The reason this movie could never have been a mega-hit
- Thread starter Norrin Radd
- Start date
I just saw an ad for it on TV last night - I hadn't seen any since shortly after the first weekend. So evidentally somebody thinks it's still got some life left in it.
I don't think it's necessarily going to become a "megahit" although clearly it's doing very well. It depends a lot on your definition of "megahit." I do think, Zeppster, that it doesn't just mean "makes the most money in a particular year." Megahits go on and on and on...like Titanic (which I don't like very much, by the way, but it definitely qualifies as "mega"). But maybe my definition is too narrow.
I don't think it's necessarily going to become a "megahit" although clearly it's doing very well. It depends a lot on your definition of "megahit." I do think, Zeppster, that it doesn't just mean "makes the most money in a particular year." Megahits go on and on and on...like Titanic (which I don't like very much, by the way, but it definitely qualifies as "mega"). But maybe my definition is too narrow.
Now to the OP...all it takes is a few Trekkiesuperultramegagigageeks to start arguments about the size of the Enterprise, and its..ahem..ample nacells, to have casual fans running for the Mexican or Canadian borders. Hell, you just have to look on this very forum for a nice thread about that very scary subject.
Ya know...as "accessible" as this movie may be, it's still got elements that make it more complex than the usual blockbuster movie.
Usually, you got Batman, Iron Man, Spider-Man etc against a villain. They fight. It's pretty simple.
In Star Trek, there's fighting, sure. But in this movie, most of it seems to be Kirk vs. Spock. This is a bit out of the norm, since they are both allegedly protagonists.
Then you have Nero. You'd think a revenge motive was pretty simple, right? But a lot of the emotional resonance and irony comes from elements that the movie doesn't explain or glides over so quickly that they would be easy to miss. For instance, that Spock was involved in Vulcan-Romulan unification, that the Vulcans and Romulans are age-old enemies, or even the fact that they are related. How many people in the world don't even know that? They might notice that Vulcans and Romulans look similar, but what does that mean? Why should they care?
We all know the backstory so well that it's easy to overlook how much the movie doesn't explain, and could seem confusing or shallow as a result.
Usually, you got Batman, Iron Man, Spider-Man etc against a villain. They fight. It's pretty simple.
In Star Trek, there's fighting, sure. But in this movie, most of it seems to be Kirk vs. Spock. This is a bit out of the norm, since they are both allegedly protagonists.
Then you have Nero. You'd think a revenge motive was pretty simple, right? But a lot of the emotional resonance and irony comes from elements that the movie doesn't explain or glides over so quickly that they would be easy to miss. For instance, that Spock was involved in Vulcan-Romulan unification, that the Vulcans and Romulans are age-old enemies, or even the fact that they are related. How many people in the world don't even know that? They might notice that Vulcans and Romulans look similar, but what does that mean? Why should they care?
We all know the backstory so well that it's easy to overlook how much the movie doesn't explain, and could seem confusing or shallow as a result.
Whatever money Star Trek makes, the haters will just say they needed $100 million more in order for it to be a hit so therefore it flopped.
deep and complex.
Trek.
don't get me wrong. it ain't light and shallow. but it's not the ONLY thing "deep and complex" people can enjoy!
True.
I'm a good test case for that! I knew as little about LOTR as the average viewer knows about Star Trek, and it was still very easy for me to grasp the central conflict: Aragorn is fated to become King but dithers a lot because of that whole thing with the elf-girl. Frodo and Sam have to throw the ring into a volcano or the bad guy will win.
Very simple and straightforward. Everything else is just froth surrounding the central storylines. But in Star Trek, you have umpteen alien cultures, some of which are in the Federation, some of which are friendly and some of which are unfriendly and depending on the year, some of them are not yet known. And to top things off, now they've gone and changed the timeline so that even the stuff you might have learned may no longer be applicable!
There's no single central storyline to follow. The Enterprise's job is to patrol and defend the Federation and that could involve any number of projects, not just one trip to a volcano. To understand why a war breaking out with Andorians is way different from a war breaking out with Klingons is way different from a war breaking out with the Borg means you have to know the Andies are founding Federation members (civil war!), Klingons are longtime foes (business as usual), and the Borg aren't due to show up for 100 years (could be a very good thing; could be very bad). Mass chaos!
In case this is aimed at me - though it very well might not be (I can't tell) - I am not a hater. I liked the movie - I had fun watching it. I just think there ought to be a difference between "hit" and "megahit." And surely even if it's "only" a hit, that's still good, right? There's nothing else to prove, is there? I'll answer my own question: No.
Good Lord, does that mean I have to give back my Trekker membership card? Because I will never again watch the last four movies, the fourth series, and never bothered watching the fifth series beyond a few episodes.Yes. Star Trek is a closed up club and you can only enter by watching the five series and 10 movies that came before this movie.
Sorry, but most Trek from the last few decades is about as deep and complex as a conversation between George W. Bush and Corkey from Life Goes On.
I also think, although I can't prove it, that 9/11/01 had a lot to do with audiences en masse wanting to escape into fantasy. When the first Harry Potter film premiered, it was all over the major cable news cycle like no movie ever before or since. CNN and the other news shows were all but telling viewers that Harry Potter was a nice safe distraction from the collective fear everyone was feeling, and CNN in particular devoted days to having reporters ask families coming out of the theater how good Potter was. Harry Potter became the first break in the continuous 9/11 news cycle, and it was presented to the viewer as the first breath of fresh air Americans had since the attacks.
Fantasy became the hot commodity in Hollywood for the next few years, with Harry Potter and LotR dominating. Superhero films also made a big comeback. Again, I can't prove the 9/11 connection -- Potter was a hugely successful book series, and fans of LotR had been waiting years for a proper film adaption. Nevertheless, I believe these films did better than they would have because Americans needed a little escape into fantasy worlds where good and evil were clearly distinguishable.
Oh man, you are so funny.
It's not one of the top ten moneymakers, and it's, what, a failure? Only 10 films can be in the top ten, you know. That's how that works. $200,000,000 before a single DVD is sold? They're plenty happy.
I imagine quite a lot. But it doesn't matter. A majority of these people will probably discover the movie on Blu-Ray and DVD. And mark my words, the sequel to Trek will be an even bigger hit.
Yeah, I really don't get the premise of this thread; namely, that Star Trek cannot be a mega-hit.
Well, it hasn't made a billion dollars like Titanic, I'll give you that. On the other hand, it's made nearly $300 million worldwide thus far. It's currently the top-grossing film of the year. Huge sums of money have already been paid for merchandising and broadcast rights. And we haven't even gotten to a single dime off of DVD, BluRay, Internet, and pay-per-view sales.
So I'm pretty sure the hit status of this film is well cemented.
Many. People are asking that same question ("How much do I need to know?") over and over again at the movie related forums. The answer is usually "nothing", but it feels they won't believe.
Oh well, guess it's the same thing with Star Wars, LOTR and other franchines.
I refused to see the first "Star Wars" movie because I was astounded by the media hype. I recall walking past a CBD cinema complex showing it, and they had a poster claiming "Our 14th big month" and I thought, "That's extraordinary! A movie is still popular in cinemas after fourteen months of release." People were going back to see it over and over again. I refused to join such a wacky, exclusive club.
Then, in 1979, the hype was on for ST:TMP. This time I read all the newspaper articles and previews. A friend raved about attending a gala sneak preview, where most people in the audience wore costumes, and cheered for everyone's opening credits and first entrances. I noticed the novelization, and read it. Then I bought the soundtrack album. Then I saw the movie. Then I went back to see it over and over again.
Sometimes were are intrigued by media hype, and sometimes we are repelled. But for every person an advertising campaign fails to work on, there'll often be someone else to take their place.
Yes, damage was done-- years ago. Goodwill was lost. An exclusive club attitude prevented Trek from reaching out and being embraced by the masses. Certainly this movie could have done even better and Trek should have reached heights of success on par with Star Wars and LOTR and etc.
For a brief shining moment---in like 1988 or so---on the heels of Voyage Home--and the new TV program---The World stood ready to embrace Trek----I credit Leonard Nimoy--director of VH--(right?)-- with this LOVE. Abrams was right to go to him for Trek XI. He brought joy and wisdom to the franchise and endearment from a WIDER audience--a bridge builder.
It was all squandered.
Similar threads
