Why was the new "Star trek" movie a success?
- Thread starter Jayson
- Start date
A SUCCESS?
This thing obviously bombed, and it bombed because this movie took a giant crap all over Gene Goddenberry's vision of a Utopian future where all of mankind and could exist in a Genetopia society. It was this same man's vision that inspired the likes of Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm Jamal Warner to stand up and bring together people of all races and unify....
Ahhh fuck it. It was a success because the movie had balls!
This thing obviously bombed, and it bombed because this movie took a giant crap all over Gene Goddenberry's vision of a Utopian future where all of mankind and could exist in a Genetopia society. It was this same man's vision that inspired the likes of Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm Jamal Warner to stand up and bring together people of all races and unify....
Ahhh fuck it. It was a success because the movie had balls!
It wasn't a Berman and Braga bloated flick.
It was fresh and exciting visit with an old friend.
It was fresh and exciting visit with an old friend.
Also, women like the movie. Any sci-fi/adventure movie that appeals to women (of all ages) is likely to be more successful than one that appeals largely to young men. I think the emotional resonance in the movie makes a huge difference to women - who are less likely to be drawn to a movie that's largely a bang-fest.
You, sir, have earned my new sig, what with that lovingly crafted wordplay.
No more Jerry Goldsmith
No more Hermann Zimmerman
No more Michael Westmore
Trek got rid of stuff that it had always stuck to and stepped outside of itself for a change. Instead of pretending to be cool it sorta embraced being nerdy without actually being nerdy, and thus became cool for it.
Add in all the genuinely cool stuff like car chase, bike riding and bar brawl and the whole thing worked. Granted there were cliches everywhere, but it worked.
Timing was also key. You couldn't do a recast of TOS in the 80s because the TOS films were going on and it would have been seen as blatant heresey. You couldn't do a recast of TOS in the 90s because now the TNG films were happening and it still would have seemed like heresey to recast Shatner and Nimoy. The franchise had to get worn out completely in the 00s for people to accept new and different ideas that they wouldn't have been open to 10 or 15 years earlier.
No more Hermann Zimmerman
No more Michael Westmore
Trek got rid of stuff that it had always stuck to and stepped outside of itself for a change. Instead of pretending to be cool it sorta embraced being nerdy without actually being nerdy, and thus became cool for it.
Add in all the genuinely cool stuff like car chase, bike riding and bar brawl and the whole thing worked. Granted there were cliches everywhere, but it worked.
Timing was also key. You couldn't do a recast of TOS in the 80s because the TOS films were going on and it would have been seen as blatant heresey. You couldn't do a recast of TOS in the 90s because now the TNG films were happening and it still would have seemed like heresey to recast Shatner and Nimoy. The franchise had to get worn out completely in the 00s for people to accept new and different ideas that they wouldn't have been open to 10 or 15 years earlier.
Indeed, and these things go in phases. Lots of pessimistic science fiction in the 70s, some good stuff at that. And then Star Wars came out. Phases. And we are here to enjoy it all.
Or pick and choose, whatever.
Just got back from seeing it. The successful elements abound, and the few unsuccessful ones hardly matter.
The unsuccessful or meh elements, just to get them out of the way: Simon Pegg as Scotty was just a bad idea. Scotty isn't a bossy comedian, he's an eternally put-upon sad sack. I didn't know who the heck that character was, and I'm not interested in seeing more of him. Maybe they can recast scotty for the next movie.
And Nero as a villain was pretty disposable. Got the job done but didn't add anything to our understanding of Romulans (he seemed too human!) I didn't even buy him as an alien, and he certainly isn't one of Trek's more memorable villains.
But they got the big things right: Quinto is Spock now; he's managed to evict Nimoy from my image of Spock, something I wouldn't have even thought possible. Pine is also outstanding; Urban is great (he even got the subtle Georgia lilt just right!); Saldana does a great job with a very different (but she has to be) Uhura; Cho and Yelchin are just fine.
The elements they changed - giving Kirk a more rebellious path to the captain's chair, amping up the angst factor for Spock by destroying Vulcan, and introducing a new element for Spock and Uhura by having them be a couple - aren't fundamental changes that would upset the feel of Star Trek, but do leave the door open to interesting variations from the saga we already know. This isn't canon being changed because of sloppiness; these changes were considered for their dramatic impact and future story possibilities. Nice job.
Nimoy being on hand to pass the torch was a great touch, as was the original theme music at the end. And they brought humor back to Star Trek! "Out of the chair."
And the injokes about Archer's beagle, "I'm a doctor, not a..." etc.
And of course there was the action, space battles, etc. But we all expect that from a summer flick. It's the characters and the story, as well as the potential for the future, that made this a cut above.
10/10. Star Trek is back!
The unsuccessful or meh elements, just to get them out of the way: Simon Pegg as Scotty was just a bad idea. Scotty isn't a bossy comedian, he's an eternally put-upon sad sack. I didn't know who the heck that character was, and I'm not interested in seeing more of him. Maybe they can recast scotty for the next movie.
And Nero as a villain was pretty disposable. Got the job done but didn't add anything to our understanding of Romulans (he seemed too human!) I didn't even buy him as an alien, and he certainly isn't one of Trek's more memorable villains.
But they got the big things right: Quinto is Spock now; he's managed to evict Nimoy from my image of Spock, something I wouldn't have even thought possible. Pine is also outstanding; Urban is great (he even got the subtle Georgia lilt just right!); Saldana does a great job with a very different (but she has to be) Uhura; Cho and Yelchin are just fine.
The elements they changed - giving Kirk a more rebellious path to the captain's chair, amping up the angst factor for Spock by destroying Vulcan, and introducing a new element for Spock and Uhura by having them be a couple - aren't fundamental changes that would upset the feel of Star Trek, but do leave the door open to interesting variations from the saga we already know. This isn't canon being changed because of sloppiness; these changes were considered for their dramatic impact and future story possibilities. Nice job.
Nimoy being on hand to pass the torch was a great touch, as was the original theme music at the end. And they brought humor back to Star Trek! "Out of the chair."
And the injokes about Archer's beagle, "I'm a doctor, not a..." etc.And of course there was the action, space battles, etc. But we all expect that from a summer flick. It's the characters and the story, as well as the potential for the future, that made this a cut above.
10/10. Star Trek is back!
As a Georgian, I disagree. IMO, Urban's accent sounded nothing like a Georgian and nothing like Dee Kelley.
Not that it matters, of course. I loved the film, too.
I think it was successful because the marketing was effective and the film was enjoyable enough to engender a strong WOM.
Agreed--but I greatly enjoyed Pegg as Scotty...
It was a success because Paramount chose to promote it as a summertime tentpole. The marketing and revitalization of Star Trek's image has been underway since "it" man J.J. was attached the project years ago.
The promotional budget of this film was probably larger than Nemesis' entire production budget. Also, its relatively simplistic plot full of explosions and action caters well to those wanting to see a summertime "shoot
em up" flick.
Also, recasting young hot bodies and introducing a simplistic romance theme caters to the female crowd. It certainly couldn't have been the terrible writing and direction of the film I'll tell y'all that!
The promotional budget of this film was probably larger than Nemesis' entire production budget. Also, its relatively simplistic plot full of explosions and action caters well to those wanting to see a summertime "shoot
em up" flick.
Also, recasting young hot bodies and introducing a simplistic romance theme caters to the female crowd. It certainly couldn't have been the terrible writing and direction of the film I'll tell y'all that!
Must chap your hide, all the ass this thing is kicking.
I think the final trailer made a *HUGE* difference... I think it was the best put together trailer I have seen for a couple of years. That alone, I think, made up a lot of minds of "regular moviegoers" to see the film.
Paramount simply hit a marketing home-run. But much more than marketing quantity - they knew they had a film on their hands which had incredible crossover appeal, so they were confident in how they would target different ads for different demographics.
But all marketing does for you is give you a big opening weekend. After that, it is *ALL* word -of-mouth. And you only get that with a movie that really does deliver the entertainment goods.
Paramount simply hit a marketing home-run. But much more than marketing quantity - they knew they had a film on their hands which had incredible crossover appeal, so they were confident in how they would target different ads for different demographics.
But all marketing does for you is give you a big opening weekend. After that, it is *ALL* word -of-mouth. And you only get that with a movie that really does deliver the entertainment goods.
Oops, double-post.
And this one did. A quality production that proudly bears the name Star TRek.
Lens flares. They turn anyone who views the movie into the drooling masses. The drooling masses who will have 0s added to the front of their license plate numbers. Paramount tried to create the perfect movie audience. But something went wrong. 1 in every 100 Star Trek fan went violent with rage. They soon took over the world. And that my friends, is how the Firefly-verse Reavers were really created.
I think it was a combination of things.
One, it was a damn entertaining movie.
Two, positive word of mouth due to good reviews and again, because it was a good movie.
Three, it had a very marketable cast.
I also think that a large amount of support came from Trekkies suffering from substance withdrawalYes yes, I know people will deny it (judging by responses in some other threads) but I've got the feeling that 4 years without trek has left some people itching for some more of their favorite drug
I'm still in withdrawal. When's the sequel coming out?
Similar threads
