Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoilers

[Vyse]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

More movie-goers disagree with you than agree with you by the only real standard of measurement. It's illogical to assert that "most people would agree" about the relative quality of two X-Men movies if the behavior of movie-goers contradicts that. What you're asserting is no more than "I've heard more people say this than say that."

How is that a standard of measurement on how people like a film or not? You're assuming that everyone who sees the movie likes it. You are also assuming that everyone who didn't see STID wouldn't like it. How is it any way logical to say that simply because a movie was more popular automatically means it is better? How is it logical to assume that everyone who saw the movie enjoyed it? By that logic, shows like American Idol and other reality shows are the "best" on TV. Indiana Jones 4 made a lot of money, yet it is not regarded very well. On IMDB X-Men 3 has a 6.8 rating, and First Class has a 7.8 rating, yet X-Men 3 made more money. Also on IMDB, Star Wars Episode 1 has a 6.5 rating, while Star Wars Episode 3 has a 7.7 rating. Yet Episode 1 made more money than Episode 3, so by your logic Episode 1 is the better film. Isn't rating a movie a better measurement of quality since that is people's opinion of the movie, not just that they saw it?

Like I said before, what movie you think is better is subjective. If you think MOS was better, good for you. I respectfully disagree.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Whether you like it or not is subjective. When you have people buying tons of tickets, that is a trend. People buy tickets to movies they want to see.

I'll never understand the popularity of the Twilight films but I also can't argue against it nor can I really argue the subjective quality, because that just comes down to personal taste.

 

[Lance]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Bottom line: Star Trek isn't the broad crowd puller that Paramount thinks it is. The franchise stands more chance of success if they don't put it up against movies with much better street cred.

ST:TMP performed well - and had a very broad demographic - because it followed almost a decade of TOS (and TAS) repeats in syndication, and at times when children could watch with their parents: early evening prime time.

It hasn't had the same "crowd puller" value ever since. Certainly, the success of TNG in first-run syndication in Seasons 3-6 (its peak?) had merchandising running high, but it was perhaps all downhill since then - with the latter series screening later and later to fewer and fewer - until Bad Robot revived things in 2009.

Pretty much confirms what I was thinking. Even in the Bad Robot era, the name of 'Star Trek' will just never have the same kind of name cache as an Iron Man or Superman.

The BR reboot has indisputably given Star Trek a shot in the arm, given it the best chance in decades of actually tapping into the mainstream... but in terms of the wider mainstream audience, putting it up against Iron Man has proven that it doesn't have the pulling power that maybe Paramount might have expected following the success of ST2009.

IMO Star Trek as a movie franchise needs to be nurtured, the worst thing Paramount can do is to send it into the ring against opponents that are in a much heavier weight class. They did this with Nemesis, and (while STID has obviously been a bigger success than Nemesis ever could have been) they appear to have made the same 'mistake' with STID.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Whether you like it or not is subjective. When you have people buying tons of tickets, that is a trend. People buy tickets to movies they want to see.

I'll never understand the popularity of the Twilight films but I also can't argue against it nor can I really argue the subjective quality, because that just comes down to personal taste.

Exactly so.

 

[Vyse]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Whether you like it or not is subjective. When you have people buying tons of tickets, that is a trend. People buy tickets to movies they want to see.

I'll never understand the popularity of the Twilight films but I also can't argue against it nor can I really argue the subjective quality, because that just comes down to personal taste.

Me neither, I will never understand the Twilight craze. I'm just saying that Box Office Returns is not causative to the quality of a film. Something being popular doesn't automatically mean it's of high quality. That's it.

 

[Lance]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Whether you like it or not is subjective. When you have people buying tons of tickets, that is a trend. People buy tickets to movies they want to see.

I'll never understand the popularity of the Twilight films but I also can't argue against it nor can I really argue the subjective quality, because that just comes down to personal taste.

Me neither, I will never understand the Twilight craze. I'm just saying that Box Office Returns is not causative to the quality of a film. Something being popular doesn't automatically mean it's of high quality. That's it.

I don't think anybody would argue that it would be.

Success is simply the most objective way to judge a product, but subjectivite opinion must always count for something in the final analysis.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Something being popular doesn't automatically mean it's of high quality.

For you.

But if you were a Hollywood executive whose job depended on greenlighting films that make money, you'd be giving the go-ahead to films like Twilight and The Transformers. You'd give audiences the type of movies that they would want to buy tickets to.

I know I would.

 

[shatastrophic]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

All I want is for it to make enough to stay relevant. Star Trek's greatest attribute is that others brush it off. Its mine, ours, and no one else's. Hell I love what Abrams has done but it gone far enough off the rails already. The fact that it doesn't appeal to general audiences is fine with me.

Everyone I know lovingly calls me a dork where ST is concerned. I was a state track champion and recieved a scholarship, state football champion, played basketball for 12 years up to college and dated the homecoming queen. I always made time for Trek and was the biggest nerd. I'm proof that you can be the best of both worlds. However, all of those "conventional measures of success" are in the past, Star Trek and my nerdom are still here. Unconventional successes in my life like sportsmanship, truthfulness, humbleness, being in the principals office for fighting with someone because they were picking on someone weaker, and working hard to get to the actual root of problems was all taken from Kirk and Picard. Those things never lose relevancey, while scoring a touchdown is nothing but a distant memory.

Superman is supposed to be all those great things and it is good that general audiences have access to those messages with superman even if they don't strike a chord. For me, Star Trek did those things. As for why the movie is fiscally petering out...I don't care, I don't want the general audience to like it.

As for my rant about nerdom, it was from a post a few back where some had mentioned that the guy behind them hopes this doesn't make their son a nerd. I don't want that guy to like Star Trek its too late for him, but I like he took his son to see it. This was how it was with my father in that he couldn't understand why I liked it so much. But the general label that Star Trek is for nerds, while pissing off some, is actually one of the franchise's greatest strengths.

Oh by the way...Man of Steel, if you like big battles and cities being toppled and Amy Adams then I would rank it as a great movie!

 

[BillJ]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Man of Steel is a great movie because I had a fun time watching it.

 

[Vyse]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Something being popular doesn't automatically mean it's of high quality.

For you.

But if you were a Hollywood executive whose job depended on greenlighting films that make money, you'd be giving the go-ahead to films like Twilight and The Transformers. You'd give audiences the type of movies that they would want to buy tickets to.

I know I would.

Oh for goodness sake. Of course they would be green lit. When did I say they wouldn't be? You guys are confusing financial success with subjective opinions of films.

I would like you guys to directly answer my example of the X-Men and Star Wars films.

 

[Lance]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

See, I'm not completely convinced Paramount didn't overestimate the extent to which ST2009 opened the franchise up for more mainstream audiences. Maybe they went into STID assuming that Bad Robot had changed the public perception of Star Trek... when in reality, the words 'Star Trek' still carry the same (mostly negative) baggage they always did.

But I still think STID's biggest problem wasn't so much a lack of audience support, but more that it was a relatively small fish swimming in a pond with sharks. Star Trek is a known brand, but it isn't a powerhouse that could truly take on Iron Man. It was never going to be, people even called that before it even opened.

The big picture is that in terms of the other Star Trek movies alone, STID has wiped the floor with all that have come before it. And in the bottom line of movie production, that alone should be enough to give them confidence that there's still money to be made on another movie.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

What exactly is there to answer? Quality is subjective and sequels often don't do the business of prior films in a series.

If I have a movie that does $800 million dollars that got a zero on Rotten Tomatoes, I'd still be making a sequel and the sequel would be hitting all the same notes that its $800 million parent did.

 

[Belz...]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Man of Steel was awful. How many films can that movie rip off? Matrix, Independence Day, District 9, Alien, Avatar. The last third of the film in particular was garbage, just boring.

In what ways were those movies ripped off ? Didn't see it.

I prefered Superman Returns. It's far more true to the character of Superman. I've never seen Superman give less of a shit about saving people than he does in MOS

Then why does he keep saving people in the movie ?

Man of Steel is a great movie because I had a fun time watching it.

Precisely.

 

[Vyse]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

What exactly is there to answer? Quality is subjective and sequels often don't do the business of prior films in a series.

If I have a movie that does $800 million dollars that got a zero on Rotten Tomatoes, I'd still be making a sequel and the sequel would be hitting all the same notes that its $800 million parent did.

As someone who absolutely loved STID and wants it to do well, it's crystal clear to me that MOS is the superior movie by far.

That is why it's kicking Star Trek's ass at the box office.

The audience is always right.

My original point was in Response to Admiral Buzzkill. He claims that MOS is automatically the better movie because it is doing better at the box office.

I'm saying that the answer to which film is better is subjective. Not what movie did better at the box office, what movie is a better film. My examples from the X-Men and Star Wars films directly contradicts the notion that the more money a film makes, the better it is as a film.

 

[Kruezerman]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Box office is more popularity and effectiveness of marketing. ID failed with marketing big time, but I think it to be (and many others agree with me) the better film.

 

[TommyW]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Then why does he keep saving people in the movie ?

I think it's safe to say he's responsible for the deaths of a lot more people than he saves. "I'm sorry patrons at the gas station I just blew up - but Zod threatened my mum!!" Thousands and thousands of people must have died in the last 40 minutes too and he doesn't even acknowledge it

 

[LobsterAfternoon]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

I really disagree, I find Superman's origin beyond boring. All you need to know is that he's an alien, his homeworld blew up, and he survived and was raised by nice folks on Earth. The countless interpretations of it, with Jor-El as a quasi action hero or as a hologram that never stops bothering his son drive me nuts.

Similarily, all you need to know about Star Trek is that there's a ship called Enterprise with a guy with pointed ears on board who acts like a computer.

See, I think that's not at all a fair comparison. The Enterprise and the pointy ears guy are the ongoing adventure of Star Trek. The Krypton stuff is just a prologue for Superman.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Then why does he keep saving people in the movie ?

I think it's safe to say he's responsible for the deaths of a lot more people than he saves. "I'm sorry patrons at the gas station I just blew up - but Zod threatened my mum!!" Thousands and thousands of people must have died in the last 40 minutes too and he doesn't even acknowledge it

Zod was planning to eradicate the human race.

 

[Vyse]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Then why does he keep saving people in the movie ?

I think it's safe to say he's responsible for the deaths of a lot more people than he saves. "I'm sorry patrons at the gas station I just blew up - but Zod threatened my mum!!" Thousands and thousands of people must have died in the last 40 minutes too and he doesn't even acknowledge it

That's one of my biggest issues with this movie. Superman's almost complete disregard for saving lives until the very end after tens of thousands, if not more died.

I like how in Superman II, Superman tries to take the fighting away from Metropolis, knowing how many innocents would be lost in the cross-fire.

If Superman tried to lure Zod to a secluded place, but failed, then fine. But Superman didn't even seem to try and do this.

 

[shapeshifter]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Super hero movies have millions of children begging to go see them. I don't think Star Trek has that going for them (although I did as a youngster).

So it follows that producing projects which get ST into the field of view of this demographic would be helpful. Why is that not being pursued, I wonder. All the Big Boys of Summer do it, why doesn't Trek?

This is why we need Teenage Augment Ninja Starfleet as our next series.

There could actually be a fair point to considering changing/altering the brand name, (could fandom survive the butthurt?!1) Such a measure could help lessen the stigma associated or it could backfire, come across as sneaky and underhanded.

Bottom line: Star Trek isn't the broad crowd puller that Paramount thinks it is. The franchise stands more chance of success if they don't put it up against movies with much better street cred.

ST:TMP performed well - and had a very broad demographic - because it followed almost a decade of TOS (and TAS) repeats in syndication, and at times when children could watch with their parents: early evening prime time.

It hasn't had the same "crowd puller" value ever since. Certainly, the success of TNG in first-run syndication in Seasons 3-6 (its peak?) had merchandising running high, but it was perhaps all downhill since then - with the latter series screening later and later to fewer and fewer - until Bad Robot revived things in 2009.

Pretty much confirms what I was thinking. Even in the Bad Robot era, the name of 'Star Trek' will just never have the same kind of name cache as an Iron Man or Superman.

The BR reboot has indisputably given Star Trek a shot in the arm, given it the best chance in decades of actually tapping into the mainstream... but in terms of the wider mainstream audience, putting it up against Iron Man has proven that it doesn't have the pulling power that maybe Paramount might have expected following the success of ST2009.

IMO Star Trek as a movie franchise needs to be nurtured, the worst thing Paramount can do is to send it into the ring against opponents that are in a much heavier weight class. They did this with Nemesis, and (while STID has obviously been a bigger success than Nemesis ever could have been) they appear to have made the same 'mistake' with STID.

General audiences know/like ST and it is entirely possible they WANT ST to become a heavy hitter in the league but they are not going to make a big show of that.

It's all up to TPTB. They need to step up, do whatever it takes to help Trek shake off the ties holding it down, make it break through the barriers holding it back.

Question is, can they do that without alienating, (driving away forever) more of the core fanbase than the total of new fans brought in? Should they care?

Just thinking out loud.