I'm going to question any process that nominates "A Night in Sickbay" from Enterprise for "Best Short-Form".
Into Darkness snubbed for Hugo nomination
- Thread starter TalkieToaster
- Start date
I'm going to question any process that nominates "A Night in Sickbay" from Enterprise for "Best Short-Form".
No kidding.
I'm going to question any process that nominates "A Night in Sickbay" from Enterprise for "Best Short-Form".
I had to google it. Never thought I'd type those words into google.
I should have mentioned it's on YouTube, but I figured a group of dedicated sci-fi fans had already seen it.
Since it's also perfectly possible for things to be critically overrated due to overhype*, that's wise. Good to see people learning!
See also: Beasts of the Southern Wilds, Scarface, Star Wars: A New Hope, Titanic, Looper, The Master, Thewlis' Naked, Good Will Hunting, A Few Good Men... many of which were entertaining but just undeserving of the level of hyperbole they received.
The entertainment media is a lot like other areas of the media, susceptible to playing out herd narratives that don't necessarily keep reality in sight. That isn't to say critical acclaim is worthless... but it's certainly worth more when it isn't lavished on movies that fall apart very easily under scrutiny.
BillJ said:
This would be bunches more convincing if I didn't strongly suspect you'd be singing an entirely different tune if STID had been nominated...
Last edited:
There can be no greater award (or reward) for STID then King_Daniel's love and Big_Jake's never ending quest to prove it wasn't as big of a success as "some" people say it was.
Actually, I wouldn't. One, because it makes no sense. If they nominated six films instead of five and Into Darkness was there, it wouldn't make it a better film. On the flip side, if they only nominated four films, it wouldn't make the one they left off a worse film. Two, I've never paid attention to the Hugo's or any awards for that matter. If not for this thread, I wouldn't even known that they had nominated any films.
Whoa whoa whoa. I ain't signing up for any quests that don't involve my man Jonny:
And that's final.
And certainly not this one. I may not think it deserved critical acclaim or that it has long-term legs, that doesn't mean I don't think it was successful. The movies did pretty much what Abrams built them to do. [EDIT: But since that was basically about Benjamins, I don't account it a "snub" that the Hugos aren't also giving STID the imprimatur of artistic accomplishment. It's the correct call.]
Last edited:
Whoa whoa whoa. I ain't signing up for any quests that don't involve my man Jonny:
And that's final.
And certainly not this one. I may not think it deserved critical acclaim or that it has long-term legs, that doesn't mean I don't think it was successful. The movies did pretty much what Abrams built them to do.
I know, I was deliberately baiting you. It's a slow day.
Pasi Nurminen
Lieutenant Commander
Like Iron Man 3?
ID deserved to be there, although I find it hard to care one way or another.
Having not seen Iron Man 3 I cannot comment on its inclusion. I can only suggest that Star Trek Into Darkness did not receive a nomination because it was not a good movie.
Which brings my original question back: is every movie that isn't nominated for an award "not a good movie"? Are there only five good sci-fi/fantasy films every year?
Is The Dark Knight Returns a bad movie because it didn't receive a Hugo nomination?
I had almost successfully consigned Oblivion to oblivion. A future full of Tom Cruise clones.... * shudder *
Sonovabitch. I shouldn't have been drinking wine while I was reading this. You made me laugh and now wine is now dripping out of my nose and on to my shirt. It's red wine. I have to leave now and go soak this shirt. Thanks.
Sonovabitch. I shouldn't have been drinking wine while I was reading this. You made me laugh and now wine is now dripping out of my nose and on to my shirt. It's red wine. I have to leave now and go soak this shirt. Thanks.
Anytime!
A
Amaris
Guest
Since it's also perfectly possible for things to be critically overrated due to overhype*, that's wise. Good to see people learning!
See also: Beasts of the Southern Wilds, Scarface, Star Wars: A New Hope, Titanic, Looper, The Master, Thewlis' Naked, Good Will Hunting, A Few Good Men... many of which were entertaining but just undeserving of the level of hyperbole they received.
The entertainment media is a lot like other areas of the media, susceptible to playing out herd narratives that don't necessarily keep reality in sight. That isn't to say critical acclaim is worthless... but it's certainly worth more when it isn't lavished on movies that fall apart very easily under scrutiny.
...
Which is fine. The thing about entertainment is that it's rather subjective. What one person may consider brilliance, another may feel it's rubbish. This is nothing new, and I'm not revealing anything groundbreaking, or even surprising.
I just get annoyed when someone tells me the film bombed at the box office, and that it wasn't liked by Star Trek fans, and the ever annoying "J.J. hates Star Trek and wanted to ruin it for the fans!" comments. It's a silly thing to say in the face of everything that says otherwise. Now, personal taste I get. You don't like the film, and that's fine with me. I'm sure there are films you love that I can't stand. It's that subjective nature of entertainment at work.
Though I think we can both agree that Zachary Quinto is a cutie. That's not subjective, that's a fact.
Quite inaccurate, to be sure. He was at best embarrassed by Star Trek and made it very clear that he wasn't worrying about the fans one way or the other, I don't think there's any disputing that.
Though I think we can both agree that Zachary Quinto is a cutie. That's not subjective, that's a fact.
Not only that, but I would love to see Zach Quinto get the chance to play a Vulcan in the really classic Nimoy mould. I think he'd knock it out of the park.
A
Amaris
Guest
Quite inaccurate, to be sure. He was at best embarrassed by Star Trek and made it very clear that he wasn't worrying about the fans one way or the other, I don't think there's any disputing that.
Oh, he's not worrying, nor should he. Fans don't even know what they want. The fandom is so large that listening to them results in poor quality results.
Nick Meyer ignored the fans, and we got Star Trek II, and Star Trek VI out of it (I enjoy both movies). The end result was that a lot of fans cheered, and a lot of fans bitched and moaned at the same time. There's no pleasing the fandom as a whole. It just isn't going to happen. Still, you do the best you can, and I think he did a good job. If nothing else, he breathed new life into the franchise.
Whether one likes his current portrayal of Spock, or not, you can tell he puts everything into his performance, and he does see Nimoy as a mentor, and a friend, and I think that's the best you can hope for when a younger man takes the reins of the most pivotal role in one's career.
I like seeing Quinto's (via Abrams' direction) Spock. It's definitely different. If I want classic Spock, I just watch Nimoy.
Since the fans are to a large extent highly tolerant and determinedly, astonishingly loyal in the face of just about anything, that is quite true.
[EDIT: But all this comity is boring, so to crack the can of worms back open again: comparing him to Nicholas Meyer does a real injustice to Meyer, who whether or not he "listened to the fans" certainly did his homework about what made Trek tick, and did not make films that were embarrassed about the Trek property and/or afraid to be seen playing it straight.]
Although there is the marginal risk that the man who put Nokia and Jack Daniels product placements in his Star Trek movie will say something like this to the wrong person and get beaten insensate with a plastic lightsaber. Which, to be sure, would be bad. And wrong.
Can't disagree with that.
Similar threads
