Because they'll have to step up the cerebral aspect,while also preserving the action aspect .
That takes exceptional screenwriting skills,and I can easily see the creative team going too far in one direction or the other.
The Challenge of Trek 3
- Thread starter Silversmok3
- Start date
Because they'll have to step up the cerebral aspect,while also preserving the action aspect .
That takes exceptional screenwriting skills,and I can easily see the creative team going too far in one direction or the other.
No, they won't.
That isn't an answer.
What reason do they have to do this? They could easily not and still make another successful movie.
Either you still haven't read what was posted, or you're evading the fact that you don't have an on-point response. Neither would be surprising.
I don't like the use of "attention span" in this case. Lack of patience, maybe. Preference for faster pace, maybe. But attention span deficit is a condition.
And your jab at the IQ of audiences is silly. People are not stupider today than they used to be.
How did you come to the conclusion that they'll "have to" do anything of the sort ?
Apology accepted.
Actually, I don't have a clue what you were talking about, either.
I think you are making a lot of assumptions, but I don't think everything you've assumed is completely untrue.
As for Star Trek 3, which I understand to be the 3rd movie of the rebooted group (after all, the first reboot movie as just entitled Star Trek, not Star Trek XI), I think they should try to make something that is an original story to this timeline that deals with these characters in a thoughtful and adult way.
It looks like there is a discussion to be had here if people want to participate, but that's just what I see.
And that's 100% opinion.
Not really. Most movies, novels, comics, plays, etc. have been low-quality for the last few thousand years.
Oh, and you've read and seen every single one to know that? Hmm?
What is and isn't "low-quality" is subjective, although general consensuses are possible among certain crowds in some cases. So, I'll just file your post under "100% opinion," too.
That argument cuts both ways, you know ?
And no, I haven't. But I think most people would agree that most movie, if they were to see them all, would be crap to them. Also, I think most people would agree that the majority of entertainment is poorly written. It doesn't mean it's not entertaining, it's simply a fact that people with real writing talent are rarer than people with less talent; this is also true for any other talent. I don't see how my statement could be controversial.
You may not. It's certainly partly subjective, but it's not "100%" anything. You just disagree, but that doesn't make it whatever you want to label it.
Yes because the vast majority of movie goers go and see a movie for fun to get away from their daily lives for a few hours are basically idiots for wanting to have a good time and don't care about Box Office, franchises, acting, or critical reception. They just want to have a good time so they are morons. IDIC LIVES~!
All one need do is to look at records of works which are known to have been created during any period—Renaissance, Classical, Baroque, Golden Age of SF, German Expressionist cinema, you name it—and compare to which of those works are still known, appreciated, and mentioned with respect ten years later, or fifty years, or two hundred fifty, or a thousand years later. The proportion of forgettable to memorable remains remarkably steady through all periods, and belies the notion that any marked drop in quality is apparent after, say, 1990 (nor any other milestone arbitrarily selected for the purpose of advancing a wholly specious argument.)
Observation. Not unsupported "Get off my lawn"-ery.
Right. There's a reason the Romans/Greeks coined the term "Deus Ex Machina" for a type of lazy writing.
I may and I will. It's 100% opinion. Your opinion doesn't become fact because you think it's a fact. The "argument" doesn't "cut both ways" because I never claimed to know about "everything." No one can. To make such a sweeping statement that "90% of everything is garbage" is in and of itself a useless, or garbage, attempt to say something definitive.
Continue to think what you want to think about "everything," but please do not try to say that your thoughts equate to objectivity.
And before you cry "off topic," I'm done talking to you about this. I don't want to see someone else's thread affected by this.
And that's why I mentioned that a general consensus can be had among certain crowds about certain works. That still doesn't mean that just because something isn't "remembered" that it isn't good or great. Also opinions can change over time. IIRC, Van Gogh wasn't considered really "great" until after he died.
And besides, the quote said ninety percent of "everything," and that scope goes beyond art (which includes film/television) and literature. There's absolutely no way this guy could know that, and I think there's more than a good chance that it's not true. I don't think it's humanly possible to "observe" 90% of "everything," not to mention 100%.
All I know is that 90% of everything in my life and in my past experiences isn't garbage. Frankly, it just sounds like this man is miserable (or at least pessimistic). And you know what they say about misery and company...
But, you and Belz can be "right" if you want to. I'm leaving this alone as an effort to help preserve this thread and the conversation the OP might be trying to have.
It's apparent that the name of the man quoted means nothing to you. The quote itself is fairly well-known in certain circles (including foxhot's, I don't doubt) but absent understanding of its context the quote probably won't carry the meaning which was intended.
So it goes.
Promises, promises.
It's apparent that the name of the man quoted means nothing to you. The quote itself is fairly well-known in certain circles (including foxhot's, I don't doubt) but absent understanding of its context the quote probably won't carry the meaning which was intended.
So it goes.
Promises, promises.
NO, it's NOT. And the fact that you think it is is your opinion. Saying that it's 100% opinion doesn't make it so.
Did you even READ my post ? I suggest you do so again before you reply.
It's simply an observation that the mass of production is low-quality. For every 1000 movie made in a year, how many quality ones do you expect there will be ? Oh, give me your 100% opinion please.
I never said so. Do not misrepresent what I said if you want to be taken seriously.
Where did I say that, AGAIN ? Stop making stuff up about me.
How noble of you, refusing to address your errors.
^ Keeping my promise. 