You know what, you're right. I thought this was a poor film, but since it has made a shit-ton of money I now realise that it is a fantastic piece of art. It's not like as if a bad movie has ever been a financial success before.
"Star Trek" = the biggest box office hit of 2009
- Thread starter VOODOOXI
- Start date
Kind of like falling off a log; more like I have to smack my hand to stop.You are quite the Star Trek Ambassador, aren't you?I think residual ticket sales will be very strong...
I don't think there are no "mainstream" audiences seeing it, nor that there isn't broader success than in a while, but just that the numbers aren't as high as people think. For every "mainstream" person I know who's seen it once, I know fans who have seen it at least twice, some as high as eight. I do think it will be profitable, but I don't think the demographics are going to end up skewing too far to "mainstream" audiences. But, heck, if even 10 million more people see it at $10 a pop, that's a $100 million more at the box office. But that's why I would like to know the percentages, adjusted for inflation, etc. Otherwise, all of us are simply speculating.
Norrin Radd
Vice Admiral
You know what, you're right. I thought this was a poor film, but since it has made a shit-ton of money I now realise that it is a fantastic piece of art. It's not like as if a bad movie has ever been a financial success before.
It's not a bad movie. When you look at its rottentomatoes, metacritic, imdb, and box office mojo scores, they're all very high.
I mean, this stuff ultimately comes down to personal opinion and if you didn't like it, that' s fine. But Star Trek has passed all the tests that we have to quantify how "good" a movie is, and that's a fact.
Us? Speculate?? Surely you jest!
How would one those percentages though, not like anyone wears a badge saying "Public", "Fan", "Gusher", etc.
You know what, you're right. I thought this was a poor film, but since it has made a shit-ton of money I now realise that it is a fantastic piece of art. It's not like as if a bad movie has ever been a financial success before.
uh huh. excuse me if I take the RT Top Critics' grade (91%) over yours, dude.
They might not directly help us determine specific demographics, but we could gauge profitability compared to previous Star Trek films and current films in release; we might then be able to get a very rough estimate of the increase in "new fans" if, say, the margins were relatively the same for the previous Star Trek films, but this one is off the charts by comparison, assuming the fans' viewing behaviors are relatively the same.
We know, for instance, that Star Trek IV did better than previous Star Trek films and seems to have had a broader appeal with audiences.
But anyway my original point was all about how successful Star Trek is. I don't think simply looking at box office receipts tells us that.
Here's what I wrote again, pay attention to the part in bold.
uh huh. excuse me if I take the RT Top Critics' grade (91%) over yours, dude.
I'm not saying you have to agree with my opinion that this is a bad movie, but the original claim was that naysayers would be silenced by its financial success and that claim was absurd beyond belief.GodBen said:You know what, you're right. I thought this was a poor film, but since it has made a shit-ton of money I now realise that it is a fantastic piece of art. It's not like as if a bad movie has ever been a financial success before.
True. Variables change from one generation to the next.
It just confirms that people have lowered the bar as the years go by on what passes for "good".You know what, you're right. I thought this was a poor film, but since it has made a shit-ton of money I now realise that it is a fantastic piece of art. It's not like as if a bad movie has ever been a financial success before.
It's not a bad movie. When you look at its rottentomatoes, metacritic, imdb, and box office mojo scores, they're all very high.
I mean, this stuff ultimately comes down to personal opinion and if you didn't like it, that' s fine. But Star Trek has passed all the tests that we have to quantify how "good" a movie is, and that's a fact.
If one just examines the various elements in the film I don't see how it can receive the praise it does.
The actors are solid but are pretty much relegated to action figures or exposition dumpers. The VFX are outstanding but shouldn't substitute for a good story. The Uhura/Spock romance was neither good nor bad just "there". The emotional fallout for Spock was limited to two rather shallow and brief scenes. We had some silly comedy gags like Kirk with big hands which I found puerile and not the least bit clever or funny. Vulcan was destroyed for spectacle. Amanda was a plot device. Old Spock was little more than a plot device. The villian was an uninteresting plot device. The writers failed to sufficiently provide the necessary background when it came to Spock/Nero and the events in 2387 choosing instead to relegate this information to a four part comic book series which actually did do a fairly good job in adding some interesting stuff to the mix. Kirk/Spock's relationship, which Abrams said was at the core of the film, was treated in a very shallow manner and like so many things suffered from the fact the writers were doing too much.
The final battle was formulaic with Kirk fighting and Spock crashing the ship into the Narada and being sucked into a black hole.
This is not good filmmaking.
Isn't it ironic, I feel the same way about your opinion of this movie.
Except my opinion is more valid because it comes from me, and while you may object to that I am afraid you just cannot argue with my logic. 
And at the end of the day all that matters is that I agree with myself.no, your logic is sound there
your opinion is definitely more valid... to you.
Things get confusing when I don't.
A
Amaris
Guest
It just confirms that people have lowered the bar as the years go by on what passes for "good".You know what, you're right. I thought this was a poor film, but since it has made a shit-ton of money I now realise that it is a fantastic piece of art. It's not like as if a bad movie has ever been a financial success before.
It's not a bad movie. When you look at its rottentomatoes, metacritic, imdb, and box office mojo scores, they're all very high.
I mean, this stuff ultimately comes down to personal opinion and if you didn't like it, that' s fine. But Star Trek has passed all the tests that we have to quantify how "good" a movie is, and that's a fact.
If one just examines the various elements in the film I don't see how it can receive the praise it does.
The actors are solid but are pretty much relegated to action figures or exposition dumpers. The VFX are outstanding but shouldn't substitute for a good story. The Uhura/Spock romance was neither good nor bad just "there". The emotional fallout for Spock was limited to two rather shallow and brief scenes. We had a some silly comedy gags like Kirk with big hands which I found puerile and not the least bit clever or funny. Vulcan was destroyed for spectacle. Amanda was a plot device. Old Spock was little more than a plot device. The villian was an uninteresting plot device. The writers failed to sufficiently provide the necessary background when it came to Spock/Nero and the events in 2387. Kirk/Spock's relationship, which Abrams said was at the core of the film, was treated in a very shallow manner and like so many things got caught up in the fact the writers were doing too much.
The final battle was formulaic with Kirk fighting and Spock crashing the ship into the Narada and being sucked into a black hole.
This is not good filmmaking.
I disagree. I think it was very good filmmaking. "Lowered the bar"? That's all a matter of perspective, now, isn't it? I think rose colored glasses have been the order of the day for many who strongly dislike this movie as a Star Trek movie.
Look, I love the Original Series. It is my favorite Trek. However, for every "City On The Edge of Forever", we have a "Spock's Brain". Star Trek had no qualms about mixing dumb fun with generally accepted morals, but it's not the Epicurean detente that those who dislike the movie make it out to be. It's not uncommon, to despise something so much because it's new and seems to usurp the foothold of that ever so sacred cow. The Original Series had some brilliant writing, and it had some oh so terrible writing. The same goes for every Trek incarnation, but the Original Series, now being 43 years old, gets enshrined in our collective memories and the rose tinting added to soften the passage of time.
People who dislike the movie have every right to dislike the movie for their own reasons, just like people who like the movie have every right to like the movie for their own reasons. Anything else is just a whole bunch of bullshitting and posturing for the sake of a completely fabricated traditionalism.
J.
