I thought we'd all pretty much agreed that the reviewer was talking out of her butt and had done more to degrade and insult Uhura than the movie ever could ?
How would we be reacting if this movie flopped?
- Thread starter sovereign
- Start date
I thought we'd all pretty much agreed that the reviewer was talking out of her butt and had done more to degrade and insult Uhura than the movie ever could ?
Yep you would have heard
1, Why Did you Dumb it down so much.
2. Imploding Vulcan are you stupid
3. Spock Doing Uhura. What ! Did'nt the Same Fans Lambast Shatner for Having Scotty and Uhura together, and that made more sense then this pairing.
4. Kirk's Character to stoicly sober cadette, to Bad boy..
I could go on but what's the point. Most Star Trek Fans are so glad for getting the average Sheila Sixpackette's acceptance in matters Star Trek that they'll proclaim Abrahams God for their vision. He's brought me out of my basement... the girls love it... it's nirvana...
where did it fall apart for you?
aw, need I begin
the overly comical handling of kirk's allergy (otherwise it would of been a nicely nugget from TWOH)
Cadets running the ship dont bother me, its been done in TWOH, but never a whole fleet of cadets had been send into action. It seems that they mobilized the entire academy. Were all the regular officers dead? The whole fleet was send away thing is little too convenient.
Warping into vulcan without any long range scans of the system and knowing its under attack.
The over all brashness of kirk bothered me, he seemed more like a over spoiled brat that I want to bent over and spank, than a captain you would respect.
Uhura being the only person that can speak romulan. (it seems like a gimick to give uhura some ability). The only other part uhura plays is to kiss spock.
Nero, oh nero, his only motoivation seems to be "eh i'm crazy i want revenage"
Spock's completely disregard for kirk's safty by ejecting him out of an escape pod. And Mccoy actually going along with it, after benting all the rules by getting kirk on board.
The convenient way kirk found old spock on that icy planet. (when kirk was being attacked by that spider like creature, It is so reminicent of the planet Hoth in star wars, I halfy expected kirk to pull out a lightsaber.)
That scene of spock being provoked into showing emotion was weakly done. I'm suprised how little it took spock to lose it.
The intense emotion shown by spock had ruined what it means to be a vulcan for me.
Only thing chekov was good at was a bad accent. (oh and they did throw him a bone by giving him some tranport duties)
Scotty have a boarderline eating disorder, rather than being a member of AA. (too much cliché)
Sulu bringing a knife to a gun fight.
The whole thing about the red matter is just too over the top. (it required me to lobotomize myself to begin the "suspension of disbelief)
Were they trying to go with the anti hero for kirk to fire on a helpless ship?If so the build up of kirk from the rest of the movie didnt add up.
Kirk being promoted to captain....
Need I go on?
I'm sure there are a few things i missed, but they can all be found in the rest of the forum.
Yeah Spock ejecting Kirk into a Situation where he could've Died made absolutely no sense to me, does this Enterprise have no Brig? Would'nt Spock want him to be brought up on charges at the Academy. Why would spock Maroon Kirk there even if miles away there is an Outpost.. well it was a plot contrivance to get Kirk there to meet Spock Prime.... it's that type of stuff that is full in this movie. I liked the movie when I saw it too it's extremely entertaining.. but then you come home and start to think about what you've seen.. and realize you been punk'd. And Please if JJ redoes Khan I want him marrooned on Delta Vega, why would Khan need to be done AGAIN ??? If he's such a Wunderkind can he come up with his own characters and story please.
If this film had flopped, I think my personal judgement would have been essentially the same: this is an exciting flick that does an excellent job of recasting the characters and revamping the look of the Trek universe, but has a weak and overly convoluted plot.
What would be different for me personally is that the feeling of excitement that I have for the immediate future of Star Trek would be replaced by a feeling of regret that I would have to be content with my DVDs for the foreseeable future.
As far as the conversation on this board is concerned, the film's obvious flaws would be seen as insurmountable and fatal rather than mild annoyances as is often now the case. Also, we would have the privilege of hearing about how Trek is dead, and there would be much self-loathing and recriminations about what Trek's inherent problems are and why oh why is it so difficult to relate to and blablabla. I am grateful for the success of the current film if nothing else because it has preserved me from having to read that type of post ad-nauseum
Oh, and the "I told you so's" would have changed sides and be much more irritating
What would be different for me personally is that the feeling of excitement that I have for the immediate future of Star Trek would be replaced by a feeling of regret that I would have to be content with my DVDs for the foreseeable future.
As far as the conversation on this board is concerned, the film's obvious flaws would be seen as insurmountable and fatal rather than mild annoyances as is often now the case. Also, we would have the privilege of hearing about how Trek is dead, and there would be much self-loathing and recriminations about what Trek's inherent problems are and why oh why is it so difficult to relate to and blablabla. I am grateful for the success of the current film if nothing else because it has preserved me from having to read that type of post ad-nauseum
Oh, and the "I told you so's" would have changed sides and be much more irritating
Let's see, 95% Tomatometer rating, in the IMDB top 250, huge box office success...
absolutely the worst Trek film.
I'm 26, a die-hard fan, and I loved it;
Doesn't mean you aren't entitled to your opinion, just that any attempt to argue that this film isn't a massive success in almost every sense of the word is ridiculous.
I'm 26 too, and I agree whole-heartedly.
In any case it didn't flop. It's a huge success. No need to ponder on the once dreaded scenario of box-office failure. Citizens, rejoice! Yay.
You seem to be misreading the thread or choosing to misrepresent what's going on here...
The movie is wildly popular. Check.
The movie's on track to make a lot of money. Check.
"Absolutely the worst Trek film". Uh, no. Not many are saying that, actually.
The majority of the dissent is about the plot of the film. Sure, some are hyper-nit-picking about every detail of the film (have you met a Trek fan?), but that doesn't change the one glaring complaint: it's poorly written.
Action-adventure films are typically poorly written. This one is no different. It happens to have the Trek label and characters though. That's what's at issue here. The plot holes man. Just because it's making money doesn't erase the plot holes. Just because lots of people like it doesn't erase the plot holes. They're there. So why insist on squelching conversation that addresses the plot holes?
And despite that, it STILL is a fine, fine film that has resurrected Star Trek.
Awesome!
Awesome!
I'm 26 too, and I agree whole-heartedly.
In any case it didn't flop. It's a huge success. No need to ponder on the once dreaded scenario of box-office failure. Citizens, rejoice! Yay.
Still hasn't hit the $300 million mark, which is the generally accepted minimum target.
So Batman Begins was a flop then?
You don't know what you're talking about. Star Trek is going to surpass $200 million and most likely get to $240. That's domestic. The international receipts aren't stellar, but they will probably get to or near $100 million before all's said and done. So we're at $340 million worldwide before DVD revenue, TV deals, merchandising, etc.
It's going to make Paramount a killing. The best part is that the foundation has been laid for an epic boxoffice smash for the sequel, provided JJ and co can keep the quality and the favorable reviews.
Let's see, 95% Tomatometer rating, in the IMDB top 250, huge box office success...
absolutely the worst Trek film.
I'm 26, a die-hard fan, and I loved it;
Doesn't mean you aren't entitled to your opinion, just that any attempt to argue that this film isn't a massive success in almost every sense of the word is ridiculous.
I'm 26 too, and I agree whole-heartedly.
In any case it didn't flop. It's a huge success. No need to ponder on the once dreaded scenario of box-office failure. Citizens, rejoice! Yay.
You seem to be misreading the thread or choosing to misrepresent what's going on here...
The movie is wildly popular. Check.
The movie's on track to make a lot of money. Check.
"Absolutely the worst Trek film". Uh, no. Not many are saying that, actually.
The majority of the dissent is about the plot of the film. Sure, some are hyper-nit-picking about every detail of the film (have you met a Trek fan?), but that doesn't change the one glaring complaint: it's poorly written.
Action-adventure films are typically poorly written. This one is no different. It happens to have the Trek label and characters though. That's what's at issue here. The plot holes man. Just because it's making money doesn't erase the plot holes. Just because lots of people like it doesn't erase the plot holes. They're there. So why insist on squelching conversation that addresses the plot holes?
I agree that there are plot holes you could fly a moon through (the Moonbase Alpha one?), and in particular the film gets it very wrong with the cadet-becomes-captain thing that stamps all over Roddenberry's central notion of Starfleet as a credible successor to the current day navy (albeit after centuries of development).
But the thread title is 'What if it had flopped?', not 'Any more plot holes?'. In the current climate, it was probably a choice between an action-adventure movie or nothing. If you'd have preferred nothing then that's your call, and you can just ignore it.
But action adventure movies can also flop. Actually, most of them seem to flop, so the question is whether they work or not.
A good parallel case would be the 1996 and 2005 relaunches of Doctor Who: both had a lot of similarities (new female lead, contemporary-ish setting, old enemy treated as a generic threat and rather neglected) and they both got criticised by established fans for emphasizing action, but one succeeded, and one didn't.
In the same vein... like the new direction or not, Trek XI seems to have succeeded on its own terms - it's made enough money for a sequel to be possible. Maybe the sequel will be a bit more like traditional Trek, a bit more thoughtful, maybe not (I'd think not: none of the previous films were 'An apparently routine mision of the starship Enterprise, out there exploring the unknown' in the way that the original series and TNG supposedly were).
Either way, it's unlikely that it's getting in the way of an HBO-style 'Trek-as-serious-drama) series (much as I'd like to see that). We can have action films, or nowt, and can ignore the former if we choose.
If it had flopped? Then we'd be ripping JJ Abrams apart for producing a bad action film that ruined Star Trek, rather than a successful one than that is flawed in its reinterpretation of Star Trek.
Rii
Rear Admiral
On what other basis would you suggest evaluating a work of art?
::YAWN::
It cracks me up that every comment made about Abrams and ST09 could be easily made about Bennett and TWOK (and was made by parts of the fanbase I might add). Same critically acclaimed type of film with action, etc. Same positive box office gross. Same complaints by fans about the changes in the Trek universe. Different people and dates, but the same shit.
And how did it all turn out? You'd be hard pressed to find a fan out their who doesn't praise TWOK from the high heavens these days. Not the case in '82...
I'm just convinced Trek's more stalwart fans despise change. Any change.
Oh yeah, come to think of it the same shit went down in 1987 with TNG too...
LOL!
It cracks me up that every comment made about Abrams and ST09 could be easily made about Bennett and TWOK (and was made by parts of the fanbase I might add). Same critically acclaimed type of film with action, etc. Same positive box office gross. Same complaints by fans about the changes in the Trek universe. Different people and dates, but the same shit.
And how did it all turn out? You'd be hard pressed to find a fan out their who doesn't praise TWOK from the high heavens these days. Not the case in '82...
I'm just convinced Trek's more stalwart fans despise change. Any change.
Oh yeah, come to think of it the same shit went down in 1987 with TNG too...
LOL!
CraigIsNotBond!
Or those REALLY sad fuckers who thought RDM was assaulting their very values with every episode of his Galactica reboot.
Or those REALLY sad fuckers who thought RDM was assaulting their very values with every episode of his Galactica reboot.
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
Well I'd have 1 or 2 less posts (in the Box Office threads), and there'd probably be a little bit less "canon violation" jokes. However, in general I wouldn't be reacting much different.
I've actually been here before. Serenity was imo a great scifi film (comparable to JJ's ST I thought) but it flopped. I still liked t.
I've actually been here before. Serenity was imo a great scifi film (comparable to JJ's ST I thought) but it flopped. I still liked t.
That's how I felt about Dark Knight but I enjoyed Batman Begins other than the truly appalling acting of Katie Holmes. But I would always rather be watching Trek.
:
:STXI::
