ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

New Star Trek movie

nextgeneration14

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 463

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 11:19 pm

Quote (Yanks @ July 23 2009, 11:13 am)
Quote (rocketscientist @ July 21 2009, 12:15 pm)
Here's the current rottentomatoes.com breakdown for the ST films now. ?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m....tometer
Fresh films
1. ?ST XI 95%
2. ?FC 92%
3. ?TWOK 90%
4. ?TVH 84%
5. ? TUC 82%
6. ? ?TSFS 76%

Rotten films
7. ? ?INS 54%
8. ? ?TMP 50%
9. ? ?GEN 48%
10. ? ?NEM 36%
11. ?TFF 21%

The order of the previous 10 films hasn't changed except that FC has swapped places with TWOK. ?I'm not that surprised by this, the two films only differed by 2% before and, imo, FC is a just a great film and certainly, prior to ST XI, the best ST film in terms of action, an Aliens-like action movie (or Dawn of the Dead in space) as observed by director Jonathan Frakes. ?The Borg totally delivered for that one and they had a much larger budget than TWOK, TSFS, TVH, TFF, and TUC (due, of course, to the success of those previous films, the budgets of the ST films went up from TWOK on, except for TUC and NEM, which were after TFF and INS, where those films did worse than the ones before). ?

ST XI is currently at the top of the heap, which I guess is natural. I imagine, as time goes by and the luster wears off it might drop somewhere in the 80%s. ?I think that's where I would put it, if it was me. ?

Here's the ST.com fan poll of the 10 previous films:

1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan 4.6 ?
2. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country 4.6 ?
3. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home 4.5 ?
4. Star Trek: First Contact 4.5 ?
5. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock 4.1 ?
6. Star Trek Generations 3.8 ?
7. Star Trek: Insurrection 3.7 ?
8. Star Trek Nemesis 3.6 ?
9. Star Trek: The Motion Picture 3.5 ?
10. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier 2.7 ?

Again, you have the same breakdown of two groups of five films, although the order in each group is different. ?

I recently rewatched Khan with my 16 year old nephew (who has, in the last month, now watched all five of the other original cast films and is now a Shat-fan (likes him and Nimoy more than Pine and Quinto now). ?I had no idea he would get so into it, I just thought it'd be a fun thing to do with him) and imo that still is the greatest ST film of them all. ?It's truly a classic film. ?I'd say TVH is better than XI too. ?I want to rewatch TSFS, TUC, and FC too before I revise my list. ?I will say, though, that I think XI is definitely better than the 5 "rotten" ST films, INS, TMP, GEN, NEM, and TFF. ?I found all five of those films dissapointments to varying degrees (of those five, I guess I'd put TMP on top. ?I did think it was a great science-fiction film in the vein of 2001, but it didn't focus on what I like most about ST, the characters).

Finally, here's the domestic box office comparison of the ST films, adjusted for inflation: ? ?

? ?

ST XI has outperformed all the previous films. ?You can also see that the best TNG film, FC, didn't do as well as the first 4 ST films and GEN only did slightly better than TUC, which was a dissapointment for Paramount. ?They thought TUC they'd gotten back to where they were before TFF with TUC and they expected GEN to better than it did ?(I think it only did as well as it did because of its centerpiece, teaming up Kirk and Picard, no matter how poor the plot turned out to be. ?IMO, that's why GEN did as well as it did). ?This really is a testament, especially, to the writing and production of TWOK, TSFS, ?TVH, and TUC which had significantly smaller budgets than GEN and FC. ?I think you can also see how TFF and INS hurt the box office for TUC and NEM, respectively, although there were certainly other reasons why NEM ended up in the gutter with TFF imo. ?You can really see why they ditched the TNG cast and went for the reboot of the original ST ?characters in ST XI, after the lackluster performance of INS and the bomb that was NEM.

I think what's interesting about the numbers is that STXI blows the doors off anyother ST film. Most of these other films were made with well known actors that were very popular in their parts. STXI dusts them all???

I wonder why, in a "down" economy, all these folks thought it necessary to go see STXI??? Hell, STXI isn't even done yet. TMP numbers will not change.

Talking "quality vs. quantity" is always fun. I've always said that quantity does not relate to quality at all, especially in the TV/Movies business. Look how many (especially early) horrible TNG eps there were in the first couple seasons. Just bad eps and straight rip-offs from TOS. TNG's numbers were historic to this day. To me, the highest quality ST film was TWOK followed by FC. I think that space battle scene in TWOK dusts any Star Wars battle because it pit's our hero and villain against each other on a plane (and slow enough) that everyone can understand and "take part" in.

Very interesting to me...

Thoughts?

You talked about the down-ed economy. FYI: The film industry boomed in the 30's with the Depression. Movies offer a relief to people's lives.  :logical:

MrSpock44

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 852

Report this Jul. 23 2009, 11:38 pm

So how did the new movie do so well? Probably the biggest thing is the scale of the marketing campaign and the movie itself. If I'm not mistaken the new movie had by far the biggest budget (TMP may come close when you adjust for inflation), the new movie and TMP had the biggest marketing campaigns, and surprise, the new movie and TMP sold the most tickets!

I wouldn't say the new movie blows the doors off any other Trek movie though, especially considering the smaller budget of a film like TWoK. TMP is very close, and STXI isn't going to make much more money at all with Harry Potter and the like out right now. I wish we actually knew the exact figures for the worldwide sales of TMP and some of the earlier movies to get a really clear assessment to the success of the movies. If the 2nd movie gets a marketing campaign and a budget like this last Trek movie, it really could become the highest grossing Trek movie by a good deal.

TrekBeagle

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 13

Report this Jul. 24 2009, 12:57 am

Quote (MrSpock44 @ July 23 2009, 11:38 pm)
So how did the new movie do so well? Probably the biggest thing is the scale of the marketing campaign and the movie itself. If I'm not mistaken the new movie had by far the biggest budget (TMP may come close when you adjust for inflation), the new movie and TMP had the biggest marketing campaigns, and surprise, the new movie and TMP sold the most tickets!

I wouldn't say the new movie blows the doors off any other Trek movie though, especially considering the smaller budget of a film like TWoK. TMP is very close, and STXI isn't going to make much more money at all with Harry Potter and the like out right now. I wish we actually knew the exact figures for the worldwide sales of TMP and some of the earlier movies to get a really clear assessment to the success of the movies. If the 2nd movie gets a marketing campaign and a budget like this last Trek movie, it really could become the highest grossing Trek movie by a good deal.

I agree that marketing has something to do with it. But I think it`s more to do with the Star Treak break and the complete new angle of this show. It really is different from all other Star Trek movies. The essentials are stilll there but viewed from a different perspective. That made it possible for new kids on the block to get attracted to it.
It was ok for me. I especially liked the Star Trek parody elements (Chekov`s completely overdone accent, Kirk the Don Juan trying to ¿make it out with every gal in vicinity, the rather strange engine room, Star Wars elements (what`s this thing that hang out with Scotty ?)). That worked for me.

Mirrorgirl

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 15692

Report this Jul. 24 2009, 1:21 am

Quote (rocketscientist @ July 24 2009, 1:50 am)
Quote (frimmel @ July 23 2009, 8:40 am)
I would say box office is a measure of how appealing a film is but is not any measure of its quality beyond, 'competent.'

A film can have broad appeal -- Transformers 2 -- but that doesn't make it good.

Oscars should not be given the year of a film's release. This past Oscar should have been for 1999. Things like Titanic and Shakespeare in Love probably don't take home the big prize with some time and distance for the voters.

I suppose you could say that. ¿

But I think that the ¿quality of a film is most directly measured by the aggregate of critical reviews (hopefully from good, honest critics and not poseurs/fakes like those current guys on At the Movies, most notably suck-up and "I have no degree in films studies but I'm an actor so I can act like a critic because my dad was one" Ben Lyons). ¿That's why I typically reference rottentomatoes.com when deciding to see a film, in addition to reading reviews in the LA Times, of course.

In that respect, I don't think RT.com is perfect either. ¿I still think, personally, that ST XI at 95% is too high. ¿But, then again, that's partially due to the time. ¿RT.com is relatively new (is it only a few years old) and I imagine the other sites are about the same. ¿For the earlier ST films, they had to scour for reviews. ¿There aren't as many reviews for those earlier films. ¿If there were, TWOK or FC might be greater than 95%.

The other thing to note is the effect of time, which you've referenced. ¿Sometimes, critics attitudes do change. ¿There was a series of articles on this in the LA Times last year I think, where the critics were asked about an opinion on a film that had changed. ¿I know Ebert changed his mind about Blade Runner. ¿He didn't like it that much when he saw it. ¿Heck, I don't think he was alone. ¿Now, years later, it's regarded as a classic of the genre (I love that film). ¿

Similarly, when TWOK came out, it got some great reviews and it also got some reviews lambasting it for basically not being SW. ¿That is, they said the space battles and the like, compared to SW, were boring (even though the same sfx house did them). ¿These critics were comparing TWOK to SW, something it wasn't supposed to be. ¿Like Bladerunner, as time went by, the rest of the critics came around and judged the films for what they were, their own thing, instead of what they weren't supposed to be. ¿Now, TWOK is regarded as a classic and the standard by which all other ST films are measured, according to many critics and fans. ¿Like Bladerunner, critics' attitudes, with time, have changed.

So, in that respect, frimmel, I think you make a good point. ¿Give it a few years, and maybe ST XI won't be regarded as highly as it is now.

I think you make some very good points here RS, and I think you could be right in regarding things needing to even out or settle down in regards to a 95% on RT, however, I still find that an extraordinary figure, and of the films I have been following at the moment I do not disagree with other figures, like Revenge of the Fallen 20%, Bruno 69%, Harry Potter 84%.

Now if it just had to do with the newness of the film or whatever, Star Trek would/should have slipped alittle since it's release, even a few percentage points, but that just has not happened.

We all know it is not a perfect film, but the rating on RT is not about the quality of a film, but rather about people's reaction to it...this film is just LOVED by a huge number of people. I mean 84% for Harry Potter (which I have seen and enjoyed very much) seems about right to me. The fact that so many people really enjoyed it tells me alot about how loved the cahracters of Star Trek really are. And that's enough for me.

BrotherofShran01

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 23344

Report this Jul. 24 2009, 9:13 am

Liked it, but it could have been better. I will buy the DVD.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 24 2009, 12:12 pm

Quote (Mirrorgirl @ July 24 2009, 1:21 am)
Quote (rocketscientist @ July 24 2009, 1:50 am)
Quote (frimmel @ July 23 2009, 8:40 am)
I would say box office is a measure of how appealing a film is but is not any measure of its quality beyond, 'competent.'

A film can have broad appeal -- Transformers 2 -- but that doesn't make it good.

Oscars should not be given the year of a film's release. This past Oscar should have been for 1999. Things like Titanic and Shakespeare in Love probably don't take home the big prize with some time and distance for the voters.

I suppose you could say that. ?

But I think that the ?quality of a film is most directly measured by the aggregate of critical reviews (hopefully from good, honest critics and not poseurs/fakes like those current guys on At the Movies, most notably suck-up and "I have no degree in films studies but I'm an actor so I can act like a critic because my dad was one" Ben Lyons). ?That's why I typically reference rottentomatoes.com when deciding to see a film, in addition to reading reviews in the LA Times, of course.

In that respect, I don't think RT.com is perfect either. ?I still think, personally, that ST XI at 95% is too high. ?But, then again, that's partially due to the time. ?RT.com is relatively new (is it only a few years old) and I imagine the other sites are about the same. ?For the earlier ST films, they had to scour for reviews. ?There aren't as many reviews for those earlier films. ?If there were, TWOK or FC might be greater than 95%.

The other thing to note is the effect of time, which you've referenced. ?Sometimes, critics attitudes do change. ?There was a series of articles on this in the LA Times last year I think, where the critics were asked about an opinion on a film that had changed. ?I know Ebert changed his mind about Blade Runner. ?He didn't like it that much when he saw it. ?Heck, I don't think he was alone. ?Now, years later, it's regarded as a classic of the genre (I love that film). ?

Similarly, when TWOK came out, it got some great reviews and it also got some reviews lambasting it for basically not being SW. ?That is, they said the space battles and the like, compared to SW, were boring (even though the same sfx house did them). ?These critics were comparing TWOK to SW, something it wasn't supposed to be. ?Like Bladerunner, as time went by, the rest of the critics came around and judged the films for what they were, their own thing, instead of what they weren't supposed to be. ?Now, TWOK is regarded as a classic and the standard by which all other ST films are measured, according to many critics and fans. ?Like Bladerunner, critics' attitudes, with time, have changed.

So, in that respect, frimmel, I think you make a good point. ?Give it a few years, and maybe ST XI won't be regarded as highly as it is now.

I think you make some very good points here RS, and I think you could be right in regarding things needing to even out or settle down in regards to a 95% on RT, however, I still find that an extraordinary figure, and of the films I have been following at the moment I do not disagree with other figures, like Revenge of the Fallen 20%, Bruno 69%, Harry Potter 84%.

Now if it just had to do with the newness of the film or whatever, Star Trek would/should have slipped alittle since it's release, even a few percentage points, but that just has not happened.

We all know it is not a perfect film, but the rating on RT is not about the quality of a film, but rather about people's reaction to it...this film is just LOVED by a huge number of people. I mean 84% for Harry Potter (which I have seen and enjoyed very much) seems about right to me. The fact that so many people really enjoyed it tells me alot about how loved the cahracters of Star Trek really are. And that's enough for me.

You know what I think might be happening with ST, MG?  

It just occurred to me, and maybe this is what you were saying, but maybe the critics liked it so much because it seemed to them such a fresh departure after the last four Berman films.  It's like the Bond Franchise.  I looked on RT.com one time at the Bond film ratings.  It turned out that Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, and Daniel Craig's first outings as Bond where well received.  There subsequent films, not so much (of course, you have more data here with Brosnan as he did four films).  

I remember reading a review of one of Brosan's films, I think it was "The World is Not Enough" and the critic, I think it was the LA Times Kenneth Turan, was saying that the film hits all "the stations of the cross" of Bond, including the gambling, the women, the martinis, the action sequences, etc.  And he wasn't the only reviewer who wrote something like that.  That's the problem with franchises.  The critics become jaded with them.  With every change of Bond, well, that was something new for the critics and they responded to it, especially with the great Casino Royale.  

The Batman franchise is another example.  Look how the critics responded to Batman and The Dark Knight (not totally unpredictable after the Shumaker travesties of Batman Forever and Batman and Robin (the worst movie I've ever seen)).  


WRT ST, if you read some of those INS and NEM reviews online at RT.com, many of the critics say the same thing, that the movies are familiar but not great.  Heck, Ebert said with NEM, ST had ended for him.  Not that it was a terrible movie, but that he felt like he'd seen all ST had to offer and he just didnt' care about seeing more.  ST XI didn't even get him excited.  

So I think some of that is going on here.  I think the newness of this new ST, after Berman's largely tedious entries in the franchise, except for the great action-film First Contact, is something that's given it a bit of a boost with the critics.  For the sequel, though, Abrams and company won't have that working for them.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 31 2009, 1:05 pm

Quote (Yanks @ July 31 2009, 6:22 am)
Quote (Yanks @ July 23 2009, 12:13 pm)
Quote (rocketscientist @ July 21 2009, 12:15 pm)
Here's the current rottentomatoes.com breakdown for the ST films now. ?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m....tometer
Fresh films
1. ?ST XI 95%
2. ?FC 92%
3. ?TWOK 90%
4. ?TVH 84%
5. ? TUC 82%
6. ? ?TSFS 76%

Rotten films
7. ? ?INS 54%
8. ? ?TMP 50%
9. ? ?GEN 48%
10. ? ?NEM 36%
11. ?TFF 21%

The order of the previous 10 films hasn't changed except that FC has swapped places with TWOK. ?I'm not that surprised by this, the two films only differed by 2% before and, imo, FC is a just a great film and certainly, prior to ST XI, the best ST film in terms of action, an Aliens-like action movie (or Dawn of the Dead in space) as observed by director Jonathan Frakes. ?The Borg totally delivered for that one and they had a much larger budget than TWOK, TSFS, TVH, TFF, and TUC (due, of course, to the success of those previous films, the budgets of the ST films went up from TWOK on, except for TUC and NEM, which were after TFF and INS, where those films did worse than the ones before). ?

ST XI is currently at the top of the heap, which I guess is natural. I imagine, as time goes by and the luster wears off it might drop somewhere in the 80%s. ?I think that's where I would put it, if it was me. ?

Here's the ST.com fan poll of the 10 previous films:

1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan 4.6 ?
2. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country 4.6 ?
3. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home 4.5 ?
4. Star Trek: First Contact 4.5 ?
5. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock 4.1 ?
6. Star Trek Generations 3.8 ?
7. Star Trek: Insurrection 3.7 ?
8. Star Trek Nemesis 3.6 ?
9. Star Trek: The Motion Picture 3.5 ?
10. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier 2.7 ?

Again, you have the same breakdown of two groups of five films, although the order in each group is different. ?

I recently rewatched Khan with my 16 year old nephew (who has, in the last month, now watched all five of the other original cast films and is now a Shat-fan (likes him and Nimoy more than Pine and Quinto now). ?I had no idea he would get so into it, I just thought it'd be a fun thing to do with him) and imo that still is the greatest ST film of them all. ?It's truly a classic film. ?I'd say TVH is better than XI too. ?I want to rewatch TSFS, TUC, and FC too before I revise my list. ?I will say, though, that I think XI is definitely better than the 5 "rotten" ST films, INS, TMP, GEN, NEM, and TFF. ?I found all five of those films dissapointments to varying degrees (of those five, I guess I'd put TMP on top. ?I did think it was a great science-fiction film in the vein of 2001, but it didn't focus on what I like most about ST, the characters).

Finally, here's the domestic box office comparison of the ST films, adjusted for inflation: ? ?

? ?

ST XI has outperformed all the previous films. ?You can also see that the best TNG film, FC, didn't do as well as the first 4 ST films and GEN only did slightly better than TUC, which was a dissapointment for Paramount. ?They thought TUC they'd gotten back to where they were before TFF with TUC and they expected GEN to better than it did ?(I think it only did as well as it did because of its centerpiece, teaming up Kirk and Picard, no matter how poor the plot turned out to be. ?IMO, that's why GEN did as well as it did). ?This really is a testament, especially, to the writing and production of TWOK, TSFS, ?TVH, and TUC which had significantly smaller budgets than GEN and FC. ?I think you can also see how TFF and INS hurt the box office for TUC and NEM, respectively, although there were certainly other reasons why NEM ended up in the gutter with TFF imo. ?You can really see why they ditched the TNG cast and went for the reboot of the original ST ?characters in ST XI, after the lackluster performance of INS and the bomb that was NEM.

I think what's interesting about the numbers is that STXI blows the doors off anyother ST film. Most of these other films were made with well known actors that were very popular in their parts. STXI dusts them all???

I wonder why, in a "down" economy, all these folks thought it necessary to go see STXI??? Hell, STXI isn't even done yet. TMP numbers will not change.

Talking "quality vs. quantity" is always fun. I've always said that quantity does not relate to quality at all, especially in the TV/Movies business. Look how many (especially early) horrible TNG eps there were in the first couple seasons. Just bad eps and straight rip-offs from TOS. TNG's numbers were historic to this day. To me, the highest quality ST film was TWOK followed by FC. I think that space battle scene in TWOK dusts any Star Wars battle because it pit's our hero and villain against each other on a plane (and slow enough) that everyone can understand and "take part" in.

Very interesting to me...

Thoughts?

Nothing?

Sorry Yanks!   :laugh:  I'm not ignoring you bro!

I agree with you wrt quality vs. quantity.  As I said, I think the best measure of the film is how it plays with the critics and the public, especially with time.  Blade Runner and The Thing are good examples of films where the critics changed their minds with time, so even that can happen.  Hell, even cult films like TRON and The Big Lebowski (they have parties at bowling allies where fans dress up as the characters, bowl, drink white russians, and watch the film, reciting lines to it!  :laugh: ).  Heck, I think even David Lynch's Dune has something of a cult following (because it is so cool visually and delightfully weird).  

I agree with you regarding TWOK.  It is still #1 in my book and, I think, with the real film critics (not the fakes like the current two on At the Movies).  It is still the standard, kind of like how Goldfinger is probably held as the standard Bond film.  There's probably a better comparison one could make there.  

You bring up a really good point about that TWOK space battle.  I never really thought much about it, but I think you're right, it is a well-scripted, submarine type of space battle that pulls the audience in.  It's kind of reminiscent of Balance of Terror's submarine type battle (with the Enterprise as a destroyer and the Bird of Prey as the sub).  

That said, I wouldn't say all of SW's battles were bad.  I thought the one in Eps I with little Annie blowing up the big ships, sucked compared to the Death Star battle from the first film.  That, imo, may be the best space fight choreographed.

But I agree with you on many others.  When things are happening too fast, it looks great, but it doesn't pull you in.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 31 2009, 2:09 pm

Quote (Yanks @ July 31 2009, 1:35 pm)
Whew, thanks rocket! When you didn't answer my post in the Tuvix thread I thought I was being dissed :laugh:

But still, why the HUGE disparity in the numbers???? Is STXI considered "better trek"???

Dude, I would never diss you!!  

WRT Tuvix, well, I think I've pretty much said all I can say on that one, so if it looked like I was dissing you, I certainly didn't mean it.  The whole Tuvix thing is so controverial and its a great debate, but I guess I'm just worn out with that one.  

As for the huge disparity of the numbers, why this film is in the stratosphere wrt other films in the franchise, I think there's a number of reasons.  First, I think it's a good film.  As good as TWOK?  Well, from my perspective, no, but it's a good film.  

Two.  It was marketed like crazy.  People showed up.  And, because it was a good film, word of mouth helped it to run longer.  

Three.  I think it's a great new take on Star Trek, just like Casino Royale  was for the Bond franchise.  People and critics responded to that two, after GEN, INS, and NEM, it's really been a while, at least since FC since there was a really good, fresh, ST film.  

Four.  It's bigger than any ST film since TMP and it definitely has more action and character chemistry since that one.  

Five.  It successfully ressurects the original characters and ship and everything that was great about the original show while giving it a 21st century polish.  It's true to its source material, and, since that source material is a classic that people have responded to for years, if it was done right, which imo it was with this new film, it's really not surprising that people responded to it again.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: miklamar

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum