Bingo on this. I mean, I liked the movie, but it was ridiculous.
I'm very nervous that Star Trek, which is admittedly often ridiculous, will be ridiculous in an even more obvious way after XI...
The failure of Watchmen should be a lesson..
- Thread starter StarTrek1701
- Start date
- Status
Bingo on this. I mean, I liked the movie, but it was ridiculous.
I'm very nervous that Star Trek, which is admittedly often ridiculous, will be ridiculous in an even more obvious way after XI...
I will probably never understand why showing a breast can do more damage to a fragile young mind than showing people killed by various means in all the graphic detail ...
Because the "graphic details" are special effects, made by the effects houses with copious amounts of red dye and latex. I saw Predator and Terminator before I hit double-digits in age and even then I could marvel at how good the effects were (Carl Weathers' arm dropping, still shooting? that's good!) but for once I didn't believe the actor's arm was shot away. Compare that to a naked breast.. well.. that's "real". Pretend violence doesn't do as much damage as does real sexuality, age wise.
The differences being that The Hulk underperformed critically, as well as financially, despite being a mid-summer movie (rather than an early spring flick) during a time when the economy wasn't tanking and more people were willing to spend the full ticket prices. If any mistake was made with Watchmen, it was the early March release. Many average moviegoers are most likely looking for a more action-oriented and less intellectual movie. Which is why X-Men Origins: Wolverine will be a smash hit.
Considering how realistic and copious movie violence is these days, I have to wholly disagree.
I don't see how a naked breast "damages" anyone, either.
While I can agree to an extent, the mere sight of the human body in its natural form does no damage whatsoever. If that were true, we'd all have been put in a mental hospital a long time ago. The only time any of us can honestly say we've been "damaged" by sexuality is through the actions we take or that others take upon us, by means of abuse, neglect, or rejection.
I actually enjoyed the Watchmen movie, and I've never read the graphic novel. I don't see anything wrong with "pandering to the fanboys" as long as it's good.
I haven't seen it, but as of yesterday Watchmen has made $142,720,410 worldwide. With a 68% drop off in ticket sales after only three days, a production budegt of $150,000,000, and at least $300,000,000 needed to break even, it's not a big hit. DVD sales and rentals will probably double its take but that still falls short of a profit making venture for the studio.
Watchmen was an awesome movie - one of the best I've seen in a long time.
It certainly hasn't been a failure - I consider it to be a success.
It certainly hasn't been a failure - I consider it to be a success.
Since were talking ''Watchmen'' the actor Jackie Earle Haley (Rorschach) will be at ''ATOMIC COMICS'' in San Antonio, TX. on Thursday March 26! the location is at 4904 Broadway in Alamo Heights. (Across from H-E-B Central Market) I picked up a flyer from there yesterday! I won't be able to make it, but I figured I'd at least let anyone who would be interasted know!
I'm sorry, M'Sharak, but I had gotten the impression that he was talking about ''America'' am I wrong?
I don't want to cause trouble, and I will now drop the subject.
What about maintaining the integrity of the original material? There's a huge difference between that and pandering, which I would interpret as kow-towing to fanboy delusions and BBS postings. Time travel seems to be J.J. Abrams' answer to everything lately - it's become a cliché for people who don't really understand science fiction, a trope they seem to believe is the universal standard to explain everything else they can't achieve through good, honest storytelling. I half expect the passengers of Oceanic to make an appearance, because, well, they're traveling in time, too.
Some, like myself, would argue that that is "dumbing it down."
The thing that honks me off about many of Trek's fans is that they so lack imagination of their own that they can't even imagine that it's possible to tell a good story that is still true to the existing material. Or that there's absolutely no reason why the important and relevant history and technology can't be included and integrated in a way that is perfectly understandable and accessible to non-fans without spending time in obvious exposition that could be better spent in moving the story and characters along. I, for one, am sick and tired of prequels and reboots - we had an entire "Trek" series that was nothing but 'explanations' for the stuff in the other series, and they still couldn't seem to do that without rewriting what had already been established.
It's not a matter of being true to the core fans - it's a matter of being true to the core material and building on it, not rewriting it and not excusing it with time travel. TIIC never seem to start out saying, "Let's make a movie about time travel" (unless it's Back to the Future or Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure) - they say, "Well, we've been handed this task that we don't really understand, and frankly have no personal interest or investment in, so let's just make it up as we go along and explain it with time travel."
That's a crappy way to tell any story, Star Trek or not.
--------------
Cite a reputable source for this - it's pretty damned unbelievable.
Huh?
PTrope seems angry. 
You do realize that a core reason for The Dark Knight's smash success was Heath Ledger's death, right? Consciously and subconsciously, that context colored the public's reception of and response to it. Not that it wasn't a good film, but the fact that it was a good film is NOT why it made as much money as it did.
And I have to say, as a longtime Star Trek fan, I couldn't care less about trying to make the general public like it. It's a niche thing and I'm comfortable with that. So many people on this board these days seem to only be thinking in terms of how the franchise can be a cash cow. That's not at all the right way to be looking at it, IMO. That inevitably leads to mediocrity and a loss of what makes Trek special and unique. It isn't for everyone. It's for people who "get" it.
Watchmen was never kind of thing that would be a hit. It was a pretty good film, though. And I don't get the sense that it was trying particularly hard to appeal to any particularly small or devout group of fans. I did not find it to be pandering. I'd never even read the comics before seeing it, but I sure did afterwards.
I don't agree with anything the initial poster is saying, here.
And I have to say, as a longtime Star Trek fan, I couldn't care less about trying to make the general public like it. It's a niche thing and I'm comfortable with that. So many people on this board these days seem to only be thinking in terms of how the franchise can be a cash cow. That's not at all the right way to be looking at it, IMO. That inevitably leads to mediocrity and a loss of what makes Trek special and unique. It isn't for everyone. It's for people who "get" it.
Watchmen was never kind of thing that would be a hit. It was a pretty good film, though. And I don't get the sense that it was trying particularly hard to appeal to any particularly small or devout group of fans. I did not find it to be pandering. I'd never even read the comics before seeing it, but I sure did afterwards.
I don't agree with anything the initial poster is saying, here.
So they have to pay attention to every bit of canon minutea, or they are disrespecting the source material? The core of Star Trek is not the minor details, and the random bunch of useless canon trivia, it's the essence of the story, the feeling of optimism that it invokes and the fun that it can be. If the JJ Abrams movie was made like Galaxy Quest, and made fun of the source material, then I could see your point. But the movie has respected the source material, and will try to invoke the same feelings that TOS did.
Also, updating the material and changing some things about it to allow other movie goers who are not Trek fans is NOT dumbing it down. It's Trek, but it's tweaked in order to appeal to a mass audience. Just because we are Trek fans doesn't make us smarter then everyone else. We just like Trek, thats it, and if it needs to be tweaked in order to be successful again, so be it.
Based on what scientific studies?
Brain, brain, what is brain?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
