No.
You're underqualified to edit anything that I write.
You can dislike these movies all you like. If you want to pretend that they're not succeeding by pleasing a large audience, you can do that too - it's not respectable, but you can do it.
‘Star Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct
- Thread starter HaplessCrewman
- Start date
- Status
No.
You're underqualified to edit anything that I write.
You can dislike these movies all you like. If you want to pretend that they're not succeeding by pleasing a large audience, you can do that too - it's not respectable, but you can do it.
No.
You're underqualified to edit anything that I write.
You can dislike these movies all you like. If you want to pretend that they're not succeeding by pleasing a large audience, you can do that too - it's not respectable, but you can do it.
I'm not pretending that they're not succeeding in pleasing large audiences. When did I ever say that? I fully acknowledge that they do please large audiences, just as TRANSFORMERS, TWILIGHT, WORLD WAR Z and even the STAR WARS prequels have.
I just don't care. If they do, fine. If they don't, fine. What matters most to me is my own opinion and I stand by it. Box office numbers are not going to change it. Films aren't a science that can be pinned down to "a lot of people like/dislike it, therefore everyone should". I think the first Terminator is a much better and rewarding film, but a lot of people like T2 better.
I hope you find this post informing. I say that earnestly without smarmy smilie faces.
Yes, and at the same site it has a 98% "Want To See" rating. Did you miss that part?
Spider-Man 2 is tracking to open big this weekend - think the studio gives a fuck what the advance opinion at Rotten Tomatoes is? Guess again.
Why do so many fans insist on the notion that the tail wags the dog? Comic book movies that people crowd into the theater to see but that fail some on-line nerd poll or arouse the hackles of AICN Talkbackers are ridiculously considered failures. If a Trek movie doesn't satisfy a minority within the relatively small group of people who've been following the franchise for decades but succeeds with the general audience they think the studio has made some sort of critical error. It'd be funny if it weren't pathetic.
Actually, it is funny.
Spider-Man 2 is tracking to open big this weekend - think the studio gives a fuck what the advance opinion at Rotten Tomatoes is? Guess again.
Why do so many fans insist on the notion that the tail wags the dog? Comic book movies that people crowd into the theater to see but that fail some on-line nerd poll or arouse the hackles of AICN Talkbackers are ridiculously considered failures. If a Trek movie doesn't satisfy a minority within the relatively small group of people who've been following the franchise for decades but succeeds with the general audience they think the studio has made some sort of critical error. It'd be funny if it weren't pathetic.
Actually, it is funny.
Last edited:
You're right Dennis, if it makes a billion dollars at the box office, who are we to call the film "a mess"?
Actually you never know. Any shitty movie can open big - especially something like Spider-Man. But not just any movie can stay big. Maybe Captain America 2 wouldn't have stayed #1 for three weeks in a row without positive word of mouth. In any case, it doesn't matter. This flick could break box office records and it wouldn't change the fact that I doubt Orci is up to the task for Star Trek XIII.
The thing that makes box office returns so satisfying as a measurement is simply that they represent an objective standard for evaluation and comparison - everything other than the number of people willing to part with what Heinlein termed their "beer money" to see a film is entirely subjective. Who cares who can shout loudest or type the most posts on the Internet? Paramount sure doesn't.
Dude, you're not making any sense. If there's some point you're trying to make you really need to clarify it.
Dennis said:
Well, if that's the "objective" standard then strictly-speaking, future Trek films should be emulating the model of movies that made more money than they did. Right?
(Of course box office, and the health of franchises, is also affected by nagging x-factors like buzz and long-term audience goodwill that aren't necessarily present in the immediate returns and that often depend on stuff like the movie being actually good. Which is why trying to pass off box office grosses as a straight measure of "objective" quality is fallacious and you should never bother trying to do that.)
If all we want for Star Trek is big box office because big box office=great movie (apparently) then maybe in the next flick we need the Enterprise to visit a planet of transforming robots or something. Oh yeah...co-starring Sandra Bullock and directed by Michael Bay.
Nah. It's really very straightforward. Try again.
Nah, I'm with Kelthaz on this one, man.
I mean, the only "critical error" on the studio's part that any of us need to worry about as viewers is whether we think the movies were good. Right? If we liked them we say that, if not we say the other thing.
So when was the last time someone convinced you a movie was good by quoting its box office revenue at you? Suppose for example you thought Avatar was an overrated piece of Na'vi crap. (I don't know if you do, just picking a random example.) If someone came along to you and said that it was "objectively" the best movie ever because it stacked more Benjamins than anything in the history of things... do you suddenly start liking it? How exactly would that work?
(I mean, I know it's a bad example because Avatar brought together space marines and dragons and giant robots and blue cat person sex and therefore kind of is the best movie ever. But bear with me, just for the sake of argument.)
Agenda said:
For maximum returns, Kirk should be gender-flipped and discover she is now a princess and has inherited a fortune that includes a suit of power armor and has now crash-landed on a planet trapped in permanent winter where she's found her long-lost sister and been recruited to participate in a cruel, gruelling life-or-death tournament by the local totalitarian government to save her sister's life. And it should also be a musical, and half of the action should feature Spock trapped in orbit and trying to get planetside to help his stranded friend...
... actually I think I'm almost talking myself into this.
All the studio would really have to do to have the film make more money is have the Enterprise become a transformer with Kirk defeating a Klingon transformer by smacking it til it explodes, followed by Kirk quipping "smack my bitch up". During that entire third act, Kirk has Uhura give a lap dance, with Spock saying "most illogical".
Troi giving Picard a lap dance in NEMESIS might have helped gross the film a couple hundred million bucks.
Troi giving Picard a lap dance in NEMESIS might have helped gross the film a couple hundred million bucks.
YARN
Fleet Captain
And the Spice Girls sold more albums than The Beatles. Yet what fraction of the population would claim that the former is greater than the latter?
Another perfectly objective standard for comparison and evaluation would be "height of director." Pure objective measurements do not always provide the best standard of quality.
Everything other than $$$ is purely subjective? You have committed yourself to whole-hog aesthetic subjectivism. You have, from this moment forward, no logically consistent basis for aesthetic judgments (binding on others), save for questions of profit. You have to grounds to praise or blame films, ship designs, acting, etc., save to say, "I like/didn't like it" (which is not rationally binding on others) or "It made money."
The rest of us need not commit to so hasty a proposition. We can look to critical majorities. We can agree upon evaluative criteria. We can work from shared interpretations of evidence.
Seeing as how Paramount only cares about making money, this is not surprising. But why should we care about what Paramount cares about? If we were only in it for their profits, the most efficient model would be for us to mail our paychecks directly to them so they would have to mess with the pesky step of actually making the movies.
Seeing as how we're Star Trek fans, what we care about is that which is relevant to us. It's not our fault that our cares go beyond a studio's bottom line.
Although there are differences between this November 2007 script and the finished movie, the supernova/black hole "science" remains the same. I have to assume they intended all along for the movie to use this kind of fantasy dressed up in the loosest science-fiction concepts.
What other yardstick are we suppose to use? Rotten Tomatoes has nearly 300,000 people rating Into Darkness as a 4.3/5 overall and critics generally like the movie. The movie sold a decent amount of tickets and did well on home video. But we're consistently told by some (over and over and over) that the movie is some type of colossal failure and the worst Star Trek ever. Which is non-sense. I'd rather see Will Ferrell and Jack Black play Kirk and Spock than subject myself to something like "Fair Haven" again.
So what yardstick are we suppose to use?
The yardstick of "Did I like the movie or not"?
And so long as they do make money with Star Trek we'll get new movies.
No one cares if you don't like what you see so long as enough of the rest of us like what we are presented with.
That is the only objective measurement of "good" a studio is interested in: mass-marketability.
What part of that is hard for you?
You're saying that I don't get to "critique" popular culture? That I have to just like or not like something, and say so?
Color me devastated. Boo-fucking-who.
As for the rest of that rant...Pass.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
