Star Trek Rotten Tomatoes Rating

[Michael Chris]

The sequel has not been greenlit.

 

[MvRojo]

Since a sequel is already announced, the RT score, and by extension the box office take, will only affect the budget for that sequel and perhaps the DVD treatment of Trek XI.

Only in development. It will only get made if this movie does well.

 

[Squiggy]

Well, the cast has been signed for 2 sequels...so more or less.

 

[Michael Chris]

Being signed for a sequel means nothing about making a sequel.

 

[Bounty]

I didn't read the review in question - I'm not going to try to keep up at this point - but I'm willing to assume that it's as well-considered and fair-minded as the positive ones.

To an extent - it reads less like a review of the movie on its own merits and more like a general essay against the state of cinema today. A shame, too, because it'd be interesting to have had a negative review that didn't feel the need to decry that Abrams is no Eisenstein.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Since a sequel is already announced, the RT score, and by extension the box office take, will only affect the budget for that sequel and perhaps the DVD treatment of Trek XI.

A sequel has not been announced-greenlit. (Unless I missed something the last few hours)

 

[Franklin]

Hey, it finally got a negative review!

There will be more of those, so let's not go after everyone who writes one.

I didn't read the review in question - I'm not going to try to keep up at this point - but I'm willing to assume that it's as well-considered and fair-minded as the positive ones.

It's a screed more than a review.

Armond White's last 50 reviews on RT went with the consensus (fresh or rotten) 27 times. He gave a bad review to a fresh movie 17 times. Several of them well above 80 percent fresh.

He is a very serious and well-read critic, but he obviously has his own agenda about what a movie should be and what a review is for. Consider this quote from his New York Press review:

Or it’s television—like Gene Roddenberry’s now-legendary 1966-1969 television series Star Trek,which uncannily simulated pop culture conformity. Rigid sets, contrived futurism and made-up aliens offered a cast that was “multi-culti” avant la lettre,while domesticating the sci-fi genre.The U.S.S.Enterprise’s deck was essentially a living room commanded by a father figure sitting in an easy chair who, with his crew, watched a big-screen TV—also avant la lettre.This non-cinematic concept now comes full circle with the new Star Trek movie directed by J.J. Abrams, a contemporary Roddenberry-type network mogul (“creator” in TV parlance), who fulfills his trite TV sensibility. Star Trek isn’t a movie so much as a confirmation of TV’s cultural dominance. It’s watchable, yet still terrible cinema.

Whatever. It's obvious from his writing he's one of those who champions only film as art. Star Trek will never measure up to that. And of course it's unfair to expect it to. That's not what it is. It brings the money into the studios so they can make the arty "barely break even" films.

 

[MvRojo]

53-1.

 

[Aragorn]

That 51-year-old Trekspace weirdo whom I posted about the other day is back at it again:

Watch "Free Enterprise" and tell me that Star Trek doesn't belong to the fans. We brought it back to life and kept it breathing.

 

[Michael Chris]

The last "fresh" has been changed to a "rotten." 52-2

 

[cooleddie74]

Being signed for a sequel means nothing about making a sequel.

True to a POINT. Bakula and the ENT cast got tentative five-to-seven-year commitments to their series and it never panned out. But in the case of this movie I think it's a 99% certainty we'll get at least one more.

 

[urbandk]

The last "fresh" has been changed to a "rotten." 52-2

Yeah that review is rotten on balance. It's a rotten review I respect because it judges the movie on its merits rather than by how well it fits a certain cultural or artistic agenda.

 

[Franklin]

The last "fresh" has been changed to a "rotten." 52-2

Yeah that review is rotten on balance. It's a rotten review I respect because it judges the movie on its merits rather than by how well it fits a certain cultural or artistic agenda.

Yeah. If you're going to attack the movie, you're best shot is to go after the plot. It's fair game. One thing Guzman says is strange, though. He says this Spock (Quinto) has something new: sex appeal. Um, didn't Nimoy's Spock have that same appeal to the ladies in the 1960s?

 

[Aragorn]

The last "fresh" has been changed to a "rotten." 52-2

Yeah that review is rotten on balance. It's a rotten review I respect because it judges the movie on its merits rather than by how well it fits a certain cultural or artistic agenda.

Does that mean you won't like my negative review of the movie where I compare Chris Pine's acting in Trek to Anthony Hopkins' performance in The Remains of the Day, that JJ Abrams' directing of a sci fi space adventure falls well short of how Orson Welles directed Citizen Kane, and that this movie completely failed to make any commentary on post-9/11 America and the current economical climate?

 

[Amaris]

Well, that's it. I'm sending that guy a thousand magazines filled with donkey porn. Don't ask where I'm getting it from, just know it's going there. Reviewers who give negatives on principle and not based on the movie get nothing but disrespect from me for sullying the art form itself in favor of "the message."

Oh, and on another note, Cooleddie, I'm going to need to borrow your keys to the shed you have behind the local Sizzler.

J.

 

[SalvorHardin]

It's now 52 - 2 and 96% at 8/10

 

[HamTard]

Not a bad score. With that many reviews, and a Certified Fresh, it is now safe to say with certainty this is at least a critical success.

 

[indranee]

The last "fresh" has been changed to a "rotten." 52-2

Yeah that review is rotten on balance. It's a rotten review I respect because it judges the movie on its merits rather than by how well it fits a certain cultural or artistic agenda.

Yeah. If you're going to attack the movie, you're best shot is to go after the plot. It's fair game. One thing Guzman says is strange, though. He says this Spock (Quinto) has something new: sex appeal. Um, didn't Nimoy's Spock have that same appeal to the ladies in the 1960s?

well, it's obvious GuzMAN is a man

and hell yes. and not just ladies in the 60s. ladies in the 90s and the 2000s, as well.

Spock was the thinking woman's crumpet way before Mulder ever came on the scene.

 

[Franklin]

The sequel has not been greenlit.

Well, they are doing story treatments from what I've read. So, unless this movie unexpectedly opens to the sound of crickets chirpping, getting the "green light" is just a formality.

 

[urbandk]

The last "fresh" has been changed to a "rotten." 52-2

Yeah that review is rotten on balance. It's a rotten review I respect because it judges the movie on its merits rather than by how well it fits a certain cultural or artistic agenda.

Does that mean you won't like my negative review of the movie where I compare Chris Pine's acting in Trek to Anthony Hopkins' performance in The Remains of the Day, that JJ Abrams' directing of a sci fi space adventure falls well short of how Orson Welles directed Citizen Kane, and that this movie completely failed to make any commentary on post-9/11 America and the current economical climate?

If only Star Trek had been in Russian with French subtitles...