Yes, he needed his ears cleaned out.
Is Star Trek 2009 overhyped by desesperate Trek fans?
- Thread starter Cdr MacDuff
- Start date
Yes, he needed his ears cleaned out.
You reckon Shatner's Kirk would have stayed put????
I say the haters want to call "overhyping" what is really genuine enthusiasm. They can't feel it and feel left out of the party.
Have pity on them.
Have pity on them.
I say the haters want to call "overhyping" what is really genuine enthusiasm. They can't feel it and feel left out of the party.
Have pity on them.
But what I don't understand is why they want other people to share in their disappointment. It is literally wanting to drain other people of the joy they may have experienced watching STXI. It's an act akin to keying somebody's new car in the parking lot.
Misery loves company?
I won't speak for others, but I never felt compelled to give a Trek movie high marks just because I needed the movie to be good.
I thought Star Trek V sucked, and I said so.
I thought Star Trek VIII, IX, and X were total wastes of time, and I said so.
Not on this forum, but when people asked...
I was very ready for Star Trek XI to suck ass. I anticipated it, in fact. And the amazing thing was, it didn't. I know about the plot holes and writing problems. Writer Dave Wolverton is correct, Trek 2009 is tapping into the Myth thing hard-core and is emotionally doing a lot of stuff very right, otherwise it would not be doing so well with so many people, old-time Trekkies like myself included.
I think some people should lighten up a bit in this thread. Not all criticism of Star Trek 2009 is a complete bash on the movie. While the rebooted characters introduction and interaction was well done, the plot was a little thin, even for an action movie.
I guess all those reviewers are trek fans as well.
Of course not all criticism is a 'complete bash'. What's rather obnoxious is the errant assumption that people who like or even love the film are somehow unaware of its deficiencies. It posits, as a de facto condition, that the other party is somehow too dense to see the problems, and that, to me, is just a really obnoxious way to start a conversation.
But I'm more interested in those few who insist on peppering every vaguely positive thread with their dislike of the film. And before someone brings up that people who like the film also insist on putting their positive spin whenever they run across a negative - I have to say that those two acts are not equivalent.
One is a positive act, in that it, directly on indirectly, engenders positive feelings in people ( except those who find the film loathesome of course ). Even people who may be at best indifferent to the film will take some good feelings away from reading happy posts by happy people. It takes a special sort of curmudgeon not to be buoyed along by good feelings.
Whereas a really negative post can only ever engender a sense of deflation, no matter how insignificant, in many readers. And I'm not talking about the casual posters who didn't like the film. I'm talking about the people who will post again and again on the same object of their disapproval within the same thread or across multiple ones.
I'm just rather curious what these posters hope to 'win'.
If that was the case, shouldn't 'Nemesis' and 'Enterprise' be the best or one of the best reviewed Trek films and series, respectively? The franchise was already bleeding viewers throughout 'DS9,' 'Voyager,' and 'Enterprise,' and 'Insurrection' failed to capitalize either critically or in the box office on whatever buzz (if any) was left from 'First Contact,' so if the franchise wasn't on its last legs then, it was certainly getting there even before Enterprise and Nemesis put the final nail in the coffin. So, people certainly saw the writing on the wall, yet didn't give those final franchise entries a near-unanimous pass just for the sake of keeping Trek alive.
Granted, things are a bit different after the films/series actually did go away for a little while, but the points mentioned earlier still stand. Why would non-Trek fan filmgoers give a damn about preserving the franchise when even many Trek fans didn't care anymore, and why would it be so positively reviewed by so many professional critics with no stake in the franchise either?
I don't doubt that some people are hyping it purely because they're excited at the prospect of reviving the DOA franchise, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it can't explain the reaction toward this movie from so many fans and non-fans alike, or it's success at the box office and critically.
I don't think the fans of Trek were "desperate", they just were hoping for a film to breathe some life back into the franchise, and this is what they got, and so, for the most part, the fans are happy about it. It's that simple. No one is claiming that this is a perfect Trek film (whatever that is) or even a perfect movie in general, but it did what was hoped, and that was re-energize the Trek brand and open up a brighter future for it. And the reaction of so many old time fans, as well as "marginal" and non-fans to the film, shows that Abrams and company touched on and connected to something, a similar something that TOS touched so many years ago. And that is a good thing.
I just quote a little part of your post, but your entire post is a demonstration of my claim. Some post before too likewise. I don't say:"Trek fans have overhyped the movie, thus its a success". I'm saying:"Trek fans are overhyping the movie, BECAUSE its a success and we desperately needed one.".
Said in another way, I don't think fans on this board would over hype the movie this much if it was a box office and critical failure. We would be more inclined to talk about obvious plot deficiencies. By exaggerating just a little bit, now we don't care if Star Trek has become only a brainless popcorn action blockbuster movie, since its popular.
I say: Lets give the movie fair criticism (read:no overhyping). Because with the novelty of reintroducing the rebooted character gone, the next movie wont have the luxury of having the same kind of thin plot and 2 dimensional villain. But I agree at this point Star Trek needed a commercial success to get back on its feet. JJ abrams and hollywood execs (the budget) finally gave Star Trek an updated modern production value. Showing that the Star Trek name was still profitable.
And I maintain that if it's a success both critically and at the box office with fans and non-fans alike, it's a bit presumptuous of you to assume that the fans are "overhyping" it. Why can't you just let people enjoy it or not enjoy for whatever reason they choose without dictating how they should react based on your personal criteria? Who decides what the proper level of hype is, anyway?
Trek "desperately needed" a success before from a franchise remaining viable standpoint, so my point was, regardless of the movie's success or not, if fans are motivated by desperation, they should have been motivated by it before for even the less than stellar films and TV shows. Clearly they weren't.
I would say TWoK, Nemesis, and Trek XI have about an equal number of major plot holes and logical flaws. What makes the two on the ends fairly popular while the one in the middle is generally poorly recieved? Maybe it's that TWoK and Trek XI (IMO) make up for it with compelling characters and drama, whereas Nemesis just falls kind of flat in those respects. You overlook the plot holes because the movie makes up for it in other ways, not because it's a success so you just say forget it.
That fails to explain how it became a success in the first place and maintained that success through multiple weeks instead of having a massive drop-off as word of mouth spreads. There must be something holding audience's attention. Nemesis failed to be likeable from either a character or dramatic standpoint (again IMO), so the logical flaws and plot holes become more noticeable.
Plus, I'm not sure what forum you've been reading, but I've seen a hell of a lot of people who like the movie pointing out its numerous flaws. I think you're just seeing what you want to see.
My problem is not bashing the movie. I can accept that, even though I disagree with most of it. My problem is bashing those who don't agree, or enjoy the movie despite percieved flaws.
A meme being floated by the haters is that the fans are deluding themselves about how good the movie is. Or, that they are simply not thinking (or in extreme cases, stupid).
That if the fans can't see what the critics can't see, or don't care about, then they must be deficient.
Bullshit.
I say the haters want to call "overhyping" what is really genuine enthusiasm. They can't feel it and feel left out of the party.
Have pity on them.
Quite right. I said earlier, that the haters are upset the film is successful, so they will do anything in their power to rain on the parade of those who like it.
I don't really pitty them, because those people wern't really Trek fans to begin with. If you don't like the movie, that's one thing, but these people that don't like the movie and are disparaging the people who do like it, they aren't fans, and we're better off without them.
And just to be clear, I'm not disparaging people who don't like the film. That's just a matter of opinion. I'm only talking about those (and you know who you are), that are flaming the people who do like the film.
I won't try to explain on this board why some bad movie (which is NOT the case with Star Trek 2009) are successful, while other great movie are not. Maybe its the way blockbuster are able to create an event around them and/or the way they tap into the lowest common denominator of people. I thought a movie like Gattaca was great, but for some reason it didn't became a blockbuster. I don't think it was even planified to be one.
^ And perhaps therein lies the problem, not just with Star Trek but with Hollywood as a whole. It's getting to the point now where studios want to produce only a handful of films each year and want each one of them to be a blockbuster. Therefore, they insist that these films all cater to a specific formula. Call it lowest common denominator, call it mass market appeal, call it whatever... but they always want the same thing.
In the past, Hollywood would turn out tons of films each year of a myriad different types. Some would be top-of-the-line, big budget, blockbuster extravaganzas. But many more would be much smaller pieces -- character pieces, small intimate plots, etc. They didn't draw $200 million dollar business, but they didn't have to. That wasn't their role. They were made inexpensively and could still turn a profit with a niche audience.
But those days are gone. Now, any of us who long for a variety are told that we can't have it because every film has to appeal to the elusive 'mainstream audience.' How many of the classic films from American cinema history would have never been made under the current system? A great many I suspect. And that's sad.
Star Trek (2009) is a good movie. And I have no problem with a Trek movie being a blockbuster. But as I have said before, I have a problem if that is ALL Trek will ever be and if they will never take it in any other directions too. And I fear that with Hollywood's current myopic view of the entertainment landscape, such is destined to be the case.
In the past, Hollywood would turn out tons of films each year of a myriad different types. Some would be top-of-the-line, big budget, blockbuster extravaganzas. But many more would be much smaller pieces -- character pieces, small intimate plots, etc. They didn't draw $200 million dollar business, but they didn't have to. That wasn't their role. They were made inexpensively and could still turn a profit with a niche audience.
But those days are gone. Now, any of us who long for a variety are told that we can't have it because every film has to appeal to the elusive 'mainstream audience.' How many of the classic films from American cinema history would have never been made under the current system? A great many I suspect. And that's sad.
Star Trek (2009) is a good movie. And I have no problem with a Trek movie being a blockbuster. But as I have said before, I have a problem if that is ALL Trek will ever be and if they will never take it in any other directions too. And I fear that with Hollywood's current myopic view of the entertainment landscape, such is destined to be the case.
I think theres still smaller good movie being made. But I'm not only a 'man from earth' kinda guy (pointless movie imho). I think many action blockbuster had some good storyline recently. Movies like Matrix, AI, Batman Begins comes to mind. And many others with mixed review (like Knowing). I even liked the movie The Island to which ST2009 writers are involved. So its possible to do a good mix of thing (action, sex, cgi, sci-fi, drama) even for a blockbuster. With Star Trek its even easier since the movie can be about almost anything. I guess it takes some dedicated writers to it.
