One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

[Alex1939]

I saw Prometheus in the theatre and thought it sucked. Everyone I know that saw it in the theatre also thought it sucked. But I guess we made it a success and it is one of the best movies of the alien franchise?

And maybe success is the wrong word, we can interchange a lot of words. Just because a movie made a lot of money in the box office does that make it a success? It may be a success financially but was it a successful quality film?

My point, and I think the point others are trying to make, here, is that Hollywood cares more about financial success than artistic success.

Prometheus got decent reviews, but it didn't perform very well at the box office. Still, it brought in over twice as much domestically as Twelve Years a Slave did.

Twelve Years a Slave got 251 of 260 positive reviews on RT (97%), but didn't even bring in $60 million domestically ($131 million outside U.S.) A success? Artistically? Definitely. The studio would also call it a financial success because its budget, according to Box Office Mojo, was only $20 million.

Consider that Adam Sandler movies get universally panned in reviews, but he continues to make movies because apparently on the budgets he gets, his audience will still turn out in numbers sufficient enough that the movies make money for the studio. So financially, his movies are a success even though he'll never get an award for them.

On the other hand, artistic films often get great reviews, but take in middling amounts at the box office. Many don't even get wide distribution. These are successes, too, but not the ones that build Hollywood studios. The ability of a studio to put out an "artistic" or limited audience movie stems from putting out the large-grossing popcorn flicks like Iron Man.

Ok great I agree with all of that.

So by that logic, a person can argue or opine that Star Trek into Darkness sucked and was a failure because it's a crap movie regardless of it's financial "success" or a metric provided via the braindead popcorn eating masses.


For the record I think STID is okay. My opinion has soured since initial viewing in the theatre but I wasn't walking out of the theatre considering it amazing anyway, merely pretty good. Still not the worst Trek movie and imo nowhere near as good as Trek 2009.

 

[Sindatur]

I saw Prometheus in the theatre and thought it sucked. Everyone I know that saw it in the theatre also thought it sucked. But I guess we made it a success and it is one of the best movies of the alien franchise?

And maybe success is the wrong word, we can interchange a lot of words. Just because a movie made a lot of money in the box office does that make it a success? It may be a success financially but was it a successful quality film?

Success does not equal Quality, Success equals did the movie do what the makers set out to do (make a profit)

That is your disconnect. Yes, if a movie makes a good profit and it is critically and Popularly acclaimed it is a success. That tells you zero about the Subjective Quality of the film, it merely tells you alot of folks saw it and liked it.

If you think it sucks and it failed to impress you, that doesn't make it a failure, since the Studio doesn't care if you personally enjoyed it, they care if enough people paid to see it to make a profit for them. Just as a movie that is a box office failure (John Carter) that i like suceeded in impressing me, but, it doesn't make it a success, because the Studio doen't care what I personally think of the movie, they care that it didn't make the kind of profit they wanted it to make

 

[Franklin]

I saw Prometheus in the theatre and thought it sucked. Everyone I know that saw it in the theatre also thought it sucked. But I guess we made it a success and it is one of the best movies of the alien franchise?

And maybe success is the wrong word, we can interchange a lot of words. Just because a movie made a lot of money in the box office does that make it a success? It may be a success financially but was it a successful quality film?

My point, and I think the point others are trying to make, here, is that Hollywood cares more about financial success than artistic success.

Prometheus got decent reviews, but it didn't perform very well at the box office. Still, it brought in over twice as much domestically as Twelve Years a Slave did.

Twelve Years a Slave got 251 of 260 positive reviews on RT (97%), but didn't even bring in $60 million domestically ($131 million outside U.S.) A success? Artistically? Definitely. The studio would also call it a financial success because its budget, according to Box Office Mojo, was only $20 million.

Consider that Adam Sandler movies get universally panned in reviews, but he continues to make movies because apparently on the budgets he gets, his audience will still turn out in numbers sufficient enough that the movies make money for the studio. So financially, his movies are a success even though he'll never get an award for them.

On the other hand, artistic films often get great reviews, but take in middling amounts at the box office. Many don't even get wide distribution. These are successes, too, but not the ones that build Hollywood studios. The ability of a studio to put out an "artistic" or limited audience movie stems from putting out the large-grossing popcorn flicks like Iron Man.

Ok great I agree with all of that.

So by that logic, a person can argue or opine that Star Trek into Darkness sucked and was a failure because it's a crap movie regardless of it's financial "success" or a metric provided via the braindead popcorn eating masses.


For the record I think STID is okay. My opinion has soured since initial viewing in the theatre but I wasn't walking out of the theatre considering it amazing anyway, merely pretty good. Still not the worst Trek movie and imo nowhere near as good as Trek 2009.

Yeah. Hell, it's fun to go around with someone in a friendly way about the strengths and weaknesses of the movie (or why post here?).

I do understand how some must've felt when they walked out of the movie disappointed. We're all fans, here and want to see the franchise do well. Right? I nearly peed my pants in excitement way back in 1978 when I heard that a Trek movie was coming out in December, 1979. I bought every issue of Starlog and any other magazine that even had a paragraph about the movie or one picture from the set in it. I couldn't wait. But to be honest, TMP disappointed me. I can't say I didn't like it, but it wasn't satisfying to me, either. It wasn't worth the wait. Yet I appreciate that the movie was very well-liked by others. I'm also glad that it was successful enough that things have gotten to the point that we can debate the success or failure of Abrams's movies over thirty years later.

So, cheers to those for whom STID wasn't their cup of tea. Bad luck, there. I reach.

 

[Hober Mallow]

The casual moviegoers that propelled Star Trek Into Darkness to $467 million worldwide thought it was an entertaining science-fiction adventure with a fun cast and strong special effects. They didn’t care about the whole “Is Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan?” controversy or the hamfisted callbacks to Wrath of Khan or the 9/11-truther undertones. It was the hardcore Star Trek fans who took to the Internet to proclaim the film to be the “worst Star Trek film ever.” But Paramount (a division of Viacom, Inc.) knows that most of those ”Trekkies” will still show up for Star Trek 3 in summer 2016 no matter how much they disagree with the choice of Roberto Orci as director.

Nailed it.

Except we know it's not true. "Nemesis" proved that trekkers don't always show up to the theater.

 

[BigJake]

[Redacted, because does having this same argument for the five hundredth time really appeal to me? No.]

Don't skimp on the Eye Candy -- that's our message!!!

I would be all for eye candy that wasn't about catering to creepy sexism. I love me some sexy women, but I don't want more Alice Eve when her character serves absolutely no narrative purpose except to strip off occasionally.

 

[Alex1939]

I saw Prometheus in the theatre and thought it sucked. Everyone I know that saw it in the theatre also thought it sucked. But I guess we made it a success and it is one of the best movies of the alien franchise?

And maybe success is the wrong word, we can interchange a lot of words. Just because a movie made a lot of money in the box office does that make it a success? It may be a success financially but was it a successful quality film?

Success does not equal Quality, Success equals did the movie do what the makers set out to do (make a profit)

That is your disconnect. Yes, if a movie makes a good profit and it is critically and Popularly acclaimed it is a success. That tells you zero about the Subjective Quality of the film, it merely tells you alot of folks saw it and liked it.

If you think it sucks and it failed to impress you, that doesn't make it a failure, since the Studio doesn't care if you personally enjoyed it, they care if enough people paid to see it to make a profit for them. Just as a movie that is a box office failure (John Carter) that i like suceeded in impressing me, but, it doesn't make it a success, because the Studio doen't care what I personally think of the movie, they care that it didn't make the kind of profit they wanted it to make

But a movie can be a financial success and still be a failure as far as an enjoyable film/story to the majority of viewers or a large minority.

That's really the point here. Again, Phantom Menace. I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me it is there favorite Star Wars movie...




Edit: Maybe I should make a clearer point. If you want to defend or talk about STID as a fantastic story movie and how its da best trek eva.... okay, but can you actually do that without just saying "look at the box office numbers, obviously it was amazing" as others are here. That's really my beef. People that want to discredit or belittle those that aren't rah rah about STID and are using profit as the only means to do so. Hopefully I've debunked that profit should be used as the determining factor of a movie's quality, but I'm sure I haven't.

 

[BigJake]

If you want to defend or talk about STID as a fantastic story movie and how its da best trek eva.... okay, but can you actually do that without just saying "look at the box office numbers, obviously it was amazing" as others are here. That's really my beef.

Changing the subject to box office and Rotten Tomatoes scores is a method essentially of silencing fire rather than engaging in a conversation; the truth is that some people want a method of ending any dispute about the films and are galled that they cannot have one. We've had the same go-round in this forum many times before.

 

[BillJ]

Edit: Maybe I should make a clearer point. If you want to defend or talk about STID as a fantastic story movie and how its da best trek eva.... okay, but can you actually do that without just saying "look at the box office numbers, obviously it was amazing" as others are here. That's really my beef. People that want to discredit or belittle those that aren't rah rah about STID and are using profit as the only means to do so. Hopefully I've debunked that profit should be used as the determining factor of a movie's quality, but I'm sure I haven't.

You haven't debunked anything because no one is saying what you believe them to be saying.

For the record, I believe that Star Trek Into Darkness is a damn good movie. Solid acting, great special effects, stylishly directed with a story, that while flawed, has its heart in the right place.

I guess this doesn't count as me telling everyone why I liked the movie?

 

[Harvey]

The casual moviegoers that propelled Star Trek Into Darkness to $467 million worldwide thought it was an entertaining science-fiction adventure with a fun cast and strong special effects. They didn’t care about the whole “Is Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan?” controversy or the hamfisted callbacks to Wrath of Khan or the 9/11-truther undertones. It was the hardcore Star Trek fans who took to the Internet to proclaim the film to be the “worst Star Trek film ever.” But Paramount (a division of Viacom, Inc.) knows that most of those ”Trekkies” will still show up for Star Trek 3 in summer 2016 no matter how much they disagree with the choice of Roberto Orci as director.

Nailed it.

Except we know it's not true. "Nemesis" proved that trekkers don't always show up to the theater.

Sure they did. The problem was nobody else did, and the fans didn't see it a second time.

 

[BillJ]

Nailed it.

Except we know it's not true. "Nemesis" proved that trekkers don't always show up to the theater.

Sure they did. The problem was nobody else did, and the fans didn't see it a second time.

I saw it opening weekend.

Now I feel like an alcoholic admitting that I have a problem.

 

[Harvey]

I saw it, too. In a half empty theatre.

 

[BigJake]

I saw it, too. In a half empty theatre.

I saw it, too.

I also didn't think it was that bad per se (aside from the silly dune buggy sequence, I mean what do we get next, turning the Enterprise into a submarine? ), just rather tired in its retreading of TWOK.

You haven't debunked anything because no one is saying what you believe them to be saying.

Changing the subject to box office returns in answer to supposed claims about "failure" is something that's been said in this thread, whether or not you specifically were doing it.

And be in no doubt, when that tactic emerges as a non sequitur -- as it looks to have done again here -- it does look an awful lot like an attempt to claim that profit determines quality. Yes, when pressed there is usually some subsequent waffling about it determining success and not "quality", but since that's usually paired with implications that success being "objective" is a more worthwhile topic than quality anyway, this really amounts to a distinction without much of a difference.

It all smacks of a fallacious attempt to claim that My Opinions Are Correct and In the Majority, Unlike Your Opinions, and the reason people react to it as bizarre is because it is.

 

[BillJ]

And be in no doubt, when that tactic emerges as a non sequitur -- as it looks to have done again here -- it does look an awful lot like an attempt to claim that profit determines quality. Yes, when pressed there is usually some subsequent waffling about it determining success and not "quality", but since that's usually paired with implications that success being "objective" is a more worthwhile topic than quality anyway, this really amounts to a distinction without much of a difference.

The numbers are brought up when posters come in with broad generalizations about how all Trekkies hate the Abrams films, that the Abrams films are failures and that Into Darkness isn't "aging well" with audiences. I think the numbers burn many peoples asses because they don't support assertions that Abrams Trek is a failure.

If someone feels that personally a movie doesn't work for them, then they need to word their posts to that effect. I'm not a fan of First Contact, but for me to try and slant the field to present it as some kind of failure would just make me look stupid. It sold tickets and people generally seem to like it. Hard to qualify it as anything other than a success and good for the franchise.

You have some fans who are desperate to paint the Abrams films as an "objective" failure in some misguided hope that things will go back to the way they used to be. That simply isn't happening. No one has to like the movies and we've had many good discussions on what works for some people and not for others. But it's disingenuous for people to try and speak for all Trekkies and General Audiences to get pissed when they're shown numbers that don't bare out what they are saying. So they obviously don't want the numbers brought into the discussion.

 

[BigJake]

The numbers are brought up when posters come in with broad generalizations about how all Trekkies hate the Abrams films, that the Abrams films are failures

No, they aren't. They quite often come up without either of those things having been said or even implied, as in this thread.

Yes, quite often with a soupcon of accusations or implications that "You have some fans who are desperate to paint the Abrams films as an "objective" failure in some misguided hope that things will go back to the way they used to be" (this is the "You're a religious fanatic unlike Reasonable Old Me" gambit, typically delivered in very shrill and defensive tones that make it performatively unconvincing) -- another belief that seems to be much more alive in some people's assumptions, or would just seem to them be more convenient to argue against, than in any other sense.

that Into Darkness isn't "aging well" with audiences.

As to this (which question is at least the premise of this thread), the box office numbers and RT scores would be largely irrelevant whether this was someone's point or not. It takes years for shifts in public opinion about a movie, which of course happen perfectly routinely, to be evident in "the numbers."

 

[Relayer1]

I'll continue to go and see new Trek movies. They'll continue to be OK and they'll do good business, which has got to be good for the franchise. And I'll continue to prefer DS9, other TV Trek and the novels.

I'm in no particular hurry for Trek 3, but I'm sure I'll go to see it...

 

[BillJ]

All I know is that this is in the very first post...

Star Trek Into Darkness is so fast-paced, it actually outruns its own logic problems, another reason why it received such an unusual combination of initial positive reviews and subsequent negative buzz. Almost everyone who saw the movie enjoyed the experience. They only started to see the plot holes after thinking about it, watching it again, or reading the criticism that slowly started to cohere around the film.

An article writer speaking for fans in general...

We should remember what Greg Cox told us about an article writer who was handed an assignment about everyone hating the movie and when Greg said that wasn't the case, he was asked to point to a writer who would confirm the subject of the article.

 

[BillJ]

I'll continue to go and see new Trek movies. They'll continue to be OK and they'll do good business, which has got to be good for the franchise. And I'll continue to prefer DS9, other TV Trek and the novels.

I'm in no particular hurry for Trek 3, but I'm sure I'll go to see it...

I like the Abrams films, I like much of the TV series and pre-reboot films (just watched TMP and TWOK the other night) and read the occasional novel. I think it's great that Trek can support many different ways to tell a story.

 

[BigJake]

All I know is that this is in the very first post...

And it's a point to which box office returns are totally irrelevant.

An article writer speaking for fans in general...

Actually he's talking about audiences, not "fans." (And IMO you're reading that sentence wayyyy too literally.)

We should remember what Greg Cox told us . . .

Greg is an awfully kind and generous fellow and I like him a lot, based on what I've seen of him here I could say nothing but good things about him. However, you have a tendency to overrely on his anecdotes (one of which I think you're misquoting here) as sweeping refutations. It shouldn't be news to anyone that the media has a tendency to select and reinforce certain narratives at certain times, but it would be naive in the extreme to think that NuTrek hasn't also benefited hugely from that kind of editorial bias.

 

[BillJ]

Greg is an awfully kind and generous fellow and I like him a lot, based on what I've seen of him here I could say nothing but good things about him. However, you have a tendency to overrely on his anecdotes (one of which I think you're misquoting here) as sweeping refutations. It shouldn't be news to anyone that the media has a tendency to select and reinforce certain narratives at certain times, but it would be naive in the extreme to think that NuTrek hasn't also benefited hugely from that kind of editorial bias.

So, once again, we should ignore any evidence that doesn't point to the Abrams movies not being a failure? Gotcha!

 

[BigJake]

So, once again, we should ignore any evidence that doesn't point to the Abrams movies not being a failure?

See, what I was saying about constantly trying to read this into people's posts whether or not they're saying it? That's an example right there. Really undercuts your ability to look like the reasonable party.