JJ's Trek - The critics - and STID

[DarthTom]

One of the things that propelled the last film into success with the masses [not just Trek fans] was the positive reviews it got from critics. Non Trek fans went to see the film because there was a lot of talk about how good it was as a re-boot of the franchise.

I think a lot of the success or failure of this film will also be for the critics to once again love it. Any predictions?

Critics and last film:

Joe Morgenstern WSJ

Star Trek goes back to the legend's roots with a boldness that brings a fatigued franchise back to life.

Lisa Kennedy Denver Post

You needn't know the secret handshakes or utter the Vulcan blessing "live long and prosper" to gain admission to, and enjoy, summer's first thrill ride

Kenneth Turan Los Angeles Times

It is pleasant to report that though it's not perfect, the reconstituted Star Trek is successful enough for everyone to breathe a sigh of relief.

Dana Stevens Slate

Abrams' cannily constructed prequel respects (for the most part) the rules of that world and, more importantly, retains the original Star Trek's spirit of optimism, curiosity, and humor.

 

[bbailey861]

I think the critics will be harder on this film just because the last one was a big success. Here's hoping the story holds up.

 

[The Wormhole]

Who cares? Someone will enjoy it, and their positive review will be stamped on the box of the DVD/blu-ray. None of this will impact the box office haul, which will be too high and serve as all the justification necessary to guarantee Pure Star Trek never sees the light of day on screen again.

 

[serenitytrek1]

yes...this is one of the things I am scared about.

The first film holds a 95% fresh on rottentomatoes and has an 82/100 on metacritic.

I will be so suprised if Into Darkness scores higher.

I hope Into Darkness doesnt go below an 85% on rottentomatoes.

We just have to wait and see.

 

[DarthTom]

yes...this is one of the things I am scared about.

The first film holds a 95% fresh on rottentomatoes and has an 82/100 on metacritic.

I will be so suprised if Into Darkness scores higher.

I hope Into Darkness doesnt go below an 85% on rottentomatoes.

We just have to wait and see.

The reason this thread occured to me is I was talking to a co-worker this morning and asked him if he planned to see the film. [He's not a 'Trek fan' per se but likes action] He said he didn't see the last one until it came out on DVD but liked it. And dependent upon the early reviews and word-of-mouth from people who've seen it - he may or may not.

The first reviews IMO make or break a film in terms of blockbuster or not. Avatar is a great example of this.

 

[Borgminister]

yes...this is one of the things I am scared about.

The first film holds a 95% fresh on rottentomatoes and has an 82/100 on metacritic.

I will be so suprised if Into Darkness scores higher.

I hope Into Darkness doesnt go below an 85% on rottentomatoes.

We just have to wait and see.

The reason this thread occured to me is I was talking to a co-worker this morning and asked him if he planned to see the film. [He's not a 'Trek fan' per se but likes action] He said he didn't see the last one until it came out on DVD but liked it. And dependent upon the early reviews and word-of-mouth from people who've seen it - he may or may not.

The first reviews IMO make or break a film in terms of blockbuster or not. Avatar is a great example of this.

As is Cloud Atlas!

 

[DarthTom]

As is Cloud Atlas!

That's an even better example. The previews for Cloud Atlas made the film look like it was going to be great + it had super stars in the film - Hanks, Halle Berry, and Hugh Grant.

And as soon as the film hit the theatres and word spread it was boring and slow, it tanked.

 

[sonak]

I don't see how one can predict the reviews of a movie that hasn't come out yet, but I disagree with the premise that critic reviews were a big factor in ST XI's success. The movie had a huge opening weekend, and I think the word of mouth that it was a fun action movie with mass appeal was the key factor.

 

[Franklin]

The overall reviews of Trek movies have tended to correlate pretty well with how the fans have felt about them.

TSFS is the lowest "fresh" movie of the Trek series, and it's still at a decent 77% fresh. So, the critics seem to know "good" Trek from "bad." Further, the body of Abrams's work in movies and on TV seems well liked by the critics. Given all that, the movie would have to be incredibly disappointing to get a lot of bad reviews, which would probably shock a lot of people. So, I don't think there's a lot to worry about (knock on wood).

Fresh:
ST09, 95%
FC, 92%
TWOK, 91%
TVH, 84%
TUC, 83%
TSFS, 77%

Rotten:
INS, 56%
GEN, 48%
TMP, 42%
NEM, 38%
TFF, 21%

 

[DarthTom]

I don't see how one can predict the reviews of a movie that hasn't come out yet, but I disagree with the premise that critic reviews were a big factor in ST XI's success. The movie had a huge opening weekend, and I think the word of mouth that it was a fun action movie with mass appeal was the key factor.

Obviously I'm not trying to predict the reviews of an unreleased movie, moreso trying to discuss the effect reviews have on a film - good or bad.

And as Borgminister pointed out with Cloud Atlas bad word-of-mouth and reviews can have a dramatic impact on a film - especially in week #2

Another great example is John Carter which cost Disney $250 to make and which earned $78 million domestically.

Here's one of my favorite reviews on DRT of Carter

The most indelible performance in the film is not, strictly speaking, a performance at all. Rather it is Woola, a six-legged Martian hound who rather resembles a cross between a bulldog and a fetal gila monster.

 

[shapeshifter]

Isn't there a formula..?

Moviegoer + Critical approval = $$$$$ (Hugh Success)

Moviegoer approval + Critical rejection = $$$$ (success, most moviegoers don't care what the critics say, the film will [likely] succeed if audiences like it.)

Moviegoer rejection + Critical approval = Flop. (if the budget was low enough it could make its money back if highly anticipated.

Moviegoer and Critical rejection = Hugh Flop. Heads will roll!

Has STID been screened in its entirety before a test audience, do they even still do that?

 

[Franklin]

Isn't there a formula..?

Moviegoer + Critical approval = $$$$$ (Hugh Success)

Moviegoer approval + Critical rejection = $$$$ (success, most moviegoers don't care what the critics say, the film will [likely] succeed if audiences like it.)

Moviegoer rejection + Critical approval = Flop. (if the budget was low enough it could make its money back if highly anticipated.

Moviegoer and Critical rejection = Hugh Flop. Heads will roll!

Has STID been screened in its entirety before a test audience, do they even still do that?

This is totally in general, of course, but I think mixed reviews may not hurt the boxoffice much because people may want to go to "see for themselves." However, I'd guess total critical rejection of a movie can affect the box office a lot, especially if the movie has competition in the cinemas.
Is "movegoers don't care what the critics say," really an axiom? Are there studies that show the degree to which the movie-going public follows or doesn't follow reviews? They seem to be big business if no one cares.

 

[Greg Cox]

Who cares? Someone will enjoy it, and their positive review will be stamped on the box of the DVD/blu-ray. None of this will impact the box office haul, which will be too high and serve as all the justification necessary to guarantee Pure Star Trek never sees the light of day on screen again.

Not going to take the bait . . . .

Too many deadlines . . . .

 

[shapeshifter]

Isn't there a formula..?

Moviegoer + Critical approval = $$$$$ (Hugh Success)

Moviegoer approval + Critical rejection = $$$$ (success, most moviegoers don't care what the critics say, the film will [likely] succeed if audiences like it.)

Moviegoer rejection + Critical approval = Flop. (if the budget was low enough it could make its money back if highly anticipated.

Moviegoer and Critical rejection = Hugh Flop. Heads will roll!

Has STID been screened in its entirety before a test audience, do they even still do that?

This is totally in general, of course, but I think mixed reviews may not hurt the boxoffice much because people may want to go to "see for themselves." However, I'd guess total critical rejection of a movie can affect the box office a lot, especially if the movie has competition in the cinemas.

IIRC, all three Transformers were not critically acclaimed but apparently very successful with Audiences. I eventually drug my ass to each of them based on how long they hung around, (audience approval) big mistakes. The critics were 'correct' but that wasn't stopping hoards of people stuffing into the cinemas.

Is "movegoers don't care what the critics say," really an axiom? Are there studies that show the degree to which the movie-going public follows or doesn't follow reviews? They seem to be big business if no one cares.

I don't know, I was mostly just throwing shit out there to see what sticks or not. As for studies on critics success, not that my quick Google search could root out.

I did find this, though. http://screenrant.com/movie-critic-reviews-debate-opinion-pauly-71457/

 

[DarthTom]

IIRC, all three Transformers were not critically acclaimed but apparently very successful with Audiences. I eventually drug my ass to each of them based on how long they hung around, (audience approval) big mistakes. The critics were 'correct' but that wasn't stopping hoards of people stuffing into the cinemas.

Transformers IMO isn't a fair analogy because Transformers are cool cars that turn into robots and for many people young and old alike it - they simply don't care if the plot sucks or not. The 'coolness factor' of the Transformers is fine for the fans of this genre.

Trek doesn't IMO get that pass. Well we know it doesn't based on the performance of Nemesis and other sucky Trek films that failed miserably at the box office despite having very good effects.

Also, Trek isn't as popular with people under 18 as Transformers is.

 

[Greg Cox]

I do think reviews and word-of-mouth have an impact. Where I live, it takes a real effort to get out to the movies, so if some movie I was interested in gets universally bad-to-lukewarm reviews, I'm much more likely to decide, "Screw it. I'll wait for the DVD" . . . and maybe never even get around to that.

Heck, Spider-Man 3 has been sitting on my DVR for months now, and I've never been motivated enough to check it out, just because nobody seems very enthusastic about it . . .

 

[DarthTom]

I do think reviews and word-of-mouth have an impact. Where I live, it takes a real effort to get out to the movies, so if some movie I was interested in gets universally bad-to-lukewarm reviews, I'm much more likely to decide, "Screw it. I'll wait for the DVD" . . . and maybe never even get around to that.

Heck, Spider-Man 3 has been sitting on my DVR for months now, and I've never been motivated enough to check it out, just because nobody seems very enthusastic about it . . .

Obviously without seeing this film already, one of the things JJ is going to have against him is they praised the shit out of his re-make of Trek last go around.

So in order to get them on board he's going to have to best his own prior performance and knock their socks off or I have a feeling at least the professional critics won't be as nice to him.

 

[DalekJim]

I just traveled through time to May and checked Rotten Tomatoes

It has a Fresh rating of 68% positive. Critics generally agree it is an alright popcorn action film although they found the retread of Kirk's character arc tedious and the plot minimal. They heavily praised Benedict Cumberbatch but were less kind to Alice Eve who was panned as being entirely unconvincing in her role as a bimbo scientist.

Critics all agree that Karl Urban gives the best performance in the movie and are all similarly baffled as to why he is shoved to the background. Jokes focus on lens flare and and desire for Simon Pegg's Scotty to be brutally murdered in the next installment for crimes against comedy.

 

[Set Harth]

Unconvincing as a bimbo? So she came off as smart? Interesting...

 

[Franklin]

I do think reviews and word-of-mouth have an impact. Where I live, it takes a real effort to get out to the movies, so if some movie I was interested in gets universally bad-to-lukewarm reviews, I'm much more likely to decide, "Screw it. I'll wait for the DVD" . . . and maybe never even get around to that.

Heck, Spider-Man 3 has been sitting on my DVR for months now, and I've never been motivated enough to check it out, just because nobody seems very enthusastic about it . . .

That's pretty much how I do it. I had never watched a James Bond movie before in my life (theater or TV), but the tremendous number of good reviews for "Casino Royale" made me curious and put me in the theater. And I was pleased.

On the ther hand, I went to every Trek movie even if the reviews were mixed (for what it's worth, I saw TFF before reading any reviews and got what I deserved for doing it -- two hours out of my life I'll never get back). When I read a large number of very bad reviews for NEM, it became the first Trek movie I didn't go see. And I was pleased.