One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness
- Thread starter HaplessCrewman
- Start date
For the record, I saw Nemesis TWICE in the theater. (That's right! TWIIIIIICE! TWAAAIIIIIIIIIAAAIIIIIIICE!) (ok...I'm better now 
)
To be serious though, yes, I did see Nemesis twice. Is it a flawed film? Hell yes! Beyond belief! Did it bomb at the box office? It didn't even qualify as a bomb...it was a dud at the box office. (I think it barely lasted two weeks at the box office). Did I enjoy it? Hell yes! Why do you think I went and saw it twice, and then snapped it up the very day it came out on DVD?
That the movie dudded at the box office only meant to me that I might never be able to see another big screen Trek movie again. I mean, Nemesis damn near put the nail in the coffin, and it's my favorite of all four TNG movies. The first three were overblown episodes. Not that they weren't at all good. They were fine, with, in my opinion, First Contact being the best of the three...but they looked a lot better when they got onto the small screen in full-frame format....the action filled the screen properly then. Again, just my opinion.
I loved Nemesis, for reasons I've stated ad nauseam in other threads, so I won't repeat 'em here. Doesn't mean it was a success. It was a failure in pretty much every sense of the word. The overall quality of the film is lacking...and I'm sure for some folks, that would be a mild statement. But, in my eyes, the film rocked. Being the action oriented Trek lover (not fan), it was right up my alley. It succeeded for me, personally, but it did not for Paramount, and it did not for most Trek fans (or even casual movie goers) in the broad scope of things.
Just because there is a vocal minority of Trek fans that disliked the JJ Abrams films, it doesn't invalidate their opinions. The only time I consider an opinion invalid is if said opinion giver hasn't even bothered to watch the entire movie, or bothered to watch the movie period. But, if they did watch the whole movie, and disliked it, well, I respect their opinion of dislike. Many often give very good reasons as to why they disliked it. However, their reasons are just as personal and subjective as anyone else's reasons for liking it.
)To be serious though, yes, I did see Nemesis twice. Is it a flawed film? Hell yes! Beyond belief! Did it bomb at the box office? It didn't even qualify as a bomb...it was a dud at the box office. (I think it barely lasted two weeks at the box office). Did I enjoy it? Hell yes! Why do you think I went and saw it twice, and then snapped it up the very day it came out on DVD?
That the movie dudded at the box office only meant to me that I might never be able to see another big screen Trek movie again. I mean, Nemesis damn near put the nail in the coffin, and it's my favorite of all four TNG movies. The first three were overblown episodes. Not that they weren't at all good. They were fine, with, in my opinion, First Contact being the best of the three...but they looked a lot better when they got onto the small screen in full-frame format....the action filled the screen properly then. Again, just my opinion.
I loved Nemesis, for reasons I've stated ad nauseam in other threads, so I won't repeat 'em here. Doesn't mean it was a success. It was a failure in pretty much every sense of the word. The overall quality of the film is lacking...and I'm sure for some folks, that would be a mild statement.
But, in my eyes, the film rocked. Being the action oriented Trek lover (not fan), it was right up my alley. It succeeded for me, personally, but it did not for Paramount, and it did not for most Trek fans (or even casual movie goers) in the broad scope of things.Just because there is a vocal minority of Trek fans that disliked the JJ Abrams films, it doesn't invalidate their opinions. The only time I consider an opinion invalid is if said opinion giver hasn't even bothered to watch the entire movie, or bothered to watch the movie period. But, if they did watch the whole movie, and disliked it, well, I respect their opinion of dislike. Many often give very good reasons as to why they disliked it. However, their reasons are just as personal and subjective as anyone else's reasons for liking it.
And likewise, reasons for liking it are just as subjective, which is what some people can't seem to stomach. And which is why the conversation about quality is so often diverted into conversations about commercial success, the latter being offered as a falsely "objective" substitute.
Likewise, BTW, with the constant attempts to divert the issue into being about "a vocal minority of Trek fans" instead of being about the audience. I gave youse side-eye about it before, and I'll give it again: it is rhetorical sillybuggers and must needs be called so for love of the Federation and Gornian nerdazoids everywhere and everywhen.
And likewise, reasons for liking it are just as subjective, which is what some people can't seem to stomach. And which is why the conversation about quality is so often diverted into conversations about commercial success, the latter being offered as a falsely "objective" substitute.
Likewise, BTW, with the constant attempts to divert the issue into being about "a vocal minority of Trek fans" instead of being about the audience. I gave youse side-eye about it before, and I'll give it again: it is rhetorical sillybuggers and must needs be called so for love of the Federation and Gornian nerdazoids everywhere and everywhen.
Side-eye don' confront me, long as I get my money on Friday.
But you're right....and that is what goes to my point about people "overvaluing" their own opinions, and mistaking said opinions for "fact". Whether one likes a work or not, it is subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Side-eye don' confront me, long as I get my money on Friday.
Everybody funny. Now you funny too.
Side-eye don' confront me, long as I get my money on Friday.
Everybody funny. Now you funny too.
LOL! I love that song!
In my band in New Orleans, when we play "Roadhouse Blues" by The Doors, I always throw in some stuff from "One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer" in the middle of it.
Would our very own rating thread do? 729 votes and the majority love it.
So, perusing the last couple of pages, let me get something straight in my head: it's all relative? Is there in truth, no beauty?
Ten percent of a group may have their subjective reasons for disliking something, but if 90 percent of the subjective opinions of that group of people like the thing, can't one infer from that that the thing must be popular with the group? Isn't popularity a measure of success?
One can drive by a restaurant and say to a friend in the car, "Don't ever eat there, that place stinks," and the friend may raise an eyebrow if he notices the parking lot is overflowing and the line to get in is out the door.
Let's throw a general question out there. What makes a movie successful? Hell, let's back up a step and ask the most basic question. What is success in the first place?
And then let's address the big question straight on. Was STID a success?
Ten percent of a group may have their subjective reasons for disliking something, but if 90 percent of the subjective opinions of that group of people like the thing, can't one infer from that that the thing must be popular with the group? Isn't popularity a measure of success?
One can drive by a restaurant and say to a friend in the car, "Don't ever eat there, that place stinks," and the friend may raise an eyebrow if he notices the parking lot is overflowing and the line to get in is out the door.
Let's throw a general question out there. What makes a movie successful? Hell, let's back up a step and ask the most basic question. What is success in the first place?
And then let's address the big question straight on. Was STID a success?
I forgot who gets it after EPIX. Was it FX that paid 28 million for a movie nobody likes anymore?
Frankly, I think they need to stop basing broadcast fees on the theatrical gross in that market. It should be based on what the vocal minority have to say about its overall quality.
Then we would know life is just as unfair as they want it to be.
.
Star Trek right now just feels stuck, forgotten by the general audience and partially abandoned by those who made it. Trek09 certainly brought Star Trek back in a big way, but STID didn't do much to keep it interesting. If all you can do is tell the same story a different way, you're going to get diminishing returns.
Except that it did about $80 million more worldwide.
If by that you mean it was a tweaking of TWOK, re-watch TWOK. The movies are nothing alike except Khan is in both.
Well, they are alike in one thematic way. Khan was essential to Kirk's character growth in both movies. In TWOK, the conflict with Khan was the vehicle by which Kirk rediscovered his youth and relevance. In STID, dealing with Khan was how Kirk finally learned what it took to earn and keep the captain's chair. Other than that, two different movies.
Of course, a classic scene of TWOK is blatantly ripped off, but that's still just one sequence. Add in the presence of Carol Marcus - because if you've got Khan you must also have Carol Marcus, or something?
- and that's about it. Everything else about the film is distinct from TWOK.
Made more than the last movie internationally (where Star Trek doesn't perform as well), but less domestically (where it usually performs well). Why did this film do better internationally than the last one? One word. Sherlock.
Franklin said:
Nope. I'm not talking about TWOK. I'm talking about Trek09, the one before STID. It's got all the same issues with Kirk getting in trouble with Starfleet, Kirk and Spock having fits with one another, a bad guy who wants vengeance over incorrect assumptions, Pike convincing Kirk to join him while the two are in a bar, the bad guy specifically targets and attacks Starfleet headquarters, Kirk and someone else space jump from one ship to another (Kirk even brings it up), the crew finally end up together on the bridge and we're left with the same exact promise that the last movie gave us.
Unless the next film directly follows up on some event from this movie, Star Trek Into Darkness is a completely skippable film. And with everyone's direction being "You don't need to have seen the last one to understand this one", I'm betting that nothing will be carried over.
It's the same argument again and again and again.
In my band in New Orleans, when we play "Roadhouse Blues" by The Doors, I always throw in some stuff from "One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer" in the middle of it.
Thorogood is the man.
Still going hard, too. I was working a show at a concert hall in my hometown in May and happened across a schedule that was still up in the green room for the gig he'd played there the previous night. He had arrived in town that afternoon, played his show and bused out the same night for the next stop.
You do realize that he asked you a question about TPM and you responded with a link to the STID rating thread. Right?
That's some hard travellin' right there.In my band in New Orleans, when we play "Roadhouse Blues" by The Doors, I always throw in some stuff from "One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer" in the middle of it.
Thorogood is the man.
Still going hard, too. I was working a show at a concert hall in my hometown in May and happened across a schedule that was still up in the green room for the gig he'd played there the previous night. He had arrived in town that afternoon, played his show and bused out the same night for the next stop.
That just makes me want to not show up for the next one. Of course, that would probably lead to stories that "JJ Abrams is what drew fans to the film." So my voice is marginalized as a "fanboy" who worries about characterization and plot, is offended by all the nods, and feels they took a club to the head of the audience with that counter-terrorism storyline that was about 8 minutes of a 2-hour movie. The rest was just a story about revenge, and then tying it up at the end by saying "Don't do what you just saw in this movie." It was stupid, no one lectured the crew about what they were doing, except Scotty, who acts like a child the rest of the film.
I don't long for the days of Rick Berman. I seriously walked out of the movie theater saying "Why should I go to Star Trek 3?" Orci has nothing to do with it. The continuity errors aren't a part of it. The problem is it relies on people to know the Star Trek universe and I want a movie that stands on its own. If that is too fanboyish, then know this: This fanboy isn't going to fanboy movies. I have seen X-Men, X2, Spiderman, The Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel, The Wolverine, Days of Future Past, the Star Wars Prequels (all three), and the Star Trek movies. That's it in the last 14 years. Star Trek 3 and X-Men: Apocalypse is all that I want to see. Not Batman/Superman. Not Star Wars: Episode VII (I can't stand JJ Abrams). I'm a very bad fanboy if that's all this is. Star Trek's reputation is what is keeping me coming back, not these movies individually, and I am probably one bad movie experience from never attending another Star Trek, and being very skeptical for another television series, if it were to materialize.
-- If STID was almost entirely about revenge, then TWOK was even more so and not much else. Sorry you did miss all the nice character moments, particularly Kirk's character arc.
-- TVH was very thematically shallow. All it did was club us over the head with a broad message to take care of the environment (through the narrow message of saving the whales). It ended with telling the audience, "don't do what you just saw in this movie," that is, don't hunt whales to extinction. TUC was even more thematically shallow. Clubbing us over the head about the effects of prejudice and stereotypes and reminding us at the end that people can be very afraid of change.
-- In STID Kirk got a helluva lecture from Pike for what he did on Nibiru and apparently even before that.
-- Scotty was childish? He provided some comic relief, but he also killed a man, and was a major hero of the story.
-- Continuity errors? How could there be any? This is a new playground. It's true Trek had plenty of continuity errors in the first universe. Pointing them out is a cottage industry among fans.
-- You say the movie requires knowledge of the Trek universe and doesn't stand on its own.
Elaborate, please. It stood on its own as well as any Trek movie to me.-- I'm not sure what nods offended you, but if you are taking offense, maybe you're also taking it a wee bit too seriously. All of the movies you mentioned above are pop culture popcorn movies, after all. It's not like anyone is doing Shakespeare and mangling it terribly.
Last edited:
