The Ultimate Poll: JJ Vs. Bay

[Ryan8bit]

You can pick at details like that in just about any movie though, and that doesn't make it any more or less intellectual. ST09 and several of the ST movies are chock full of all sorts of things that don't make a lick of sense in real life either.

 

[number6]

You can pick at details like that in just about any movie though, and that doesn't make it any more or less intellectual. ST09 and several of the ST movies are chock full of all sorts of things that don't make a lick of sense in real life either.

Except that some people seem blissfully unaware of that fact whenever they go out of their way to criticize Trek XI.

 

[el Chalupacabra]

Bay, because it couldn't get any worse. In fact, it might even have more depth to it.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Just thought I'd pop back in here briefly to reiterate that Bay is a terrible director and Star Trek was a great movie.

Toodles.

 

[number6]

I'm just going to quote myself.

We both know the problem. This new team created a successful movie and restarted the franchise, and there are a bunch of pissed off Star Trek fans who are taking leaps, moving goalposts, and making any excuse possible to rob this film of its legitimate place within the Star Trek franchise, despite the fact that they have absolutely no say in the matter. Sure they can "vote with their wallets" as they always say, but they'll see the film again and again and note in every detail every little thing the film got "wrong," pumping more revenue into the box office and they will do it with every Star Trek film. The option "Don't Go" will never occur to them because let's face it, they are going to be curious they secretly want to like the film even though they like to make all kinds of crazy excuses why they don't.

Or.. they just come here and complain to get a reaction from those who think otherwise, never listening to fact, expressing their own opinion like it's Trek Gospel, accusing all others of heresy if they, God forbid, have facts and reality on their side..

There's your problem. No need to bring Michael Bay into this.

 

[el Chalupacabra]

Just thought I'd pop back in here briefly to reiterate that Bay is a terrible director and Star Trek was a great movie.

Toodles.

Maybe Star Trek 2009 was great in some other alternate time line! j/k

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Just thought I'd pop back in here briefly to reiterate that Bay is a terrible director and Star Trek was a great movie.

Toodles.

Maybe Star Trek 2009 was great in some other alternate time line! j/k

No problem... I've actually heard that one before, even.

 

[number6]

Just thought I'd pop back in here briefly to reiterate that Bay is a terrible director and Star Trek was a great movie.

Toodles.

Maybe Star Trek 2009 was great in some other alternate time line! j/k

No problem... I've actually heard that one before, even.

I know that timeline pretty well: Someone rebooted Star Trek into a successful blockbuster and a small group of whiny fans complain.

 

[Alex1939]

^

I just don't understand this mentality.

I liked Star Trek 2009, it's not my favorite Trek movie, and it has some flaws and some areas I didn't like.

Is there no room for any criticism of the movie here? I mean, I didn't think saying Trek 2009 was similar in ways to the original Star Wars, moreso than other Trek movies, was really that offensive of a statement, but it sure seems the fanboys are up in arms about anything not wholly positive.

 

[BillJ]

Is there no room for any criticism of the movie here?

No.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

It's just one of those things where it's a vicious cycle.

I really liked the film and it's basically just the super-vocal sorts who have endlessly attacked it that get me to the point where sometimes I come off as snarky in my defense of it.

Of course, it works both ways. Some people never shut up about how good it was, too.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It's just one of those things where it's a vicious cycle.

I really liked the film and it's basically just the super-vocal sorts who have endlessly attacked it that get me to the point where sometimes I come off as snarky in my defense of it.

Of course, it works both ways. Some people never shut up about how good it was, too.

This.

P.S. Thanks, Jeff, for giving me the opportunity to say "this" thusly.

 

[el Chalupacabra]

I know that timeline pretty well: Someone rebooted Star Trek into a successful blockbuster and a small group of whiny fans complain.

Successful blockbuster?

Star trek 2009 worldwide grossed $385,680,446 minus $150 million for production costs = $235,680,446
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek11.htm

By comparison, Transformers 2 Revenge of the Fallen worldwide grossed $836,297,228 minus $200 million for production costs = $636,297,228
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=transformers2.htm


So, by your standard then I guess you can say that Transformers 2 Revenge of the Fallen must be over two and a half times the awesomeness of Star Trek, right?

Hell, even Cloverfield actually netted more money worldwide than Star Trek domestically.
Clovervfield worldwide: $170,764,026 -$25 million = 145,764,026
Star Trek Domestically: $257,730,019-$150 million= $107,730,019
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=cloverfield.htm




Let's face it, in movie terms, Star Trek 2009 made a modest profit worldwide. It did well enough to garner a sequel. That's good, but not great. And that is factoring in the curiosity people wanted to satisfy on how a reboot would be, as well as Apple shilling for Abrams-verse Trek for over a year, on their web pages. I wouldn't go calling one movie a successful reboot until Trek 12 does at least as well...

 

[Bishop76]

I'm sorry, but that is possibly the dumbest post I've ever read on here. Congratulations.

Modest profit? I think maybe it's time you took an econ class or at least got a basic understanding of how the film industry measures monetary success.

 

[number6]

Don't ever let facts get in the way of a mindless rant.

 

[M'Sharak]

I'm sorry, but that is possibly the dumbest post I've ever read on here. Congratulations.

Don't ever let facts get in the way of a mindless rant.

Psh, it's hardly the dumbest post ever—not even close—and neither is it a mindless rant, yet it does have a bit of a recycled flavor to it. In fact, I'm quite sure I remember seeing the "Transformers 2 two and a half times as awesome as Star Trek" gag used in a very similar post here nearly a year ago.

 

[BillJ]

I'm quite sure I remember seeing the "Transformers 2 two and a half times as awesome as Star Trek" gag used in a very similar post here nearly a year ago.

That was me... and it was in regard to some people using the money made by Star Trek 2009 as a measure of its quality.

 

[JarodRussell]

I wonder why everytime someone says he didn't like the movie, he gets to hear "But millions disagreed with you, box office proves that.", but when someone cites box office and postulates "XY is better because it made more money", suddenly his post is stupid and mindless.

 

[BillJ]

I wonder why everytime someone says he didn't like the movie, he gets to hear "But millions disagreed with you, box office proves that.", but when someone cites box office and postulates "XY is better because it made more money", suddenly his post is stupid and mindless.

 

[Bishop76]

Do you seriously not see the problem here? Even you should be able to pick up on this one, but let me lend a hand.

It's dumb because not only does he post numbers that completely contradict his final point (that Trek XI was only moderately profitable), but he seems to be completely redefining what a financially successful film is. Star Trek XI made back what it cost, then enough to make itself again, and some odd hundred million dollars change. I'm pretty sure that's what folks in Hollywood like to consider a huge fucking success of blockbuster proportions.

I'm NOT saying that quality relates to financial success or that Transformers 2 wasn't a bigger blockbuster. It was. But to deny that Trek XI was not a success is a case study in lunacy.