Exactly. Most of us loved it, aside from a vocal minority of dissenters. And I say that as someone who has been a devoted Star Trek fan since 1966 . . . .
Critical Success or Commercial Success
- Thread starter 1bulma1
- Start date
Exactly. Most of us loved it, aside from a vocal minority of dissenters. And I say that as someone who has been a devoted Star Trek fan since 1966 . . . .
My point was that the "even numbered films" fallacy should be considered well and truly dead at this point, because of STXI.
I thought it was dead with Star Trek 3. I really like that movie.
Far be it for me to speak on behalf of Trek fans, but it wouldn't have taken much to keep us happy. Just a minuscule amount of due diligence on the part of the writers could have, for example, avoided the whole Delta Vega debacle.
Roberto Orci said:
Why not land Kirk on T'Khut? It'd still be an Easter egg, it wouldn't be a new name, and it would have the virtue of at least already being in the Vulcan system and visible from the planet. Answer: careless research and lazy writers.
This movie had so much potential to be great, and if Orci and Kurtzman paid just a smidge more attention to detail, it would have been. And that's just disappointing as Hell.
"We moved the planet."
How asinine. Z
PS: Commercial Success is my answer to the OP. No money, no franchise.
Debacle? They reused a cool sounding planet-of-the-week name. Big deal.
As long as the movie is well-written and well-developed onscreen, I could care less.
Not "when it was released;" it still is. To become the most successful film in history, BTW, the movie it had to surpass was Cameron's previous film - none of the other stuff praised here and by skiffy fans around the Internet was competition, and none have bettered it since.
So you say. On every level it was a far, far better film than anything ever produced as Star Trek and resonated with many times more people all over the world than any other fantasy movie ever made. Thus far, there's no reason to expect that to change until Cameron makes another one - Star Trek sure as hell isn't gonna do it.
Obviously critical success is more important
you guys would rather have a shit movie that makes a lot of money? like Twilight?
you guys would rather have a shit movie that makes a lot of money? like Twilight?
That is what is known in the biz as a leading question.
I'd venture to guess, though, that "shit movie" and "like Twilight" are not very high on the list of things most people are looking for in the next movie. "Makes a lot of money"? I don't think it would be a huge problem for anyone if that were to happen, but they'd probably be perfectly happy with "entertaining and reasonably profitable," since that ought to be sufficient to ensure a follow-up movie.
"entertaining and reasonably profitable,"
I agree.
As a side note, Werewolf hardliners wanted werewolf quadrupeds with tails. Twilight shows up and its:
"Whaaaaaaaaa!
Give me Underworld, Van Helsing and Harry Potter werewolves! "
Trek Hardliners trashed Gabe's, Adam's, Steve's, Phase II's and TOS-R's works.
Bad Robot cinematograph comes out:
"TOS-R should have gotten the same budget as the movie! Phase II is awesome!"
BTW I've been a Trekker since 1972.
I agree.
As a side note, Werewolf hardliners wanted werewolf quadrupeds with tails. Twilight shows up and its:
"Whaaaaaaaaa!
Give me Underworld, Van Helsing and Harry Potter werewolves! "Trek Hardliners trashed Gabe's, Adam's, Steve's, Phase II's and TOS-R's works.
Bad Robot cinematograph comes out:
"TOS-R should have gotten the same budget as the movie! Phase II is awesome!"
BTW I've been a Trekker since 1972.
Not long after the controversy was being battled out:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=146452
And:
A Piece of the Action 32 (Star Trek Welcomittee's Monthly Report, November 1975):
- the newsletter has a report on the 1975 issue of Time Magazine: one comment -- "Except for the repeated reference to "trekkies" (a label which most mature Star Trek fans object to), the article deals with Star Trek's popularity and fans intelligently."
"Trekkers vs Trekkie" by Terry Whittier (A Piece of the Action #37, April 1976):
"What many people outside of STAR TREK fandom don't seem to realize is that there are two rather distinctly different types of Star Trek fans: Trekkers and Trekkies. And Star Trek fandom tends to suffer because of this misunderstanding. There are two different outlooks that separate the Trekker and the Trekkie: The Trekker is the serious, dedicated, and hardworking fan who is seriously into ST fandom trying to get something constructive done while still meeting people and making friends. But Trekkies are inconsiderate, disruptive kids who are simply along for the ride. The Trekker sees Star Trek as the only recent television show that treated science fiction in an adult, painstakingly authentic, highly entertaining manner by craftsmen who (because of their dedication and skill) make the future come alive. Trekkers give freely of their time, energy, and resources to get things done. They tend to be the organizers, the volunteers, the hard and consistent workers, the editors and officers. They run the service organizations like the Star Trek Welcommittee. Prime examples of Trekkers: John and Bjo Trimble, David Gerrold, Allyson Whitfield.
"Trekkies on the other hand, see Star Trek as just another exciting TV show. And the fandom associated with it simply another "in-group" they can try to join. They can always be seen, running all over, zapping everyone with their toy phasers, dressed in their Spock ears and uniforms. They are consumers of anything that says Star Trek or has a picture of Spock on it. Their only aim is to have fun. Trekkies are forever quoting their favorite character, but are very apathetic when it comes to working on club activities and volunteer projects. Trekkers are responsible for most of the good things that have been done in Star Trek fandom. Trekkies, unfortunately, are responsible for the bad impression the general public has of Star Trek fans."
http://fanlore.org/wiki/A_Piece_of_the_Action
Yevetha
Commodore
It's impossible to make an NCC1701 film that doesn't have a huge amount of social awareness attached to it. More than any other science fiction show Star Trek reached mainstream consciousness and stuck there.
Even young people who have never seen an original Star Trek know who Captain Kirk is, who Mr Spock is, etc. Perhaps depth is the wrong word - rather resonance - since that's what the film is trading on. It would have been a crime indeed to waste that collective memory and even if 2009 isn't all that it could have been, it acquitted itself well and IMO dragged itself back from the pompousness of the original crew movies and back to the sense of fun the original series had.
Even young people who have never seen an original Star Trek know who Captain Kirk is, who Mr Spock is, etc. Perhaps depth is the wrong word - rather resonance - since that's what the film is trading on. It would have been a crime indeed to waste that collective memory and even if 2009 isn't all that it could have been, it acquitted itself well and IMO dragged itself back from the pompousness of the original crew movies and back to the sense of fun the original series had.
Similar threads
- Locked
