Once again.... Where did you see the movie? Cause you can't know if it is lowbrow or dumbass, until you sit through the damn thing...
U.S.S. Kelvin pic! (and more -- large images)
- Thread starter Eric Cheung
- Start date
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Who said I saw the movie? I was responding to that notion you were so high on, that Trek is so high&mighty that it transcends how it looks, and how if it couldn't, it didn't deserve to survive. I disagreed.
Based on what I've seen thus far (the same as you I assume) looks like what I expected, to a terrifying degree. It is entirely possible that the entertainment value of the story will transcend that look, but I consider it unlikely. What I've heard about it sounds dumb. All of the fan-the-flames crap of where the ship is built is the kind of thing you'd not expect the writers of a movie to get bogged down in online. I MIGHT expect writers and tech advisors to be talking up the veracity of scientific concepts in the story, like they did with TMP pre-release, or talking about the humanity of the story at the heart of the story, like they did pre-release with TWOK, but I don't get the sense that there is anything to this except a profitable gimmick. And THAT, sir, sounds lowbrow.
Re: U.S.S. Kelvin pic.... AND MORE!
I have to agree with you. It looks very cheap and the bridge set looks like it was made by Apple.
I'm not gonna comment on the actors until I've seen the movie. They look pretty good comparison though.
Still can't believe the key cast of seven includes a kiwi...
I have to agree with you. It looks very cheap and the bridge set looks like it was made by Apple.
I'm not gonna comment on the actors until I've seen the movie. They look pretty good comparison though.
Still can't believe the key cast of seven includes a kiwi...
Exactly so.
When this is pointed out to people, the assertions generally then turn toward "they were creative failures."
The reason for that is because commercial success or failure is quantifiable; someone's going to get the winning side of that argument and someone's going to lose. Going for the "creative success/failure" steers the debate into entirely subjective territory, enabling the pissing contest to go on for as long as both sides have the stomach. It feels so damned good to assert the superiority of your taste and intelligence to someone else's - if that weren't widely true, the Internet would consist of eBay, Amazon.com and 56,423 "Sarah Palin Ate My Balls" web pages.
I loved "Firefly." I loved the movie based on it, "Serenity." I consider them great creative successes. Anyone wants to point out to me that they were commercial bombs and that there's no good reason for the studios that own them to invest more money in the properties, I can't argue with them.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Extend this point of view out and you have to say Bush the Second is a success because he went two terms (regardless of how legit the elections were or how incompetent he was.)
No, FIREFLY was indeed a success, just because IT GOT ON THE AIR. It may or may not have been a 'financial' success (depends on how many dips there are on the DVDs), but measuring success in terms of quantity is a losing game for quality (and folks looking for the quality.)
Will BLADE RUNNER ever generate net points for its crew? If not, it isn't a success?
they keep releasing new cuts of blade runner and people keep buying them so yes it's a success
trevanian
Rear Admiral
But not as defined by his parameters (dang, just noticed it was Bailey, if I'd seen that before I'd have skipped, since I consider all his posts as 'false data.')
A basic tenant of successful business is that those who invested in it or were to gain profit participation returns based on their involvement are the ones who actually make the money. That is not necessarily the case with BLADE RUNNER's current income generation, certainly not with parity to those mentioned above, so to the narrow victory=money=success doctrine posited, it would be failure.
What's most interesting in the context of Internet pissing contests is not how fans define "success" but how they define failure - and how important that is to them.
The need for others to fail is just oneupsmanship, and among other things it's a manifestation of insecurity about one's own tastes and judgment.
To paraphrase an old saw, it's not enough that what the purists like be seen as a success - they need to have a way of always declaring what they dislike to be a failure so that they can sneer at those who enjoy it.
Again, commercial success or failure is quantifiable. If it's unacceptable to someone - for whatever frustrated or neurotic reason - for that which they dislike to succeed, then they must have an unchallengable, shifting, subjective standard by which they can dismiss it. Hence the "commercial success/creative failure" paradigm.
I think that a lot of what succeeds in the entertainment industry is unworthy of my time and attention. That doesn't make Michael Bay a career "failure" by any objective standard.
I got to see the recent "final cut" of "Blade Runner" on the big screen at the Silver Spring AFI a couple of months ago. I love every version of that movie (the original release version the least) - I guess I've never noticed whether it was a commercial success or not. I mean, it's sure as Hell not like I was hoping for sequels or something.
I also admire Scott as the only director I'm aware of who's released a DVD "Directors Cut" of one of his films - "Alien" - that's actually a minute shorter than the original theatrical release.
Last edited:
What's most interesting in the context of Internet pissing contests is not how fans define "success" but how they define failure - and how important that is to them.
The need for others to fail is just oneupsmanship, and among other things it's a manifestation of insecurity about one's own tastes and judgment.
To paraphrase an old saw, it's not enough that what the purists like be seen as a success - they need to have a way of always declaring what they dislike to be a failure so that they can sneer at those who enjoy it.
Again, commercial success or failure is quantifiable. If it's unacceptable to someone - for whatever frustrated or neurotic reason - for that which they dislike to succeed, then they must have an unchallengable, shifting, subjective standard by which they can dismiss it. Hence the "commercial success/creative failure" paradigm.
I think that a lot of what succeeds in the entertainment industry is unworthy of my time and attention. That doesn't make Michael Bay a career "failure" by any objective standard.
I got to see the recent "final cut" of "Blade Runner" on the big screen at the Silver Spring AFI a couple of months ago. I love every version of that movie (the original release version the least) - I guess I've never noticed whether it was a commercial success or not. I mean, it's sure as Hell not like I was hoping for sequels or something.
I also admire Scott as the only director I'm aware of who's released a DVD "Directors Cut" of one of his films - "Alien" - that's actually a minute shorter than the original theatrical release.
Alright it's time for what I call Success 101...
These are undeniable truths to what IS a success or what is a failue...
There is no importance to the order....
1) did it make money?
2) Did it have an immediate Positive effect on it's target fanbase. When it came out... (No pre release Interweb bickering.)
3) Did it have a lasting Positive effect on it's target fanbase. When it came out..... (See above)
4) Has it cemented it's place in the modern culture (This means movies like Plan 9 from outer space could even be a success although they were god awful, seeing as everyone knows what it is... This is the failure boomerang tennent of success it was so bad you can't forget it.)
5) Is it referanced in popular culture. (I've seen several people spoof the Wire scene in Mission Impossible)
6) Does it stir up debate?
Now there could be more quantifying points to prove success.. But let's say that it has to atleas meet 5 of 6 of these main criteria to be considered successful. That way we can eliminate movies like Plan 9, and Buckaroo Bonzai (which while a fun movie to watch was not a successful project.)
This basically means you could have a movie that didn't do well in the box office, but it had a positive immediate fan response, it had a positive lasting fan response (means after watching it again it didn't seem cheese or stupid. ECT.) People know what your referancing when you quote it. A parody of it has been seen on tv. (these days SNL Mad TV, Family guy, South Park takes a shot at it.. ECT.)
And you and your friends (or internet geeks) Debate which character was cooler... SUCCESS...
Simple.
BTW for the record and something that has nothing to do with what I just said.. The movie better have more than one Trailer or I'm not going. I have a one trailer rule...... and it works pretty well.. If a movie only has One Trailer.. Don't bother you've seen the best of it.
I think I'll stick with "lots of people liked it and it made a profit," thanks.
Some of your criteria would be best left unevaluated for at least a decade after a movie's release, in any event.
It's entirely a matter of how badly fans want to argue.
Some of your criteria would be best left unevaluated for at least a decade after a movie's release, in any event.
It's entirely a matter of how badly fans want to argue.
You do realize my post was tongue in cheek. Oh I forgot the
Although tounge-in-cheek, I think its a good list.
I think you've hit the nail on the head.
I think you've hit the nail on the head.
Re: U.S.S. Kelvin pic.... AND MORE!
I was longingly re-examining this pic on the Official Movie site, when something caught my eye....
(...and I'm not sure if somebody already noticed this or not...)
...the Viewscreen is displaying the "WARP FACTOR" of the ship!!
(See highlight below)
How cool is that?!
I was longingly re-examining this pic on the Official Movie site, when something caught my eye....
(...and I'm not sure if somebody already noticed this or not...)
...the Viewscreen is displaying the "WARP FACTOR" of the ship!!
(See highlight below)
How cool is that?!
Last edited by a moderator:
It's been spotted a time or two by other sharp-eyed folks here -- is also one of the reasons people are leaning towards a head-up display being part of the main viewer's functionality -- but it's still pretty cool. 
Edit:
If it's OK, I've changed the larger image to a link. The stretching was making my brain hurt trying to follow some of the discussions up the page.
Edit:
If it's OK, I've changed the larger image to a link. The stretching was making my brain hurt trying to follow some of the discussions up the page.
It's been spotted a time or two by other sharp-eyed folks here -- is also one of the reasons people are leaning towards a head-up display being part of the main viewer's functionality -- but it's still pretty cool.
Edit:
If it's OK, I've changed the larger image to a link. The stretching was making my brain hurt trying to follow some of the discussions up the page.
No Prob...what ever keeps things flowing is fine with me.
And thank You for the heads up of it being already mentioned, I've read most of this thread but kinda skipped a few posts here and there.
Similar threads
