Critical Success or Commercial Success
- Thread starter 1bulma1
- Start date
It needs to be another huge box office success. No Star Trek movie is going to be a critical sense in the artistic sense. They're not making art films and they never have.
Two words: Box Office. It's the green that matters. But both would be nice. 
Commercial success.
Obviously Paramount wants a commercaial success above all. I mean look at a film like the latest 'Twilight' sequel. It's supposedly pretty darn bad, but making money. I'd have to believe that the studio putting out that film is happy with the commercial success, and is relatively unphased by the critical panning.
As a movie-goer, I obviously want a movie worthy of critical praise, and don't really care how much money it makes. Although commercial success may guarantee movie-goers another sequel.
As a movie-goer, I obviously want a movie worthy of critical praise, and don't really care how much money it makes. Although commercial success may guarantee movie-goers another sequel.
Since when has "critical success" been equivalent to "art film?" Obviously, box office success is the most important factor here, but the first film was well-liked by film critics and it would only benefit the sequel if it was equally well-received.
When you say "critical success", do you mean movie critics or Star Trek fans?
The last movie was a success with the movie critics as well as commercially. But with Trek fans? Yeah, we know that answer...
I only care about two things - Did I like it, and then did it make enough money so they continue making more? And I liked the last film.
The last movie was a success with the movie critics as well as commercially. But with Trek fans? Yeah, we know that answer...
I only care about two things - Did I like it, and then did it make enough money so they continue making more? And I liked the last film.
JamesRKirk
Lieutenant
Commercial success is the only thing that matters.
They could turn it into a sci-fi version of Twilight and as long as people still paid to see it Paramount would keep making it.
They could win 10 Oscars but if it flopped at the box office it would be done for a good number of years.
Quality doesn't matter, quantity (of money) does. Paramount is in this for one reason, to make money. And that's how it should be.
They could turn it into a sci-fi version of Twilight and as long as people still paid to see it Paramount would keep making it.
They could win 10 Oscars but if it flopped at the box office it would be done for a good number of years.
Quality doesn't matter, quantity (of money) does. Paramount is in this for one reason, to make money. And that's how it should be.
1bulma1
Lieutenant Commander
ofcourse....movie critics
I think The Motion Picture had some pretensions of being the next 2001. While I find a certain "art film" vibe to that idea, the ultimate goal was to jump start the franchise again, so they were always hoping for commercial success. TMP was a commercial film, but which borrowed some clear trappings of science fiction art films, for example by using its tagline "The human adventure is just beginning" to allude to the idea that mankind will someday literally evolve into a higher dimension.
I think commercial success is the goal with STXII and what's important to the franchise. However, I think that given the performance of STXI, both commercial and critical success is expected in STXII.
Rotten Tomatoes.
Ideally, both.
But, if I have to choose one, I go for commercial. That way, more sequels, spin-offs and Trek novels, some of which may be good.
But, if I have to choose one, I go for commercial. That way, more sequels, spin-offs and Trek novels, some of which may be good.
Remember Avatar? It was the highest-grossing film of all time in North America when it was released. But other than the CGI and the 3D, the movie was absolute crap. But nobody cared about that because it made ridiculous money. And that's all that matters to movie producers these days.
Similar threads
- Locked
