Which is more important: Quality or financial success?
- Thread starter Star Treks
- Start date
The whole issue of "quality" can simply be rephrased as: do YOU like it, do YOU think it's a good movie, in however you can define good (your perception of its artistic merit, or how much it entertains you). Surely we have all seen movies that we, personally, either consider good or bad for ourselves, our own sensibilities and tastes. I made that clear enoguh in the opening premise anyway.
And I KNOW it's a false choice in that it is possible for this new movie to both appeal to us individually AND make money, and that it is possible it will be a bomb that is also a terrible film. That's why this is a hypothetical; and it is perfectly valid and acceptable as a hypothetical.
And I KNOW it's a false choice in that it is possible for this new movie to both appeal to us individually AND make money, and that it is possible it will be a bomb that is also a terrible film. That's why this is a hypothetical; and it is perfectly valid and acceptable as a hypothetical.
I still think that the premise is bogus, even as reworded. I don't think that what I want is, in any SIGNIFICANT or MEANINGFUL way, different from what the overwhelming majority of moviegoers will want. I'm not being given a choice between "A" and "B"... I'm being given a choice between "A" and "A."
I want an entertaining film with believable, well-acted characters, in interesting and exciting situations. So does everyone else in the audience.
I simply want a few things that some folks might not care as much about, too. I want it to "fit" with what i already know. That doesn't PRECLUDE any of the above points, that EVERYONE wants from this movie.
The core of the argument, as posted (or as reworded) is that there are two totally dissimilar sets of wants. That's an argument I've always felt is false.
I want a film that will meet the demands of the general audience... AND that fits seamlessly into a fictional universe which the general audience may not know or care about.
My wants are a superset of the general audience wants, that's all. If I get what I want, everyone else gets what they want too. That's how I see it.
The Trek that general audiences didn't really like... because it didn't give them what they wanted... I didn't really like either, because it didn't give ME those things either!
See why I have a problem with the core of the original argument? I just think it's a totally flawed premise at its very core.
It's still an A/B definition. I didn't like Transformers, Transformers was a success at the box office. You like Blade Runner, Blade Runner was not a success at the box office. Success at the box office doesn't mean a majority of the planet's population liked the movie, but enough went to see it for it to earn back its production and advertising costs as well as making a substanial profit. So it's not you versus the world, it's you versus a lot of people who saw the movie and liked it.
Now, unless you are going to state that you like every film that has been successful at the box office that you have seen, (and that you withdraw your like of Blade Runner) you must concede that your opinion is not synonymous to box office success. Nor, I suspect, is any of ours. We're individuals, we make choices based on what we ourselves like or dislike.
Dammit, I don't have to "concede" or "withdraw" something I never said.
Stop that!
Once again... paraphrasing... "The studio considered Blade Runner to be a FAILURE" and "it was also a failure from the standpoint of many filmgoers."
It is considered a success, today, only because it eventually... EVENTUALLY (AS I CLEARLY STATED!!!) made a healthy profit.
Please stop trying to turn my argument into something other than what I'm actually saying.
**********************
Was "Transformers" a quality movie? YES, it was. Was it an EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH QUALITY MOVIE? Nope. It provided to audiences exactly what it promised... a popcorn movie. That's what the majority of people went to it expecting to see, and that's what got delivered. The studio got what they paid for, and it turned a nice little profit.
Was it "high art?" Nope. But anyone who seriously expected a TRANSFORMERS MOVIE to be "high art" ... well, I'd be worried about that person!
Now, there are those who hated the Transformers movie, and who consider it to NOT be "high quality" because they, personally, wanted it to be a perfect translation of what I've always considered to be a pathetically bad advertisement for bad toys to children and their gullible parents. Yep, I'm not a "transformers faithful" type.
The question is... what did the people who (like you) didn't like the movie EXPECT from it? How did it fail to deliver what you, as a member of the audience, were paying to receive?
If it didn't give you want you were there thinking you were paying for, from your standpoint, it WOULD be "low quality."
But for the overwhelming majority of people who went, it was exactly what they wanted, and if anything, FAR HIGHER QUALITY than they expected it to be. (I'm speaking from my own standpoint there... I remember, quite clearly my audible "no FUCKING WAY" callout when I first saw a "Transformers" trailer... utter incredulity.
It's an either/or, Cary. Blade Runner was not a success at the box office. You've said that A is B - which means success at the box office and your personal opinion exist hand in glove as two identical qualities.
As I have attempted to establish earlier, we're not talking about long term success due to a cult audience, such as Blade Runner. We're talking about short-term, immediate, blockbuster success. Therefore, if you like Blade Runner, then A is not B.
Okay, whatever you say. You win. You're right, I'm wrong.
Happy now?
Of course, I don't mean a bit of what I just said, but I'm done with the topic. You win. Yay.
Kegek said:
Yes.
But seriously, my apologies if I sounded antagonistic. I can get a bit ruthless in applying logic.
For what it's worth, I think you are right, Kegek, and I really get the feeling Cary just wanted to start an argument. Or he misspoke and didn't want to have to admit that he did.
Anywho, my vote is for big time financial success. The movies mean much less to me than the television shows, and despite what some perceive to the contrary, I think a new show is possible if this movie makes a ton of money.
Kegek said:
Yes.
But seriously, my apologies if I sounded antagonistic. I can get a bit ruthless in applying logic.
Who? YOU???
Never.
But your unwavering logic is part of your charm. Which really does NOTHING to explain the Talaxian avatar...but whatever.
Vulcan avatars are really more your style. I'm thinkin' Tuvok.
^ Oh good grief! 
Whadda I have to say to get you to make a joke, already!? Come on! I dare you! Say something wacky, all on purpose and shit.
Whadda I have to say to get you to make a joke, already!? Come on! I dare you! Say something wacky, all on purpose and shit.
^ 
Okay! Now THAT was funny! :thumbsup:
Okay! Now THAT was funny! :thumbsup:
Glad you two are having fun...
I certainly enjoyed Kegek's "funny" attempts to "beat me" by arguing against point I wasn't making by using points I had made as though they were the OPPOSITE of what I'd said.
But I ESPECIALLY enjoyed the humor where my personal motivations were "revealed," above.
Yep, THOSE were a real hoot.
I certainly enjoyed Kegek's "funny" attempts to "beat me" by arguing against point I wasn't making by using points I had made as though they were the OPPOSITE of what I'd said.
But I ESPECIALLY enjoyed the humor where my personal motivations were "revealed," above.
Yep, THOSE were a real hoot.
Well, I do admit I presented my argument poorly initially. I'm only human, even I, the great Kegek, am prone to mistake and error.
This said, your central argument was the following:
My point, quite simple, is that A: Your personal definition of quality remains different to B: Success at the box office. B is determined by enough people considering soemthing to be quality so it is a success. These people may or may not include you. It is true that A, in your case, may be the same as B, that you like a successful film, or you dislike an unsuccessful film. In fact, A being B may be the most likely outcome.
But there's still a chance that A is not B. In other posts Starship Polaris has expressed reasonable scepticism as to the film being a success at the box office, and if it fails, you may still like the result. Likewise with the roles flipped.
So, the hypothesis proposed by Star Treks is quite reasonable. It is not, as you term, 'bogus'. I've actually used a similar framing a device when explaining where I stand on the film.
I have no personal aminosity towards you. Actually, to be candid, I rather like you, you seem to have a great depth of technical knowledge.
This said, your central argument was the following:
My point, quite simple, is that A: Your personal definition of quality remains different to B: Success at the box office. B is determined by enough people considering soemthing to be quality so it is a success. These people may or may not include you. It is true that A, in your case, may be the same as B, that you like a successful film, or you dislike an unsuccessful film. In fact, A being B may be the most likely outcome.
But there's still a chance that A is not B. In other posts Starship Polaris has expressed reasonable scepticism as to the film being a success at the box office, and if it fails, you may still like the result. Likewise with the roles flipped.
So, the hypothesis proposed by Star Treks is quite reasonable. It is not, as you term, 'bogus'. I've actually used a similar framing a device when explaining where I stand on the film.
I have no personal aminosity towards you. Actually, to be candid, I rather like you, you seem to have a great depth of technical knowledge.
Quality is MUCH more important, especially if major Trek canon has been destroyed/altered in the name of profits and to supposedly bring in the non-Trek crowd.
While the movie succeeding well at the box office IS a great thing, there are many other factors that have to be taken into consideration. IS Paramount throwing more than $2 and a biscuit in budget at the film? Will the special effects be top quality? Will the script be well-written and benefit from solid characterization, not some lame ass "reboot". Trek isn't BSG. There is 40 years of established canon to deal with, not one season of a mediocre TV show (No, I don't count "Galactica 1980").
This whole movie project has had me concerned, as a very long time Trek fan, for a while now. I had hoped that J.J. Abrams would actually help improve Trek's chances of making a solid return. But hearing the canon alterations thus far has me even more concerned. I tolerated the "skirting the edges" of canon in Enterprise, but completely altering canon that has been long established greatly bothers me. I don't know that I can overlook it in favor of simply wanted the movie to succeed at the box office. Where would it end?
While the movie succeeding well at the box office IS a great thing, there are many other factors that have to be taken into consideration. IS Paramount throwing more than $2 and a biscuit in budget at the film? Will the special effects be top quality? Will the script be well-written and benefit from solid characterization, not some lame ass "reboot". Trek isn't BSG. There is 40 years of established canon to deal with, not one season of a mediocre TV show (No, I don't count "Galactica 1980").
This whole movie project has had me concerned, as a very long time Trek fan, for a while now. I had hoped that J.J. Abrams would actually help improve Trek's chances of making a solid return. But hearing the canon alterations thus far has me even more concerned. I tolerated the "skirting the edges" of canon in Enterprise, but completely altering canon that has been long established greatly bothers me. I don't know that I can overlook it in favor of simply wanted the movie to succeed at the box office. Where would it end?
Absolutely Right(TM).
As a Star Trek fan, I would definitely say both. But truth be told, the skeptical fatalist in me says that high box office reciepts is the only thing that matters to Viacom/Paramount. The Paramount of old had stopped caring about the franchise. But it seems their opinion of Trek has changed. Now it seems like they're actually outwardly concerned about the quality of the new Star Trek for he first time in decades. And I am relieved. But in the end, I'd still say the only thing Paramount is concerned about is whether they can make the Star Trek franchise a powerhouse cash cow once again.
