Will they go back to primeTrek after nuTrek finishes?.
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
- Status
Come on. I followed the discussion on this board since the film came out. There has been far more discussion about lens flares, Spock yelling "Khaaan!!!" and Alice Eve's underwear than any deep debates about Federation foreign policy and how it may mirror 911. If there's some pocket of intellectual discussion that sprouted up over Into Darkness, I've yet to find it. But the only real debate going on is whether the film is a bell-weather for how much Hollywood feels they have to dumb things down to the LCD.
BTW, Dennis, posting Benedict Cumberbatch image with the word "NOPE" on it is not an intelligent rebuttal. It's trolling. I've lost track of how many times you've employed this and I can't be the only one who finds it tiring.
If a movie doesn't obey its own internal rules, it pulls people out of that immersive experience. But that requires intelligence, too, and so that gets exercised at the movies.
I'd been thinking about the nature of film criticism the other day, and along with craft and skill -- or maybe because of it, but definitely in play -- critics tend to ask the basic question in so many words, "Did the movie draw me in?" If the answer is yes, then that individual critic believes it's a good movie. If there are things wrong with the plot or acting or such that remind you that you're watching a movie, then points are taken away. If the film immersed you through its intelligence, then hey, that's great! But if that movie made you forget about reality for 2 hrs because it was a rollicking good time, then that's just as valid if that's what you're looking for.
Some of the most boring, pretentious movies out there were aimed at "intelligence." Some of the most immersive, well-made movies were popcorn flicks. And the field is so large that both are far outnumbered by the movies in between.
"Lowest-common-denominator" is such a petty way of labeling audiences.
Last edited:
Just people trying desperately to show how smart they think they are. They lose track of the fact that entertainment is suppose to entertain.
What lackluster reviews?!? I really wish these inaccurate statements would go away...
Critics rated it a 7.6/10 and audiences rated it a 4.2/5 on 307,000+ ratings.
Personally, I am hoping they never return to the Prime timeline. It had its day and that day is over (and I can watch that day anytime I like). Some folks don't like Star Trek Into Darkness and the Abrams films in general. Which is normal. Nothing is universally loved. But I don't really see how the numbers quantify it as anything other than a critical success.
My theory is that the indignant people who incessantly post that "JJ Trek" has failed, are trying to revise history in order to create an alternate timeline in which their statements are accurate.
It was a critical success but not as high as the first. Also STID only made about a 25,000,000 profit after all the expenses which was much lower than the studio expected. But I agree it wasn't a failure and the next one is going to explore space so we may finally get away from earth and see deep space. The only problem is the studio probably wont be giving as big a budget for this one as they did the last.
The "dumbing down" is to reach out to as large of an audience and maximize profitability. Studios are so skittish about money that they want a guarantee of return.
As for intelligent discussion, it's there, and I have tired to keep it going. But, it gets buried under the insistence that I am overthinking the film or that it is a mindless action film that I'm just defending.
There is an intelligent discussion to be had, about drone strikes, moral choices, and the current political climate in the US at the time the film was made.
That worked out well for TWOK, considered the most successful of Trek films before Trek 09.
And those discussions were usually started by the people with a negative opinion. The other stuff gets buried because it doesn't fit their narrative.
As for Cumbernope. That never gets old. And it's usually all the response the poster deserves.
With all the creative accounting going on, I'm not sure how you could possibly know about "all the expenses" or the actual profit of STID... or any other movie.
Unless you work for Paramount's number crunching department.
Which is true of Into Darkness. Exhibit A being Spock yelling "Khaaan!" and running him down like TJ Hooker.
People can keep posting screegrabs of Rotten Tomatoes all you want. Labeling all JJ Trek critics film-snobs all you want. Keep bashing Trek purists and posting Benedict saying "NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE" again and again and again to try to drown out critics, but at the very least, that's a problematic part of the movie that is fair game to criticize, even if we only want to evaluate its success as a simple popcorn movie. It's right up there with Vader's "NOOO" in the prequels for cringeyness. It was stupid and corny and out-of-character for Spock and reminds you that you are watching a movie written by someone who wants to tick a box for fan-service in a really ill-advised way. (Same as the frivolous Prime Spock cameo).
I read it in a article a while back. If I can find it I will link it here. Did you think they had a larger profit?
I don't really know what their actual profit may be. As long as a sequel is greenlit, I'm good.
25 mil doesn't sound that plausible though.
You are able to criticize anything you like, what you aren't able to do is speak for fandom.
You say people drown you out, what they're doing is expressing their own opinions on the film. You should be able to put 2 and 2 together.
I don't really know what their actual profit may be. As long as a sequel is greenlit, I'm good.
25 mil doesn't sound that plausible though.
Yeah it doesn't seem plausible when you look at the international numbers but believe it or not the studios don't get the return from overseas that they get here. The international take is getting better but the studios still get the lions share of the profits from the national numbers. It has something to do with the exchange rate of monies and how much the foreign distributers actually get. I also think that the marketing figures in the 190,000,000 do not include any money budgeted for overseas marketing.
I found the link. I was wrong the profit wasn't 25 million it was 29.9 mil. The website deadline.com reported the figure. Scroll down to the end of the page to see the profit figure.
http://deadline.com/2014/03/fast-fu...-2-profit-most-profitable-movies-2013-701690/
Last edited:
Of course they are but I think they will be cutting the budget some to increase profit. After the ST09 they increased the budget by about 50 million. I don't think they will be doing that again. I see a smaller budget for this next one and maybe a bit more drama or as I said earlier meat and potatoes(Storywise) and not so much dessert(Special effects shots). Just my opinion nothing more.
You might have a point had the CumberNope image been used to rebut an intelligent, reasonable post instead of a condescending and dismissive one insulting the intelligence of fans of STID and much of the populace of this very forum, in which case the NOPE is a wholly apropos response, hitting just the right notes of condescension and dismissiveness in return.
I believe you've also been asked not to minimod the forum several times in the past, so if you could make an effort to stop calling out behaviors you don't like in the thread in addition to talking down to anyone you don't consider a member of your arbitrary Trek purist society, that would also be helpful. Thanks.
This is just a friendly and not an infraction, but if you have any comments, please PM me rather than say them in the thread and further derail the discussion.
Who cares about budget? As long as the movies are entertaining they could have a budget of $1.25.
Not seeing your point here.
The point is in my earlier response which explained my hopes with a smaller budget.
Perhaps even more action, but with fewer special effects?
- Status
Similar threads
