Which is more important: Quality or financial success?

[Star Treks]

I know this is a loaded question... but let's say that you had to choose one of the following two options:

#1. You don't like the movie. Maybe you think it's cheesy, poorly written. Trek fans in general are mixed but the overall tenor is one of disappointment with the quality of the film. And yet, because of marketing, hype, hopes, and a very strong showing from the non-hardcore Trek fans, Abrams fans, etc., the movie does very well - not the world's biggest boxoffice success, but a very strong and profitable movie which can be called a "hit"...

or

#2. The movie is really good; you like it a lot; you rank it At Least among your top 3 or 4 Trek movies, maybe better. Trek fans are mostly positive, even the critics give it a thumbs up. But for whatever reason, it just doesn't do well at the box office; maybe it turns out there isn't as big a market as might be expected; Abrams' name doesn't draw; and the movie is a boxoffice failure. Maybe not a stupendous bomb, but a failure.

You have to choose one of these two. Which do you go for?
I need to add the reminder that some (not all, but some - including me) feel that the financial success of the movie could have a significant effect on the state of the franchise in the future; obviously, a huge hit is more likely to give us another movie, but also you have to think about how the owners of Trek are going to see the franchise as a whole in the light of how this next movie does.

Which do you choose?

 

[InstantKarma]

Quality is more important. Look at Bladerunner.

It did poorly in the box office, but here we are decades later and it's raked in millions each year.

 

[Kegek]

In simple terms?

For Abrams and the rest, financial success is of course their goal. Which is exactly as it should be. Quality is a far more subjective term; but I'd hazard a guess that they're seeking to make what they consider a quality film that is also a financial success.

For me, quality is the only concern. If the film does well at the box office, good for it, but it is most important to me that I find it entertaining. Which is, again, as it should be. Star Trek is not a religion for me, it is a mode of entertainment, and I feel beholden to it only as long as it entertains me.

 

[Sharr Khan]

InstantKarma said:
Quality is more important. Look at Bladerunner.

It did poorly in the box office, but here we are decades later and it's raked in millions each year.

That model won't benefit Star Trek as a brand. Its all fine and good to want "Quality" and don't get me wrong I want a good product as well - something that is fun and worth it.

But to copy a blog I wrote the other night:

JJ Abrams Star Trek Movie - my hopes.

Its really simple and will likely offend some diehard Star Trek fans. I hope its successful, I don't even care if its "good Star Trek" too many Trek productions have been first and foremost been overly concerned with being "Good Star Trek.tm" and not just simply being good television or movies.

I want this movie to be "popular entertainment" consumable by the masses. Every Star Trek fan who actually cares about it should want the same not some elite Trek movie with some faux high-minded metaphor that proves "how smart" it is. If it does that Trek will be gone for a good long time - most of us won't be very young by the time we get to see anything labeled Star Trek if that happens.

Sharr

 

[Therin of Andor]

Star Treks said:
#1. You don't like the movie. Maybe you think it's cheesy, poorly written. Trek fans in general are mixed but the overall tenor is one of disappointment with the quality of the film. And yet, because of marketing, hype, hopes, and a very strong showing from the non-hardcore Trek fans, Abrams fans, etc., the movie does very well - not the world's biggest boxoffice success, but a very strong and profitable movie which can be called a "hit"...

Sounds like ST:TMP. About ten years ago, it started getting respect from more than just one slivver of ST fans.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

InstantKarma's point is absolutely correct.

I think that the entire argument is a bogus one. Quality movies make money, poor-quality movies do not.

Of course, how you define "quality" can be subject to debate. A key element of quality is "well-done, artistically" but an equally key element is "entertaining to the audience" (which was an area that Blade Runner came in short on, and thus was originally considered a failure.. and thus LOW QUALITY... by the studio).

The thing is, if it's actually quality (like Blade Runner), it will not simply drop off the map and be forgotten. THAT is the true measure of quality, IMHO. Nobody today really remembers "Battle Beyond The Stars," do they?

And if it's quality, and is remembered beyond it's initial theatrical run, it will make money, inevitably. In a case like Blade Runner, it may take a while... but it WILL happen.

The REAL question here is "should short-term profitability trump quality filmmaking." And I don't think ANYONE here, or anyone who cares about the long-term profitability of a studio for that matter, would argue in favor of that.

 

[Kegek]

Sharr Khan said:
I want this movie to be "popular entertainment" consumable by the masses. Every Star Trek fan who actually cares about it should want the same not some elite Trek movie with some faux high-minded metaphor that proves "how smart" it is. If it does that Trek will be gone for a good long time - most of us won't be very young by the time we get to see anything labeled Star Trek if that happens.

Hm. This provides an interesting point for me to elaborate on, if you don't mind. I don't care on what level it entertains me - whether it's an exciting action-adventure flick or a more cerebral sci-fi film... just so long as it entertains me. That's all I ask.

Cary L. Brown said:
I think that the entire argument is a bogus one. Quality movies make money, poor-quality movies do not.

Oh, come now Cary. Surely there are some smash box office hits you didn't like - and spectacular duds you're fond of? I recall you posting about the Blade Runner DVD, and that film was definitely a failure at the box office.

Quality is not determined by popularity because quality is not an objective conception. It is an inherently subjective idea.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Kegek said:

Cary L. Brown said:I think that the entire argument is a bogus one. Quality movies make money, poor-quality movies do not.

Oh, come now Cary. Surely there are some smash box office hits you didn't like - and spectacular duds you're fond of? I recall you posting about the Blade Runner DVD, and that film was definitely a failure at the box office.

Quality is not determined by popularity because quality is not an objective conception. It is an inherently subjective idea.

Now, Kegek, I know you read my ENTIRE POST, so I'm a bit off-put by the fact that you're using something I actually said in my post as PART of my argument as though it's a counter-argument to what I said.

Specifically, I clearly pointed out that Blade Runner was considered a failure initially. But because it was "quality" it has turned out, LONG TERM, to be very profitable for the studio.

I also pointed out a film that did decent "first run" box-office... "Battle Beyond The Stars." It recouped its investment. But now, because it was low-quality, it has long since been forgotten.

I also pointed out that what defines "quality" is a topic we can judge somewhat subjectively... and that "entertaining to the audience" is at least as much a part of that as "artistic sensibilities" might be.

So, each of your "counter-arguments" is actually not a counter-argument at all but is actually something I said as PART of my argument.

How'd ya miss that?

 

[Kegek]

Cary L. Brown said:
Specifically, I clearly pointed out that Blade Runner was considered a failure initially. But because it was "quality" it has turned out, LONG TERM, to be very profitable for the studio.

Alright. Let me turn this around on its head: Just because something is a cult film, does that mean it's any good? Yes, there are films that have a loyal fanbase long after they're released (and bombed on the box office), and those films do well in home video.

But do you consider all these films good? I, personally, can think of cult films I don't care for. I don't even think Blade Runner is that great - it's just good, nothing too spectacular. When it comes to critical and financial mainstays of success, all of us have films in which our evaluation of quality is in the minority.

I didn't ignore your argument, though I admit I was a bit lopsided in presenting mine.

And, naturally, I believe Star Treks is referring to box office success. That's the kind of thing that generates sequels and an ongoing franchise. Ridley Scott briefly talks about him thinking about the possibility of a Blade Runner sequel when he was making the movie, and we all know where that went and why. A cult film will not sustain a franchise, Blade Runner may be remembered decades later but it's Transformers that has a sequel in production.

 

[Woulfe]

Why can't we have both ?

TMP was able to deliver on both, granted it took awhile to get a FINISHED film out of it but that's besides the point.

- W -
* Who can't stop smileing after seeing the pic of the Enterprise *

 

[Roshi]

Fuck quality! Bring in cash!

 

[Therin of Andor]

Woulfe said:
TMP was able to deliver on both, granted it took awhile to get a FINISHED film out of it but that's besides the point.

A huge section of ST fandom hated TMP very much. Many of these fans went to see it more than once because... there wasn't any other new ST out there, TOS wasn't playing on syndication for a few months either side of the premiere, and they didn't even have video copies.

 

[Star Treks]

I have to respectfully disagree with the argument that quality films make money, poor films do not.

This necessitates an absolute equation that success with an audience that leads to profitability automatically equals quality.

Of course, artistic merit is also subjective; but, frankly, some terrible movies have made a lot of money and some very good ones have not. Of course, quality and money can sometimes go together, but they're not the same thing.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Well, what I want is this: a movie I find entertaining and that does very well at the box office. But right now, I care more about the financial success. Would be better for the franchise, and that's what I want... ultimately.

But I'm sure I'll enjoy it anyway, whether it becomes a hit or not.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, if I don't like the movie its success is meaningless to me.

That said, I pick 1 and 2.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Star Treks said:
I have to respectfully disagree with the argument that quality films make money, poor films do not.

This necessitates an absolute equation that success with an audience that leads to profitability automatically equals quality.

Of course, artistic merit is also subjective; but, frankly, some terrible movies have made a lot of money and some very good ones have not. Of course, quality and money can sometimes go together, but they're not the same thing.

Well, that goes to my point of "how do you define quality?"

It IS very subjective. Going back to the Blade Runner example... the studio felt that it was POOR QUALITY initially, because it didn't make money at first. And for many members of the "general audience" it wasn't sufficiently cheerfully entertaining, so for THEM it also wasn't "high quality."

Because "quality" depends on what the people who are paying you to do it THINK it means... nothing more or less.

"Blade Runner" sunk in with a small market segment who "get it." Of course, this segment consists, among others, of an inordinately large number of film school instructors, working filmmakers, etc, etc. And because of that... because it delivered to them what THEY wanted... from their standpoint it is VERY high quality. And because of that... the fact that it delivered what this reasonably small market really wanted, better than most any other film out there... it has become a success, LONG TERM.

So... "quality" is entirely subjective and based upon what the person judging it WANTS it to be. I think we all agree on that.

According to your point, then... yes, there IS an absolute equation that "quality equals profitability." Why? Because "quality" in this case is "giving people what they're paying for."

If 100% of the moviegoing audience wants to see "Punk'd - The Movie!" more than anything else, then giving them exactly what they want IS "quality filmmaking." And will be profitable.

If a filmmaker spends millions making a film that nobody WANTS... and creates his own personal "artistic vision" which serves no purpose but to alienate the entire audience... it may be PRICEY, and it may be TECHNICALLY WELL DONE, but it will not be QUALITY. Because it fails to deliver what the people paying for it want to receive.

That's my point.

I just think that the argument that there's a CHOICE between making a quality film and making a profitable film is a false choice. If you make a quality film... that is, if you give the audience what they want to see (which includes good writing, good acting, good visuals, good design, etc, etc), then you're providing a quality work.

This entire argument is predicated upon the assumption that quality is defined some other way, I think. SO... if quality isn't "giving people what they WANT (which in the case of a Trek film means all of the abovelisted criteria)... what DOES it mean?

 

[Kegek]

^
So, basically, (and correct me if I'm wrong) you're saying that the success of any film can be attributed to people considering it to be a quality product. This is certainly true; but it is not the terms of the initial question.

The issue at hand is whether you would chose between what you consider a quality film and this film being a success. Or, in other words: Between the film being quality as you consider it, or the film being quality as enough people to make it a box office hit consider it.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Kegek said:
^
So, basically, (and correct me if I'm wrong) you're saying that the success of any film can be attributed to people considering it to be a quality product. This is certainly true; but it is not the terms of the initial question.

The issue at hand is whether you would chose between what you consider a quality film and this film being a success. Or, in other words: Between the film being quality as you consider it, or the film being quality as enough people to make it a box office hit consider it.

That's exactly right. And that's why I said that I consider the original premise of the question to be bogus.

 

[Kegek]

^
I don't follow. I've basically reworded what amounts to the same premise.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

You said "So, basically, (and correct me if I'm wrong) you're saying that the success of any film can be attributed to people considering it to be a quality product. This is certainly true; but it is not the terms of the initial question."

To which I responded:

"That's exactly right. And that's why I said that I consider the original premise of the question to be bogus."

I should have trimmed out the second paragraph for clarity, huh?