good film in over a decade.

 

In other words:

1) He's made films.
2) He's made good films.

Oh, and:

3) He's seen Abrams' "Star Trek" and is expressing an informed opinion.

Everyone here is evidently quite willing to trade opinions with one another about the movie, and none of us have made commercial movies - good, bad or indifferent - nor have any of us seen the film. There's no excuse, therefore, to be dismissive of what Smith says simply because his oeuvre doesn't coincide with our personal tastes.

 

And Roger Ebert hasn't made one in decades, yet he can speak about film with authority.

 

I don't believe in curses and spells.......... *quietly stirs cauldron* "Double bubble toil and trouble.....

 

He's also the guy that praised all three of the Star Wars prequels. That alone means I don't trust his judgment.

 

I'd say he's never made a good film and I'd say it doesn't matter, not in regard to whether he's in a position to offer a useful perspective on other films.

Some of the best critics of arts and letters are abysmal at creating it and some of the best creators have baffling tastes when it comes to the work of others. I fear Dennis is right, the only thing that really matters is that he's one of the very few people who has seen it. I'm not conversant enough with his criticism to know if he's a reliable critic.

These are good reasons not to take what he says a gospel truth. Of course, it does not follow the movie will be garbage because he's praised garbage in the past.

I'm not terribly optimistic about Trek XI, I've made no secret of that. At my most dyspeptic, I see it as the whipping of maggots that have fed on a dead horse. Smith's opinion doesn't exactly raise my hopes but it doesn't dim them, either.