‘Star Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct
- Thread starter HaplessCrewman
- Start date
- Status
YARN, if you're genuinely interested in having a discussion about the definition of success in visual entertainment forms, the thing to do would be start a thread in TV & Media which is expressly about that topic. To continue buttonholing people about it here (in a discussion originally about the possibility of Roberto Orci directing the next movie) verges on thread hijack.
Last edited:
The Department of Redundancy Dept. called to repeat that they want their repetition back.
And did you give it back to them
The Department of Redundancy Dept. called to repeat that they want their repetition back.
Nice return <Bows>^ I gave them a detailed four thousand word analysis of why argument by repetition doesn't work, but they keep calling anyway.
Box office is irrelevant unless Star Trek 3 doesn't make money.
Reviews are irrelevant unless Star Trek 3 gets bad reviews.
A movie is objectively "good" only if no one, anywhere, has anything bad to say about it 20 years after release.
What's so hard to understand?
Reviews are irrelevant unless Star Trek 3 gets bad reviews.
A movie is objectively "good" only if no one, anywhere, has anything bad to say about it 20 years after release.
What's so hard to understand?
Dennis should direct the movie!
Yes.That actually supports it.The protest that RT reviews are "hind sight" is a foolish one, given that complainers about the Abrams films like to counter their success with mumblings about "the test of time." Doesn't look like time's been real kind to some fan favorites.
No.
Reread the thread.
Reread my whole post.
Yes.
But given the extremely limited production costs, it was deemed a success nevertheless (though judgments about its quality differed widely and wildly among the viewers).
trevanian
Rear Admiral
The Department of Redundancy Dept. called to repeat that they want their repetition back.
It'd be more accurate (and maybe less redundant?) to say that what people will pay to see is a more reliable measure of the quality of the film's marketing campaign than the film itself.
For the first weekend or so, I would agree. After that, I really think word-of-mouth begins to take over.
So it's rather the 2nd weekend drop that's the proper measure?
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I thought about including the word-of-mouth waiver, but figured it would complicate the issue.
With respect to TREK, look at TWOK. Critical response was better than the first pic, but word of mouth was downright phenomenal compared to TMP, yet it didn't reach sufficiently into the mainstream (and wouldn't again till TVH) to keep the numbers stratospheric.
The movies that failed first run and got another chance, like BONNIE&CLYDE, just don't happen anymore (they barely ever happened back then.) You can fail theatrically and then do well on homevid, but that doesn't generate the same kinds of numbers. But even TWOK's strong showing on homevid didn't cause them to pack into SFS on TMP levels, so that impact was by no means on the level of, say, how FIRST BLOOD on VHS and HBO practically mandated that RAMBO would clean up theatrically.
There must be formulas for computing some of this stuff, but a lot of it must be more alchemy than science (just like Genesis, as somebody observed a long time ago.)
With respect to TREK, look at TWOK. Critical response was better than the first pic, but word of mouth was downright phenomenal compared to TMP, yet it didn't reach sufficiently into the mainstream (and wouldn't again till TVH) to keep the numbers stratospheric.
The movies that failed first run and got another chance, like BONNIE&CLYDE, just don't happen anymore (they barely ever happened back then.) You can fail theatrically and then do well on homevid, but that doesn't generate the same kinds of numbers. But even TWOK's strong showing on homevid didn't cause them to pack into SFS on TMP levels, so that impact was by no means on the level of, say, how FIRST BLOOD on VHS and HBO practically mandated that RAMBO would clean up theatrically.
There must be formulas for computing some of this stuff, but a lot of it must be more alchemy than science (just like Genesis, as somebody observed a long time ago.)
What the hell is wrong with Orci? There are *36* instances of 'fuck' throughout the script. Pretty much all of them don't even make any sense: "a fucking FACE is on their screen," "... in fucking labor...", "... the fucking HOLOGRAM of Spock...").
Jesus HC! No wonder people have so much confidence in this latter day Shakespeare...
- Status
Similar threads
