One Year Later: Star Trek Into Darkness

[Sindatur]

I'm talking about someone who sat there in the theater, entertained and thought it was good/great (IE: Got what they paid for), and then on the way home or the next day, or the next week, decide they didn't like it afterall.

If subsequently-noticed flaws or crappiness are bad enough, they would certainly sour one on the movie as a whole. The Dark Knight Rises seems to have that effect on a few viewers, I've noticed.

But, that's not going to change the experience you already had. You can't undo that moment in time that you enjoyed it. Yes, it's perfectly reasonable that it will it sour you when you think about it and don't want to watch it again, or you don't enjoy a second ateempt at viewing it.

There are people who have posted that they watched it at the theater and loved it, and then on the way home or the following day, were pissed off because they didn't enjoy it.

I've certainly enjoyed movies a first time, but, have no desire to watch them again, because I know there is no rewatch value for me.

 

[BigJake]

But, that's not going to change the experience you already had.

I'm confused. Of course people don't go back in time and change the experience they already had. It's their perspective on that experience and on the movie that changes.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

What RT says what was added when can be misleading. For example, they could add a review for ST09 today, but the review was actually published at the time of the film's release. RT ought to do away with the "added on [insert date]" and replace it with "published on [insert date]". I learned that when browsing through the site for certain films looking for retrospective reviews, only to find that they're not.

 

[BigJake]

^ Interesting, thanks.

(On review, though, at least one review posted in 2006 was also written at that time. Don't have time to go through and check them all.)

 

[thumbtack]

Makes one wonder how many casual viewers feel about the flick today.

When Into Darkness finished second in CNN's 2013 poll, 7 months had passed since its theatrical release and nearly 4 since its home video release.

It was an event Paramount made note of, owing to the fact that CNN is not Devin Faraci's blog.


.

 

[BigJake]

Oh, are we still doing the Great Faracian Deception conspiracy theory? That never gets old.

(Be interested in reading about that poll, though. Got a link? I can't find references to it anywhere.)

 

[Lance]

I, too, agree, they should have left John Harrison as John Harrison, and not had him turn out to be Khan, but, that didn't ruin the movie for me, and I still love it as much as I loved it in the Theater, and it's still in the top few of my favorite Trek Films

It didn't "ruin" it for me either, like I said I actually love the movie more now than I did a year ago, I like it better than the 2009 movie in fact, it's just the Khan thing was literally the *only* thing I still dislike about it (and can't see that I ever will like it). But the rest of the movie more than makes up for that one little indiscretion IMO.

 

[Amaris]

It was Benedict Cumberbatch. He could have said "I'm Santa Claus," and I would have been fine with it.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Watched it the other day, and it is still awesome.

BC is a bit over the top with his scenery chewing lines, but hell this is a TOS movie, so scenery chewing is mandatory.

The scenes with Spock kicking ass are still great.

 

[Lowdarzz]

It was boring in theaters a year ago and it was boring on Netflix last week.

 

[drt]

When Into Darkness finished second in CNN's 2013 poll, 7 months had passed since its theatrical release and nearly 4 since its home video release.

Heh, I happened to we watching when the results of that poll were aired, the anchors seemed perplexed, and you could tell they'd bought into the idea that there was somekind of backlash and thought everyone now hated Into Darkness.

The list goes:

10. 12 Years a Slave
9. Monsters University
8. Fast and Furious 6
7. Man of Steel
6. Despicable Me 2
5. Thor 2
4. Iron Man 3
3. Gravity
2. Into Darkness
1. Catching Fire

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/24/showbiz/movies/movies-2013-cnn-reader-favorites/

 

[2takesfrakes]

Yes, indeed - yes, indeed!!! INTO DARKNESS has stood The Test of Time! Just one, small complaint, though, if I may be allowed? Not enough Alice Eve. This picture needs alot more Alice Eve ...

 

[Franklin]

Makes one wonder how many casual viewers feel about the flick today.

They probably don't give it much thought, at all. Any more than they'd give to any other movie they saw last year, and liked, even Twelve Years a Slave.

It's obviously the mission of a small number of people scattered across the Interweb to remind folks that despite what so many of them thought, the movie wasn't really that good in the first place, and they won't enjoy it today like they did they did when they sat down to watch it in a theater a year ago with their popcorn, Raisinets, and a 48 oz. Dr. Pepper. If they'd like, reasons why they should feel that way can be provided by these people upon request.

 

[martok2112]

Just one, small complaint, though, if I may be allowed? Not enough Alice Eve. This picture needs alot more Alice Eve ...

Hear, hear!!!

And one other chick the movie needed more of: the cute, pixie haired blonde that was at the port forward section of the bridge who got one close up (when Kirk was pleading with Admiral Marcus for the lives of his crew). She had one line after the ship recovered from its planetfall. That chick is so damned CUTE! Given that she had a close up in STID, I hope she has a bigger role in the third movie. She did seem to have a bigger role in the comic book arc of Star Trek: The Khitomer Incident....so here's hoping to see more of her in the third film.

 

[Ovation]

Makes one wonder how many casual viewers feel about the flick today.

They probably don't give it much thought, at all. Any more than they'd give to any other movie they saw last year, and liked, even Twelve Years a Slave.

It's obviously the mission of a small number of people scattered across the Interweb to remind folks that despite what so many of them thought, the movie wasn't really that good in the first place, and they won't enjoy it today like they did they did when they sat down to watch it in a theater a year ago with their popcorn, Raisinets, and a 48 oz. Dr. Pepper. If they'd like, reasons why they should feel that way can be provided by these people upon request.

Spot on.

 

[Alex1939]

The idea that the "reputation" of Into Darkness (or ST09, for what matters) has changed over the years is laughable. People who loved it still loves it, and people who hated it still hates it.

The only difference is that people who liked the film simply moved on, while the many of those who disliked it are still seething with the fury of a thousand burning suns. But they are still just a (very) vocal (but tiny) minority.

Yep. Vocal and tiny.

Hollywood Doesn't Care About Fanboy Approval

I know right. That's why Transformers Dark of the Moon and The Phantom Menace are vastly vastly better and superior movies than Star Trek into Darkness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films

 

[BillJ]

I know right. That's why Transformers Dark of the Moon and The Phantom Menace are vastly vastly better and superior movies than Star Trek into Darkness.

You may have a point when Hollywood begins making films for any other purpose than making money.

 

[Alex1939]

I know right. That's why Transformers Dark of the Moon and The Phantom Menace are vastly vastly better and superior movies than Star Trek into Darkness.

You may have a point when Hollywood begins making films for any other purpose than making money.

Might as well delete the forum then. Nothing to discuss if total profit is the only determining factor of what makes a movie or tv show "good".

 

[BillJ]

Might as well delete the forum then. Nothing to discuss if total profit is the only determining factor of what makes a movie or tv show "good".

If your job is dependent on a film making money, do you greenlight John Carter II or Transformers IV? Are you going to allow a small, loud group of people sway your decision making? Hollywood is making movies people are willing to pay to see. Any arguments about quality are, as always, subjective. What one person sees as awesome, another will see as trash.

 

[Alex1939]

Might as well delete the forum then. Nothing to discuss if total profit is the only determining factor of what makes a movie or tv show "good".

If your job is dependent on a film making money, do you greenlight John Carter II or Transformers IV? Are you going to allow a small, loud group of people sway your decision making? Hollywood is making movies people are willing to pay to see. Any arguments about quality are, as always, subjective. What one person sees as awesome, another will see as trash.

I am not and would not argue against that a studio's first thought in greenlighting a film is profit.

But it's totally bogus to say that how much a film makes determines its quality as is being suggested in this thread.


Or do you support that the Phanton Menace and Transformers Dark of the Moon are two of the top 15 quality movies of all time?