"Deal Breaker" for you?

[Alidar Jarok]

Phoenicianknight said:
Female Vulcans in a Push Up Bra.

Female Borges in a body suit.

No mini skirts!

So 90s objectifying women = bad, 60s objectifying of women = absolutely necessary?

There are no deal breakers, but the worse the reviews of the movie, the less hurry I will be to see it. I won't even consider it absolutely necessary to see it in theaters if its considered bad enough.

 

[ancient]

There is no 'Deal Breaker' for me.

Sure, there are lots of things I hope to see/not see, but at the end of the day I'd still go check it out even if it sounds and looks shitastic.

There's NO WAY I'm going to spend the next year talking about a movie and then not go see it. That's crazy talk!

 

[Orac Zen]

If Shatner or Tom Cruise (gag) were in the movie, I'd think twice about seeing it...but I'd probably see it anyway, to satisfy my own curiosity. I put little stock in reviews, "professional" or otherwise (too many instances where "[show / movie]" is brilliant, must-watch, blah blah blah!!!!" and I've been bored or otherwise unimpressed), so they're not going to have much influence.

As others have said, the real test is whether I'd want to see it again. Once was too often for TFF, Insurrection and Nemesis, so at the very least I'm hoping it's better than that.

 

[Kegek]

Franklin said:
Like others have posted, a bad review would do it for me first and foremost. I'll be spending a lot of time on "Rotten Tomatoes" when reviews start coming in.

Me too. I don't know what I did before rottentomatoes... evidently I was just psychotically selective. Which I always am. I don't see a lot of movies in the theatre every year - I mean, this year the two biggest were probably Seraphim Falls and Rescue Dawn. (Unless one counts Golden Pavilion and Sands of Iwo Jima wat I saw in January...) Oh, okay. I probably saw other things I blocked out of my mind, and Ratatouille.

I am impatiently waiting to see No Country for Old Men, because I generally like Coen brothers films and this was at 96% on the tomato-meter when I last checked. Wow. And it's title is a W.B. Yeats quote, really, what the hell is there not to like?

So, what's the breaking point for me? Hmm. Well, it's Star Trek. So I'm not expecting much. Just give me a solid, say, 40%? Aw heck, I'll probably see it if it doesn't even have that. It's got Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock, and the child within cannot be denied.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Rotten Tomatoes is right about Old Men. Best. Coen Brothers movie. Ever.

 

[Kegek]

Stop making me jealous!

Well, in all seriousness if the film is aggressively panned, I might skip it. I tried to watch M:I-III last week on TV and zoned out after fifteen minutes... and that's a movie based on a 60s TV series produced by Abrams with a score by Giacchino and a script with O&K (and Abrams), more or less the same creative team behind scenes as this movie.

 

[Basil]

I used to be a regular theater-goer -- now rather than pay I tend to wait until a film shows up at the library because movies today generally are so awful. The funny thing is Nielsen, or someone claiming to be from the company, called recently to inquire how many films I'd seen in the cinema in the past three months; when I told them one, they thanked me for my time. I had no idea Nielsen did any polling for the film industry, but I do wish they would have taken my opinion into account, as I wonder how skewed results are by excluding people.

I saw MI:3, which tried to recapture the spirit of the excellent TV show . . . it didn't really, came across more as a better-than-average imitation, and technically wasn't the best made of the three. My fear is that Abrams' "Star Trek" will be similar. I think the story idea will be good but fear he'll deviate too much from the look of the original and will have a "Dawson's Creek" quality cast. Yawn. The fact that the Enterprise is rumored to be redesigned troubles me, too -- I get vibes of the "Lost in Space" remake that wasn't a bad movie but just didn't get what made the show so successful.

In the end, though, it'll also depend on how much the studio is behind the project. Abrams seems to have a great deal of clout in Hollywood, so I suspect the marketing will be tremendous.

The deal breaker for me will be when I see the trailer and it looks more like "Starship Troopers" than "Star Trek." While I enjoyed the former, it's not what I'm looking for in "Star Trek." What I'd like to see is a serious and reverential attempt at a film that seems the precursor to the original series. If I want to see something else, like, say, a failed so-called prequel, I can tune in to "Enterprise," assuming, of course, someone is actually broadcasting it.

 

[Franklin]

Actually, the compilations of Trek reviews that make up "Rotten Tomatoes" has been pretty spot on about where fans themselves rank the movies.
1. TWOK: 91% positive (7.9/10 average)
2. FC: 91% positive (7.3/10)
3. TVH: 88% positive (7/10)
4. TUC: 83% positive (6.8/10)
5. TSFS: 75% positive (6.2/10)
6. INS: 61% positive (5.9/10)
7. STMP: 55% positive (5.9/10)
8. GEN: 47% positive (5.4/10)
9. NEM: 37% positive (5.2/10)
10. TFF: 23% positive (4/10)

I'm not going to say I'm a slave to the reviews, but if I don't see a bright red tomato next to "Star Trek" when it comes out, I'm far less likely to go.

 

[Kegek]

^
I disagreed with the tomato-meter about Renaissance, which is sitting at a disreputable 43%, and I wouldn't order the Star Trek films like that... but generally, I find it a damn trustworthy barometer.

Basil said:
The deal breaker for me will be when I see the trailer and it looks more like "Starship Troopers" than "Star Trek." While I enjoyed the former, it's not what I'm looking for in "Star Trek."

Well, as I recall, the biggest Star Trek fan involved with the production is Roberto Orci. His list of favourite episodes included, IIRC, "The Balance of Terror" and "Yesterday's Enterprise". Not bad choices, but when the ardent Trekkie is leaning towards the action-adventure camp, and Abrams prefers Star Wars to Star Trek, then I suspect action-adventure is what we'll be getting.

It remains to seen if that action-adventure is any good.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Basil said:
I used to be a regular theater-goer -- now rather than pay I tend to wait until a film shows up at the library because movies today generally are so awful. The funny thing is Nielsen, or someone claiming to be from the company, called recently to inquire how many films I'd seen in the cinema in the past three months; when I told them one, they thanked me for my time. I had no idea Nielsen did any polling for the film industry, but I do wish they would have taken my opinion into account, as I wonder how skewed results are by excluding people.

This Fall has been pretty good for movies. I recently saw No Country for Old Men, American Gangster, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead* and The Darjeeling Limited* and I thoroughly enjoyed them all. The only dud I saw was Michael Clayton and even that wasn't a total loss. Thing is, I had to go to Philadelphia (about an hour away from my multi-plex riddled South Jersey hellhole home) to see 3 out of 4 of those.

*The sight of Marissa Tomei's breasts in the one and Natalie Portman's caboose in the other may have skewed my opinions somewhat but they were still damn fine movies, regardless.

 

[Kanenas]

Unless they use baby seals' skins for the captain's chair, I'll see it.

I would ESPECIALLY want to see it if they used baby seal skins to upolster the captian's chair. I just hope it is going to be more "the patriot" rather than "voyager: the preachy pc generation"

(just kidding about the baby seal skins, adult ones would be just fine)

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Dude, that's so rock and roll!

(My stock phrase in response to anyone who tries to shock by being anti-PC.)

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Damn, this has been a popular thread, huh?

Deal-breaker for me, which would prevent me from seeing it once, fairly shortly after opening day? Nothing at all.

Deal-breaker for me, which would prevent me from seeing it again, buying the DVD, or ever spending another dollar on anything remotely related to it? If it cancels out or "rewrites" anything in Classic Trek canon.

Uniform "tweaks" and set "tweaks" and even model "tweaks" don't fall into that category. All of those can be ignored or explained away in various ways.

But change something fundamental, something CORE... even if it's something that the "average man on the street" wouldn't know about or care about... and that will, to me, reflect a lack of care about the original on the part of the production staff that would be indicative of a far worse attitude... one of "who gives a crap about what those who came before me did... it's MINE-MINE-MINE-MINE-MINE-MINE-MINE now and screw everyone else."

It's not necessary to overtly honor "canon" as long as you're careful not to overtly CONTRADICT it. If they do that, I'll be done with anything from them... period.

Thing is, I'm 99.9% certain that's not gonna be a problem.

 

[Phoenicianknight]

Alidar Jarok said:

Phoenicianknight said:
Female Vulcans in a Push Up Bra.

Female Borges in a body suit.

No mini skirts!

So 90s objectifying women = bad, 60s objectifying of women = absolutely necessary?

There are no deal breakers, but the worse the reviews of the movie, the less hurry I will be to see it. I won't even consider it absolutely necessary to see it in theaters if its considered bad enough.

You say that like it's something I should be ashamed of.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Alidar Jarok said:

Phoenicianknight said:
Female Vulcans in a Push Up Bra.

Female Borges in a body suit.

No mini skirts!

So 90s objectifying women = bad, 60s objectifying of women = absolutely necessary?

There are no deal breakers, but the worse the reviews of the movie, the less hurry I will be to see it. I won't even consider it absolutely necessary to see it in theaters if its considered bad enough.

It's like those women who adore burlesque striptease but wouldn't dream of setting foot in a modern "gentlemen's club"--yesterday's sexism is quaint.

(And I loooooove the miniskirts. )

 

[Jack Bauer]

My death is the only thing that would prevent me from seeing it.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

EyalM said:
In the worst case scenario, I've wasted two hours of my life. And it's not like I would have spent that time researching a cure for cancer.

What? Why, you lazy bum! Just for that, I'm not going to watch the movie at all. Instead, I'm going to help humanity by spending those 2 hours discovering a vaccine for polio!

EDIT: Well, it took me 15 minutes to discover a polio vaccine on Wikipedia. (Stupid dial-up! ) So I guess I have time to see the movie now.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Brutal Strudel said:

Alidar Jarok said:

Phoenicianknight said:
Female Vulcans in a Push Up Bra.

Female Borges in a body suit.

No mini skirts!

So 90s objectifying women = bad, 60s objectifying of women = absolutely necessary?

There are no deal breakers, but the worse the reviews of the movie, the less hurry I will be to see it. I won't even consider it absolutely necessary to see it in theaters if its considered bad enough.

It's like those women who adore burlesque striptease but wouldn't dream of setting foot in a modern "gentlemen's club"--yesterday's sexism is quaint.

Good comparison.

(And I loooooove the miniskirts. )

Miniskirts are okay. Let's be real about the whole "mod" style thing that was going on in the show and at the time, though - just ugly hair, overdone eye makeup/lashes and deemphasis of the rest of the features; huge eyes in blank faces.

I guess, given the pervasiveness of hentai on the Internet, that images of womens' bodies with the faces of children turn a lot of people on, but I sure don't get it - and that's pretty much what the likes of Janice Rand, Shana the Drill Thrall and a lot of the other chicks on TOS remind me of.

 

[Franklin]

Starship Polaris said:

Brutal Strudel said:

Alidar Jarok said:

Phoenicianknight said:
Female Vulcans in a Push Up Bra.

Female Borges in a body suit.

No mini skirts!

So 90s objectifying women = bad, 60s objectifying of women = absolutely necessary?

There are no deal breakers, but the worse the reviews of the movie, the less hurry I will be to see it. I won't even consider it absolutely necessary to see it in theaters if its considered bad enough.

It's like those women who adore burlesque striptease but wouldn't dream of setting foot in a modern "gentlemen's club"--yesterday's sexism is quaint.

Good comparison.

(And I loooooove the miniskirts. )

Miniskirts are okay. Let's be real about the whole "mod" style thing that was going on in the show and at the time, though - just ugly hair, overdone eye makeup/lashes and deemphasis of the rest of the features; huge eyes in blank faces.

I guess, given the pervasiveness of hentai on the Internet, that images of womens' bodies with the faces of children turn a lot of people on, but I sure don't get it - and that's pretty much what the likes of Janice Rand, Shana the Drill Thrall and a lot of the other chicks on TOS remind me of.

And the soft focus used on closeups of women on TOS. Don't forget the soft focus.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Franklin said:
And the soft focus used on closeups of women on TOS. Don't forget the soft focus.

True. Given the "nude" lipsticks and lack of other color accents used on a number of the TOS leading ladies, the gauzy filter often reduced them to something resembling the Pillsbury Doughboy.