It is the goal of every film that I like and you don't.
What The Hell Is Going On? (Re: Reviews)
- Thread starter StarMan
- Start date
Nope. The goal of this film is to be an entertaining movie and good Star Trek. I hope they succeed on both counts. Making a pile of money would be nice, too.
I must dispute you. It pains me to to do it....but it must be done.
There is only one goal of this film and that is to make money and make money only....Hopefully it's good enough to merit subsequent sequels so even more money can be made. That's it...that's all they want, I don't really think that Paramount particulary cares about it's integrity...just as long as it makes them tons o' money.....
You're allowed to do that.
Well, yeah, when you get down to it, that's the goal of the overwhelming majority of movies: to make money.
However, if they don't succeed on the first count at the very least, and preferably the second as well, Tons o' Money is what they won't have a chance of making. Value given for value received is the rule; if it does not entertain, people will not pay to see it, people will not pay to see repeat showings and people will not buy the DVDs, games, comics, uniforms, pointy ears and other related merchandise and paraphernalia. It needs to entertain, or it's toast.
Fortunately, they seem to have made an entertaining movie, if the reviews and the advance-audience reactions so far are any indicator.
I'll tell you what the hell is going on; people like this film!
Cakes, having read your posts over the past few weeks... I can promise you that you will LOVE this movie.
Abrams said the best of Trek involved elements of horror and fear of the unknown; I knew then that Trek was in good hands.
I LOVED Cloverfield. I'm not a big fan of LOST, but both shows proved Abrams grasp of building suspense, summoning terror and creating fear-- all of which were missing from Trek in later years IMHO.
Those sweaty forehead close-ups and fearful eyes--the bread and butter of TOS. For example, watch "The Corbonite Maneuver" from the old show. And people made fun of the red shirts; but they played a vital dramatic role.
Abrams stated he was actually watching TOS in prep for the movie. Didn't the former creators indicate they didn't bother to watch TOS or felt they needed to make a clean slate?
I believe you may be thinking of Gene Roddenberry's instruction to TNG writers in the early seasons not to worry too much about sticking to what had been established in the Original Series. They were told to disregard TOS if it threatened to get in the way of a story.
Well, if I haven't already beaten the dead dog...
I don't have a problem with people being excited about the movie. I don't have a problem with people being angry about the new movie. (And, depending on how people are wired, both emotions can be "fun" for them.)
I do have a problem with people deciding a movie that they haven't yet seen is the best thing since sliced bread, and then rubbing that "fact" in the faces of the people who are angry about the film. You can't defend a position that doesn't yet exist. You can't use it as leverage against someone else's position.
And the reverse is also true. The people who rub the "fact" that Star Trek XI is crap in the face of people who are excited is equally retarded.
Even after said posters have seen the film, it will still only be opinion versus opinion, but at least it will be opinion that is informed by PEOPLE WHO HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN THE MOVIE.
It's as if I start talking about how the next President after Obama is the best President ever, and start mocking you because you don't think so. And rubbing it in your face and dancing around, hoping to break your spirit. And then basking in how right I am.
If people just want to pit the relative value of emotions like "excitement" against "anger" and "disappointement," that's fine. That's what the people in question are really doing, anyway, they just aren't really aware of it.
Star Trek XI has nothing to do with it, though (other than the raw fact that the movie exists), because 99.9% of the people defending it or deriding it HAVE NOT SEEN IT.
Dennis, your next car is a piece of shit. Aren't you embarrassed for eventually being excited about it?
The burning question in my my mind is:
"Does Languatron think that this, too, is a "turd-fest"?
"Does Languatron think that this, too, is a "turd-fest"?
You cut off its engineering hull - that's worse!
In that case, I think the wedding's off.
Dennis, your next car is a piece of shit. Aren't you embarrassed for eventually being excited about it?
A little, but I've wanted a Mustang since I was fifteen and I'm damned well going to get one next year.
If this movie doesn't entertain millions of people who've never had an appetite for it at all, they're screwed.
On other matters - the goal of the studio is to make money. In most cases, though, the goals of most of the key people actually involved in creating these films - even the most exploitative and calculated of commercial movies - are to make movies either for their own sake or as a channel of expressing their particular kind of art. And also to be very well compensated in the effort.
A little, but I've wanted a Mustang since I was fifteen and I'm damned well going to get one next year.Dennis, your next car is a piece of shit. Aren't you embarrassed for eventually being excited about it?
Yeah, Dennis, you're...*looks at username* Holy shit, you're back to being Dennis. Whoda thunk?
A little, but I've wanted a Mustang since I was fifteen and I'm damned well going to get one next year.Dennis, your next car is a piece of shit. Aren't you embarrassed for eventually being excited about it?
Yeah, Dennis, you're...*looks at username* Holy shit, you're back to being Dennis. Whoda thunk?
I kinda dig it.
I think there's a bit of a sense of desperation driving all that. People are just going crazy thinking if this doesn't work out that Trek will be gone so they're going to cling to it no matter what. There's also this odd hope running around that somehow Trek won't be nerdy anymore and the world at large is going to accept that Trek is really kewl, really!!! Any critical comments might cause this crazy dream to collapse so we get all this talk about haters and all that. Though I think they missed a couple of letters and really mean "traitors" instead of haters.
The comedian Dana Gould had a comment on Bill Maher's show last night that for years the gun nuts were saying they needed guns to protect their freedoms but it turned out they were happy giving up their freedoms and liberties as long as they still had their guns. So in the end they really just had guns to protect their guns and they were satisfied. I kind of see that here a little bit, people sometimes seem more concerned that this movie is successful than they are that is good. (But of course it's good, it's been deemed so, right?)
well, then, I am here to tell you both that I have seen the movie and it's good, it's Trek, and it's a keeper.
seriously, it's time to stop the whining, folks. see the thing for yourselves, decide whether you like it or not, then put up or shut up.
EDIT: ugh. why do I even try. I should know better.
seriously, it's time to stop the whining, folks. see the thing for yourselves, decide whether you like it or not, then put up or shut up.
EDIT: ugh. why do I even try. I should know better.
Similar threads
