Which is more important: Quality or financial success?

[Sharr Khan]

high box office reciepts is the only thing that matters to Viacom/Paramount.

Well this has always been the case, from the moment Desilu gave GR money to make "The Cage", its why Star Trek exists.

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.

I agree with you there, new blood was needed for a long time in this franchise - long before "Enterprise" came to be at that. The last custodians of the Franchise were basically remaking the same formula over and over again and it got "Tired" to both watch and make.

But in the end, I'd still say the only thing Paramount is whether they can make the Star Trek franchise a powerhouse cash cow once again.

This isn't a bad thing and why any studio fronts money to make a tv show or movie, doesn't mean these things can't have artistic merit but they do exist to make money and when they stop doing that someone needs to either fix the problem or the studio needs to find a new cash cow.

Sharr

 

[Flavius]

What ever gets us another one.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Financial success without quality will be the worst possible thing, as it will guarantee the ultimate transformation of Trek into shitty blockbuster fare. A couple of bad and unsuccessful sequels will follow and then the franchise will subside into the same sad zombie half-life it had after NEM and ENT. Perhaps Paramount will mercifully let it effectively go gentle into that good night.

Quality without financial success will be tragic but nobly so and will result in a bunch of people saying, years from now: you know, that was an overlooked and underrated film. the franchise dies a much more dignified and fitting death--a hero's death, as it were, with the possibility of resurrection in the far off future--say, a decade.

For me, it comes down to this: TOS was the latter and its what I fell in love with. The ouvre of Michael Bay stands as a good example of the former (remind me who wrote the screenplay of his last opus...) and I tend to stay home more oft than not.

Now a movie that scores on both fronts? That'll shut us "let Trek die a dignified death" folk up but good. Gotta admit, I'm secretly hoping it shuts me up big time.

 

[Jack Bauer]

The most important thing for me is that I enjoy it. If it sucks then all the box office success in the world really doesn't matter. I'd rather have a good movie, a noble failure than a successful one. Actually I'd rather have a really good movie and big box office!

 

[ialfan]

Quality.

 

[FordSVT]

Pellmelody said:
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?

I have no idea what "canon violations" you're talking about, do you have access to a script you should be sharing with the rest of us? If you're just getting hung up over the fact that the Enterprise isn't "hanging from wires" any more, or that young Kirk doesn't look like Bill Shatner would have in 1960, NOTHING will please you. Other than that, there is NOTHING to suggest this is a reboot or will contain any significant factual canon violations.

Chekov isn't Polish, and the Romulans won't have horns.

Much like with Enterprise, I think a lot of this stuff is in people's heads. They've made up their own back story or make assumptions about things or read something in an old TOS novel and at the first whiff of something that might contradict their own opinions they claim canon is being violated.

So please, enlighten me, because you seem to be in the minority with your opinion, an opinion that has even been refuted by the producers.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Kegek said: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.

Except that I didn't say that.

Okay, let me try a different approach. Do you remember your "sets" math problems from back when you were a kid?

Since you seem not to be understanding what I'm saying... I'll use a "set notation" illustration to, hopefully, make it clearer (I won't use the "set notation equations" though... no need to confuse the non-mathematically-inclined!)

I stated that I see the original premise of the question to be flawed, because it represents the FIRST element of the image below. You can substitute "commercial success" for "what everyone else wants" and "quality" for "what fans want." That's TYPICALLY what those terms mean when discussed in this context. (Not saying those are MY terms... they're not... just that this is what people who make this argument typically mean. Still, even if that's not the case, you can still make the substitution and have the argument hold.)

See what MY point is, versus what I think the point of the question is? This also works, just as well, with the substitution I mention of "quality" and "success."

Quality and success are NOT the same, but they are also NOT opposites. The premise of the question, as I stated, indicates that you have to choose one or the other, that they're not compatible.

My view is that you cannot have a success unless there's quality. You can have quality without IMMEDIATE success, too (though, as I mentioned in the case of Blade Runner, the film DID eventually become a success, largely because there's a vocal and influential group who DO think it's quality, and it was therefore a success with them).

The objection I have to the question isn't that I think that , as you said, "A equals B." It's not just that "A equals B" or "A is the diametrical opposite of B." That's a false choice.

I think that if a film is quality based upon "what the masses want," it will be financially successful with those masses. I think that if a film is quality based upon "what the fans what," it will be successful with fans.

A film that is successful with fans need not be successful with the general audience. A film that is successful with the general audience need not be successful with the fans...

But that can ONLY be the case if "what the fans want" and "what the general audiences want" are two different things.

THAT IS WHAT I DISAGREE WITH.

I think that what fans want and what general audiences want are the same things... the fans just want a little bit MORE as well (but don't REALLY want anything that the general audiences DON'T).

Fan wishes are a SUPERSET of general audience wishes.

What will make us, as fans, think it's a "quality film," or what will make non-fans think of it as a "quality film," are the very elements that will make it successful.

There is no real discontinuity between those two. That's what I'm saying.

The false argument, then, is that what makes it "quality" (from a fan's standpoint or anyone else's standpoint) is NOT what's going to make it successful.

 

[stonester1]

Actually, you CAN have success without quality. All kinds of crap films pull in big money. Successful doesn't mean quality, nor does quality guarantee success.

I can name several quality items that struggled or failed, and several things that succeeded that sucked/got bad reviews/lacked anything that could be identified as quality.

Here's hoping Trek has both, and with Abrams in charge, hopes are high.

 

[FordSVT]

But plenty of people around here seem to think Abrams is a "hack" and everything he does is shit. There's the "perception of quality" problem again.

I'm hoping to get a movie that appeals to both the mainstream AND fans. SCREW THE NITPICKERS. Who's with me?

Having said that, the OP question is a tough one. I guess I'd rather see a movie I live that fails than a movie that did well but I hated, but I'd be disappointed with either result.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

To me: Quality
To the Franchise: Financial Success

Although having said that, the film NEEDS to have some semblance of quality -- even if it is huge financially -- to keep the people coming back for the next one, thus keeping the franchise going. If this film gets AWFUL reviews, but is commercially successful (which has happenend in Hollywood before), then the franchise's reputation may be damaged beyond repair -- at least for several years. Sure they can possibly make another film, riding on the financial success of an awful film, but that next one better be damn good.

If this film is commercially successful, and is of even mediocre quality, the franchise will be healthy again.

But as I said, I am personally hoping for quality, and figuring (in my jaded view of the world) that the financial success will ultimately follow.

 

[Kegek]

Cary L. Brown said:
Insofar as we mean 'quality' as 'something somebody determines to be quality', this is correct. A film is a success at the box office because enough people consider it quality.

But this is not the kind of quality Star Treks is talking about. It is not the kind of quality I am talking about. The distinction between quality and success is, first, what you consider quality and, second, what is a success at the box office. Not a long term success, an immediate one - as I said, that's the kind that would ensure a sequel. Blade Runner is an excellent example of what Star Treks is proposing, because it is a film you personally consider to be quality, and which was a failure at the box office.

Therefore, Star Treks' question is fairly reasonable.

Okay, let me try a different approach. Do you remember your "sets" math problems from back when you were a kid?

Those are Venn diagrams, aren't they? I don't remember ever calling them 'sets', but then I was never any good at maths. Assuming they are Venn diagrams, permit me to provide some of my own:

These are the two principles I will be considering. Why do I call the orange one 'Box Office Success'? Well, this represents exactly what it stands for. I don't claim that box office success also equals 'the general public', just enough people go to the film for it to make money. Please note instead of the fans I have 'Person X'. Who is Person X? Person X is you, Person X is me. Person X is any hypothetical person who wants the next Star Trek film to be what he considers to be a good movie. The reason why I did not chose the term fans should be obvious for two reasons. First, the fans are an amorphous entity. Anyone who has been on this board knows that there are intense disagreements about virtually every aspect of Star Trek, what Star Trek consitutes as quality and what does not. You can't fit us all into one Venn circle.

To put this another way:

Both you and I agree on Blade Runner, but not on Transformers. I would include here a film I like and you don't, but I don't know any. What is not at issue here is the fans, but individuals. We all have our own opinions on what constitutes a quality film. My favourite Hitchcock film, for example, is Topaz. So far as I know, I am the only person who believes this - the film was considered a step down for the director not just by audiences, but by critics, and even the extras on the DVD I posess involve a bit of Topaz bashing for those concerned.

Now, let us assume that Abrams film is a box office success. There are two possible responses by Person X to this fact:

In A., Person X considers the film to be of quality, in B., he does not. Both are hypothetical possibilities for anyone on this board. There are no doubt different chances of likelihood - for example, the chance you will reach position B. may be as low as some purists from reaching position A.. But as hypotheses go, it's not 'bogus', it is both possible and maybe even probable. Nobody, including myself, is saying this will happen. Nor are we speculating on its likelihood. But either possibility might, and it's an interesting contrast to ponder.

Now, your central premise is that what the fans what is by and large what the general public wants, and that being the case, a box office success will be greeted with the position outlined in your Venn diagram and something similar to my position A.. It is no doubt possible that many individual persons will reach position A., but the position of the fanbase will be more like this:

The size of the circle is not intended to have any significance here. Perhaps the majority of the fanbase will be in the purple (liking it) with just a sliver of blue (unliking it), but this will be the response. And so, while individual opinion and the box office differ, the fans and the box office also do not entirely overlap - and thus are distinct entities.

I submit to you two examples: Star Trek: The Voyage Home, and Star Trek: First Contact. Both of these films were box office successes, both of these films have their fans in the fanbase. But they also have their critics. Offhand, both I and trevanian have criticised Star Trek: The Voyage Home, Star Trek: First Contact's critics include The God Thing and YouTube critic confusedmatthew (two fans I doubt I would normally mention in the same sentence).

Finally, a side issue: I have limited the definition of success to success at the box office. But even if we include long term success with revivals, DVDs, and cult audiences, I am sure you will find films you do not like - successes that do not equal your standards of quality. I've certainly come across the odd cult film I'm not too fond of. Last week I had a look at Eureka's recent release of Fantastic Planet, and as intriguing as it appeared, I have to admit it was too weird for my standards. Group quality, as I've said in many ways, doesn't apply to this question - it gives you a possible premise of having your definition of quality be in the minority, even if only for the short term.

In conclusion: However you wish to define A (and have done so) or B (and have done so), Star Treks has constructed a reasonable hypothesis.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

This isn't even a question. The answer is #2.... and everybody in this thread who doesn't get a paycheck from Paramount and Co. should be voting that way too.