The Hugo nominations were announced today, and the five nominees for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form are Frozen, Gravity, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, Iron Man 3, and Pacific Rim. This makes Into Darkness only the 3rd Trek film not to get a Hugo nomination, the others being The Final Frontier and Nemesis.
Into Darkness snubbed for Hugo nomination
- Thread starter TalkieToaster
- Start date
I don't see how you can be snubbed at nominations.
Snubbed? Do you think ST is automatically entitled to a nomination?
Admittedly it might seem like a bit of a kick in the 'nads for Pacific Rim to be on the slate instead of STID, but I can understand why it is.
I was rather struck to see a novelette by the infamous Vox Day on the list of nominees. Apparently there was an attempt by him and Larry Correia to game the nominating process.
I was rather struck to see a novelette by the infamous Vox Day on the list of nominees. Apparently there was an attempt by him and Larry Correia to game the nominating process.
Whaa?
According to a bunch of posts on this very board, I was assured that this film was an unqualified critical and commercial hit - and that its only detractors were nerdy fans!
According to a bunch of posts on this very board, I was assured that this film was an unqualified critical and commercial hit - and that its only detractors were nerdy fans!
I'm sure movies you've considered good have never been snubbed for awards?
My comment was mostly tongue in cheek so I probably should have used a winking smiley, I'll admit. I don't actually care if something wins an award or not. I only care about whether I enjoy it.
I thought Into Darkness was okay, but I look at that list and consider the past year to be pretty darn good for sci-fi/fantasy all along. The only one I find questionable is Iron Man 3, but imo that would be neck-and-neck with Into Darkness.
I *am* surprised that the Hobbit wasn't up there. I thought the second installment was an improvement over the first, which was a chore for me to get through (it took me viewing over three separate nights to do it).
I *am* surprised that the Hobbit wasn't up there. I thought the second installment was an improvement over the first, which was a chore for me to get through (it took me viewing over three separate nights to do it).
I don't see how Gravity and Frozen can be nominated as they aren't sci-fi.
Some contend because it's actually a space adventure using contemporary technology, it isn't SF. (And Cuaron himself doesn't like talking about it as genre.) OTOH its story is based on the theoretical Kessler Syndrome so on those grounds it's perfectly appropriate to include it.
Well, Box Office wise (link) (Scroll down a bit to see the 'adjusted for inflation totals):
Star Trek (2009) is the top grossing Star trek feature film; and ST:ID is third highest after ST (2009), ST:TMP, and ST:IV.
As for critical reception (from Rotten Tomatoes):
Star Trek (2009) - Critics 95% Audience 91% (Link)
Star Trek: Into Darkness- Critics 87% Audience 90% (Link)
As for other ST feature films:
Star Trek: TMP - Critics 45% Audience 42% (Link)
Star Trek II: TWoK - Critics 90% Audience 90% (Link)
Star Trek III: TSFS - Critics 78% Audience 61% (Link)
Star Trek IV: TVH - Critics 85% Audience 81% (Link)
Star Trek V: TFF - Critics 21% Audience 25% (Link)
Star Trek VI: TUC - Critics 83% Audience 83% (Link)
Star Trek: Generations - Critics 47% Audience 58% (Link)
Star Trek: First Contact - Critics 92% Audience 89% (Link)
Star Trek: Insurrection - Critics 55% Audience 45% (Link)
Star Trek: Nemesis - Critics 37% Audience 50% (Link)
So, yeah, I'd say the two JJ Abrams Star Trek films hold up fairly well as financial and critical successes when compared to the other previous Star Trek feature films.
Noname Given said:
We can actually just include the adjusted for inflation profitability (much more useful than gross) right here in the thread (coming from this convo:
1. $296.4 TMP
2. $277.4 STID
3. $218 TVH
4. $202.2 TWOK
5. $181.5 ST09
6. $148.2 TSFS
7. $127.6 FC
8. $111.4 GEN
9. $85.5 TUC
10. $45.3 TFF
11. $8.1 INS
2. $277.4 STID
3. $218 TVH
4. $202.2 TWOK
5. $181.5 ST09
6. $148.2 TSFS
7. $127.6 FC
8. $111.4 GEN
9. $85.5 TUC
10. $45.3 TFF
11. $8.1 INS
It's actually TMP that's the all-time champ in revenue and profit, with STID and ST09 second and fifth respectively. Also note that box office is not of course useful as a predictor of quality or reputation, cf. TMP's long-term rep or, possibly, STID's experience with the Hugo nominations (too soon to say on that one, maybe).
Except for the part where that doesn't necessarily mean they're Trek fans, specifically. But let's not allow inconvenient facts to get in the way of the usual convenient excuses.
Last edited:
Well, just because it's financially successful and popular doesn't mean it's quality that needs to be nominated for awards.
A
Amaris
Guest
Your numbers will have no effect, unfortunately.
Similar threads
