RobertScorpio
Pariah
Okay...now that we have had some real footage to see, and there are severe spoilers out there as well...what is your new ROTTENTOMATOES % prediction???
Rob
Scorpio
Rob
Scorpio
Rottentomatoes %
- Thread starter RobertScorpio
- Start date
It may all depend on how many of the movie reviewers are hard-core trek fans:
Reviewer #1 (non-Trek fan): "It was an exciting space adventure that was full of action but still managed to make us care about the characters. These actors really reminded me of what I thought Captain Kirk and Doctor Spock were like....3 out of 4 stars.
Reviewer #2 (Hard-core fan): It sucked!...Kirk's eyes are hazel, not blue!!
Seriously though, I could make a prediction, but it would be meaningless; a film is so much more than the trailers and plot synopses can possibly tell us. The difference between a good and bad film is the execution of the film, and the only way to experience that execution is to see the finished product...
...but since I'm replying to this thread, my meaningless prediction is a 72%. That's pretty respectable for rottentomatoes.com.
Reviewer #1 (non-Trek fan): "It was an exciting space adventure that was full of action but still managed to make us care about the characters. These actors really reminded me of what I thought Captain Kirk and Doctor Spock were like....3 out of 4 stars.
Reviewer #2 (Hard-core fan): It sucked!...Kirk's eyes are hazel, not blue!!
Seriously though, I could make a prediction, but it would be meaningless; a film is so much more than the trailers and plot synopses can possibly tell us. The difference between a good and bad film is the execution of the film, and the only way to experience that execution is to see the finished product...
...but since I'm replying to this thread, my meaningless prediction is a 72%. That's pretty respectable for rottentomatoes.com.
Last edited:
I will be happy with anything above 70% which is great.
But you are right Jackson_RoyKirk, it is about execution.
Who was it that said that they read the script from Men In Black and thought it was totally horrible and read the script on Battlefield Earth and thought it could be amazing.
That word execution is certainly key...
But you are right Jackson_RoyKirk, it is about execution.
Who was it that said that they read the script from Men In Black and thought it was totally horrible and read the script on Battlefield Earth and thought it could be amazing.
That word execution is certainly key...
From what I've seen so far, 78%. I think most reviewers are casual fans, if that, and quite a few of them will be intrigued by the notion of "energizing" the tired franchise. At the same time, a minority will give the film two out of four stars or so, saying that it doesn't really do anything new for an actioner, other than offer impressive SFX, while stay retaining too many qualities that make Star Trek nerdy (space drill, squid, etc.)
For reference, the Rottentomatoes scores on previous Trek films:
Nemesis - 37% (150 reviews)
Insurrection - 56% (59 reviews)
First Contact - 91% (45 reviews)
Generations - 51% (39 reviews)
Undiscovered Country - 84% (43 reviews)
Final Frontier - 18% (38 reviews)
Voyage Home - 86% (36 reviews)
Search For Spock - 77% (35 reviews)
Wrath of Khan - 92% (38 reviews)
The Motion Picture - 54% (28 reviews)
Of course, many of these films came out before Rotten Tomatoes existed, but this is just what the site currently reports from the reviews it tracks. But, wow, it certainly seems to match my taste in the films -- Star Trek III is somehwat vindicated as being not nearly as bad as the "even good, odd bad" rule has unfairly portrayed it. (Not to mention Nemesis blowing this silly rule away from the opposite end).
And, dang, Star Trek V's 18% is truly awful. Keep in mind small N sizes, etc, but this is still interesting.
Based on what we've seen so far from this trailer and the higher number of reviews for the recent films, I'm guessing somewhere around 78% for the new Trek film.
Nemesis - 37% (150 reviews)
Insurrection - 56% (59 reviews)
First Contact - 91% (45 reviews)
Generations - 51% (39 reviews)
Undiscovered Country - 84% (43 reviews)
Final Frontier - 18% (38 reviews)
Voyage Home - 86% (36 reviews)
Search For Spock - 77% (35 reviews)
Wrath of Khan - 92% (38 reviews)
The Motion Picture - 54% (28 reviews)
Of course, many of these films came out before Rotten Tomatoes existed, but this is just what the site currently reports from the reviews it tracks. But, wow, it certainly seems to match my taste in the films -- Star Trek III is somehwat vindicated as being not nearly as bad as the "even good, odd bad" rule has unfairly portrayed it. (Not to mention Nemesis blowing this silly rule away from the opposite end).
And, dang, Star Trek V's 18% is truly awful. Keep in mind small N sizes, etc, but this is still interesting.
Based on what we've seen so far from this trailer and the higher number of reviews for the recent films, I'm guessing somewhere around 78% for the new Trek film.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Those reviewers back then hated Shatner...they probably all got a phone call from their buddy, G.T, to roast it upon delivery...
Rob
So, I'm assuming you've never actually seen Star Trek V, then?
67%
The fact that Iron Man did so well on rottentomatoes (93%) is good news for Star Trek and other action/adventure films.
There was (and still is) a stigma associated with these "popcorn" blockbuster-style action films, and many critics once found it difficult to admit they enjoyed a film simply because it was (gasp!) entertaining. Many critics felt guilty giving a good review to an action film, because of this stigma.
However, Iron Man was good enough to allow critics to admit that they liked it -- even though it was a "lowly action flick" -- because it was a smartly-written and well-put together action film.
Hopefully that still stigma still associated to some degree with action films won't keep critics from giving Star Trek a good review if it actually deserves a good review.
There was (and still is) a stigma associated with these "popcorn" blockbuster-style action films, and many critics once found it difficult to admit they enjoyed a film simply because it was (gasp!) entertaining. Many critics felt guilty giving a good review to an action film, because of this stigma.
However, Iron Man was good enough to allow critics to admit that they liked it -- even though it was a "lowly action flick" -- because it was a smartly-written and well-put together action film.
Hopefully that still stigma still associated to some degree with action films won't keep critics from giving Star Trek a good review if it actually deserves a good review.
Last edited:
I don't know if that's entirely true of the mainstream press, but it might be so of the alternative or art press. To be honest, most popcorn movies are pretty mediocre, recycling the same predictable elements again and again. I complained throughout the 80s and 90s about how awful so many action films were, even incredibly popular ones, but think on the whole, they've gotten better in the past few years. The biggest problem today is the ADHD editing of otherwise well-constructed films.
^
^^ yes, most popcorn films ARE mediocre -- which made it even more surprising that critics actually allowed themselves to enjoy Iron Man.
Granted, Iron Man was more than just a popcorn film, but it still surprised me that 93% of critics overtly recognized this. The good news for Star Trek is that if this is actually a good film, then reviewers may not be afraid to admit they enjoyed it.
^^ yes, most popcorn films ARE mediocre -- which made it even more surprising that critics actually allowed themselves to enjoy Iron Man.
Granted, Iron Man was more than just a popcorn film, but it still surprised me that 93% of critics overtly recognized this. The good news for Star Trek is that if this is actually a good film, then reviewers may not be afraid to admit they enjoyed it.
2000%
Bee Ess. Iron Man was well written and well directed. 'Nuff said.
I don't know how I feel about Rotten Tomatoes after they used some third-rate site as a source for a Mission: Impossible III review even though 1) this was months in advance of anyone seeing the movie, 2) it was obvious the guy hadn't seen the movie, and 3) he was just bashing Tom Cruise and attacking the movie on that basis. Where's the credibility?
I'll be generous and predict 35%
There's that wishful thinking again.
Similar threads
