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

Star Trek the Movie

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Dec. 06 2012, 8:23 am

Quote: Somniac @ Dec. 06 2012, 2:13 am

>

class="MsoNormal"> 

class="MsoNormal">Abrams doesn’t give a stuff about doing that obviously. He’s more interested in finding new followers and having himself identified as the saviour of the ST universe when in fact he has destroyed it.

class="MsoNormal"> 

class="MsoNormal"> 

class="MsoNormal"> 

>


 


I don't agree that he doesn't care. But, even if that were true...


 


Why should he care? 


The core of the fanbase is getting older and more difficult to market to. Any product, any franchise needs to evolve, change, and grow to remain relevant. The fanbase was not enough to support Star Trek Enterprise, Nemesis, or Insurrection successfully enough. The new movie generated new interest where the older visions/versions of the franchise did not. It's simple math. If you want the franchise to move forward, it  can't be something you keep in a little box and protect like "your old Star Trek." That's the death of any product, franchise, business, etc.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Dec. 06 2012, 8:41 am

It really is simple. If you don't like JJ's vision of ST don't watch and don't support it with your money. It's going on four years now and folks are still crying in their beer because ST has changed.


There are prime DVDs and plenty of prime universe novels to fill that hunger for the old timeline.


It doesn't matter what you as an individual think about JJ's films. Vger is right, the folks who own the movie and TV rights care about $$$$$$$$$. And JJ has reinvigorated the brand and is bringing in $$$$$$$$. Nor does Roddenberry's "vision" mean a damn thing because the truly classic episodes/films were based on the ideas of more than just Roddenberry.


Folks, if the franchise doesn't grow and attract new fans it will die. It's not the 60s or the 90s anymore. The franchise will change with the generation. You don't have to like it or accept it, but it will happen.


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this Dec. 06 2012, 9:32 am

Quote: Vger23 @ Dec. 06 2012, 8:16 am

>

>The "truth" is that the film was designed to exist in it's own isolated universe. I don't see how that is to be viewed as subjective or as an opinion. It's clearly stated in the film, and it's clearly one of the main points of the entire thing. It's not an opinion or a subjective observation, it's a fact. Seems pretty simple to me. 

>What you're saying about measuring the success of a film is completely irrational. Respectfully, the only OBJECTIVE measures of success in the film industry ARE butts in seats, box office receipts, and critical acclaim. This film had all of those. Again, just the opposite of what you believe, the "true to character, plot, etc etc etc." is all subjective and based on the perceptions, tastes, and personal biases. 

>That's okay, we all have them (clearly you do). But, don't confuse the issue. Success = dollars and critical acclaim. That doesn't mean you have to like it or agree with it, but it's the only measure that counts. Enjoyability = personal preferences and biases. That's more important to each of us as individuals, but is completely subjective.

>You need to accept that your opinion is fine, but doesn't follow in line with the established facts. You can think that the film sucked, but it didn't. It sucked FOR YOU...but it was generally accepted as a rousing success by every measure that matters.

>Sorry.

>


 


Oh dear. We are so far apart here, I don't think there's much hope in us agreeing not only about this film but about the real value of cinema.


 Your believing success can only be judged by dollars and critical aclaim and that it is "the only measure that counts" I find very sad and narrow. You are missing out on some great cinema that was panned on first release and never made a cent.


(Magnificent Ambersons, Kane, Vertigo, numerous others)


 Truth to character is one of the few things that I believe IS objective.


The only thing I have to accept is that I have a wider, more discerning and informed attitude to cinema than you do.


What other people think of you is none of your business.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Dec. 06 2012, 3:47 pm

Quote: Somniac @ Dec. 06 2012, 9:32 am

Quote: Vger23 @ Dec. 06 2012, 8:16 am

>

>

>The "truth" is that the film was designed to exist in it's own isolated universe. I don't see how that is to be viewed as subjective or as an opinion. It's clearly stated in the film, and it's clearly one of the main points of the entire thing. It's not an opinion or a subjective observation, it's a fact. Seems pretty simple to me. 

>What you're saying about measuring the success of a film is completely irrational. Respectfully, the only OBJECTIVE measures of success in the film industry ARE butts in seats, box office receipts, and critical acclaim. This film had all of those. Again, just the opposite of what you believe, the "true to character, plot, etc etc etc." is all subjective and based on the perceptions, tastes, and personal biases. 

>That's okay, we all have them (clearly you do). But, don't confuse the issue. Success = dollars and critical acclaim. That doesn't mean you have to like it or agree with it, but it's the only measure that counts. Enjoyability = personal preferences and biases. That's more important to each of us as individuals, but is completely subjective.

>You need to accept that your opinion is fine, but doesn't follow in line with the established facts. You can think that the film sucked, but it didn't. It sucked FOR YOU...but it was generally accepted as a rousing success by every measure that matters.

>Sorry.

>

 

Oh dear. We are so far apart here, I don't think there's much hope in us agreeing not only about this film but about the real value of cinema.

 Your believing success can only be judged by dollars and critical aclaim and that it is "the only measure that counts" I find very sad and narrow. You are missing out on some great cinema that was panned on first release and never made a cent.

(Magnificent Ambersons, Kane, Vertigo, numerous others)

 Truth to character is one of the few things that I believe IS objective.

The only thing I have to accept is that I have a wider, more discerning and informed attitude to cinema than you do.


 


1. This is a wee bit arrogant.


2. Never said that box office and butts in seats speak to the "quality" of a film. I said it speaks to the SUCCESS of a film. Two totally different things, my friend. One is an OBJECTIVE measure (numbers are measurable). The other is a SUBJECTIVE measure (how much you like a film or dislike a film is completely isolated to your own personal tastes, expectataions, etc). You can argue that all you want, but it's not going to change that reality. 


3. These films are not made to please Star Trek fanatics, nor should they / can they be. They are made to get a wide audience excited about Star Trek and into movie theaters. Pleasing Trek fanatics might be a "nice to have," but it's certainly not a goal. 


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this Dec. 07 2012, 2:20 am

There is such a thing as artistic success as well as financial.


I'm not denying my criticism is subjective. What else can it be? I don't careabout the financial success of a film really. I don't judge by that criteria. If I did i would judge Twilight, Fast and Furious, Titanic, and all the other mindless drivel that has contaminated cinemas in the last few years as successful. I do not regard these films as successful because I judge them by quality and intellignce.


As I said i think we are too far apart in our world view for any further discussion to be useful.


I'm glad you have enjoyed ST09. I hope you enjoy the next one. I have seen the trailer and the effects look good. Unfortunately,like the first JJ effort, I fear that is all that I will be able to say about it.


 I will go and see it though.


 


BTW, Treknoir


It will be hard to know if I ike it without seeing it and supporting it with my money won't it.


The same went for the first one. Should we ask for our money back if we think a film is rubbish?


 

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Dec. 07 2012, 8:58 am

Quote: Somniac @ Dec. 07 2012, 2:20 am

>

>There is such a thing as artistic success as well as financial.

>I'm not denying my criticism is subjective. What else can it be? I don't careabout the financial success of a film really. I don't judge by that criteria. If I did i would judge Twilight, Fast and Furious, Titanic, and all the other mindless drivel that has contaminated cinemas in the last few years as successful. I do not regard these films as successful because I judge them by quality and intellignce.

>As I said i think we are too far apart in our world view for any further discussion to be useful.

>I'm glad you have enjoyed ST09. I hope you enjoy the next one. I have seen the trailer and the effects look good. Unfortunately,like the first JJ effort, I fear that is all that I will be able to say about it.

> I will go and see it though.

>BTW, Treknoir

>It will be hard to know if I ike it without seeing it and supporting it with my money won't it.

>The same went for the first one. Should we ask for our money back if we think a film is rubbish?

>


 


I think anybody who puts themselves and their tastes "above" others as opposed to just accepting that they are "differnet" than others is an arrogant elitist. So yes, I'd say our "world views" are fairly different. 


I love when people get all high-horse about how the new Trek doesn't embrace the philosophy of the more classic Star Trek, and in the same breath are completely oblivious to what Trek was trying to teach: The tolerance of different ideas and thoughts.


Instead, you get people like you who think their views are better, and everyone else is just paying to see "mindless drivel."


Yup.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4031

Report this Dec. 07 2012, 9:19 am

I'm sorry,,   but when did Star Trek ever have any artistic success?  Some trekkies see some episodes or movies as more cerebral than others, but that is about it.  Don't try to make trek into something it never was. 


 


Personally, I think the movies should be big blowout special effect battles.  It's a tv show and the only reason to put it on a big screen is to do things that aren't possible on the small screen.


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Dec. 07 2012, 7:05 pm

Quote: Somniac @ Dec. 07 2012, 2:20 am

>

>It will be hard to know if I ike it without seeing it and supporting it with my money won't it.

>The same went for the first one. Should we ask for our money back if we think a film is rubbish?

>


I am afraid that (as you probably know) that would not be a commercially viable option for any cinema in the world. Needless to mention it is impossible to prove from a logistical perspective. Earlier this year I walked out on a recent movie part-way through because it was just that tedious. It's the first time I recall ever having done that (certainly I have seen boring movies before, but have never left the cinema before they finished...) However of course I would not expect the cinema to give my money back because how would I ever demonstrate to them that I warranted a refund?! Oh well.


I guess we can agree to disagree on the JJAbrams movie. It has its faults, but for my part I still enjoy it. I don't think that referring to fans of the new movie as "apologists" is an entirely valid assessment, however. Rather they are just fans of a movie, whose reasons to enjoy it are as valid as any person's reason to hate it. Take for example Stanley Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey, which I think is the most rotten, slow, & tedious piece of wasted time and that I might as well go and do something much better with two hours of my day... like watch paint dry, or rip out my own fingernails, but which another viewer might think of as epic cinema.


Now in order to form that opinion of course I sat through 2001. I and the anonymous hypothetical dai-fan both have valid points of view on the movie -- but I can resolve my own view on the matter quite simply, by never watching 2001 again. It's annoying to have wasted money on a movie ticket to something that you don't like, but that's just part of the gamble that you take in today's marketplace.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Dec. 07 2012, 7:08 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 07 2012, 9:19 am

>

>I'm sorry,,   but when did Star Trek ever have any artistic success?  Some trekkies see some episodes or movies as more cerebral than others, but that is about it.  Don't try to make trek into something it never was.

>


I think it certainly had its moments -- and remember that "artistic success" does not necessarily have to be mind-blowingly cerebral. It can be clever, funny, emotionally moving, or simply enjoyable. If there wasn't any artistic success in Star Trek, none of us would be interested.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this Dec. 08 2012, 2:20 am

Quote: Vger23 @ Dec. 07 2012, 8:58 am

>

>I think anybody who puts themselves and their tastes "above" others as opposed to just accepting that they are "differnet" than others is an arrogant elitist. So yes, I'd say our "world views" are fairly different. 

>I love when people get all high-horse about how the new Trek doesn't embrace the philosophy of the more classic Star Trek, and in the same breath are completely oblivious to what Trek was trying to teach: The tolerance of different ideas and thoughts.

>Instead, you get people like you who think their views are better, and everyone else is just paying to see "mindless drivel."

>Yup.

>


 


I'm not going to moderate my opinion because I'm afraid of coming across as elitist.


It's not my fault if the masses have no understanding of what makes great entertainment.


(Witness:Strictly Come dancing, Big Brother, Celebs in Jungles, X factor  etc)


The fact is, most people would not know a good movie or piece of music if it kicked them up the arse. To deny this is naive at best.


 


Anyroad up, it takes one to know one.


I find your criteria for "successful" movies offensive and destructive.


That criteria has blighted American cinema for decades.


What other people think of you is none of your business.

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this Dec. 08 2012, 2:41 am

[quote]


....


I guess we can agree to disagree on the JJAbrams movie. It has its faults, but for my part I still enjoy it. I don't think that referring to fans of the new movie as "apologists" is an entirely valid assessment, however. Rather they are just fans of a movie, whose reasons to enjoy it are as valid as any person's reason to hate it. Take for example Stanley Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey, which I think is the most rotten, slow, & tedious piece of wasted time and that I might as well go and do something much better with two hours of my day... like watch paint dry, or rip out my own fingernails, but which another viewer might think of as epic cinema.


Now in order to form that opinion of course I sat through 2001. I and the anonymous hypothetical dai-fan both have valid points of view on the movie -- but I can resolve my own view on the matter quite simply, by never watching 2001 again. It's annoying to have wasted money on a movie ticket to something that you don't like, but that's just part of the gamble that you take in today's marketplace.


[/quote]


 


Of course we can agree to disagree. I do think ST09 is a bit of a different case to 2001 though. I understand you might find it tedious and boring. ( I, of course, predictably loved it! )


but 2001 was not a continuation of a franchise with millions of fans. It came out of the blue. No one had any expectations of it.It played in a tiny soho cinema for years in London before it caught on.


ST09 was awaited with baited breath by fans who were hoping for an in depth exposition of how the characters as we know them, came together in the beginning. How the relationships we are familiar with formes and developed. We did not get that. We got a new and unfamiliar scenario which was emotionally, quite a long way from that.


Even the Romulans had inexplicably changed into tatooed goth/punk stereotypes. If this wasn't a mercenary attempt to cash in on current youth taste in entertainment, I'll eat my ticket.


What other people think of you is none of your business.

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this Dec. 08 2012, 4:48 am

Quote: Somniac @ Dec. 08 2012, 2:20 am




"I'm not going to moderate my opinion because I'm afraid of coming across as elitist.

It's not my fault if the masses have no understanding of what makes great entertainment.

(Witness:Strictly Come dancing, Big Brother, Celebs in Jungles, X factor  etc)

The fact is, most people would not know a good movie or piece of music if it kicked them up the arse. To deny this is naive at best.

Anyroad up, it takes one to know one.

I find your criteria for "successful" movies offensive and destructive.

That criteria has blighted American cinema for decades."


------------



What do you want to hear/you keep pushing this? That it was a bad movie but some people liked it? You already said you're fine with peoples opinions if they like it. I know that I enjoy many bad films. If you watch the Red Letter Media Review you'll see that many people consider it to be a guilty pleasure. In fact all its positive reviews only boast about it for its fun, fast-paced, action filled ride. No one ever gave it positive reviews based on deep award winning story. You already have no argument there.



It's about perspective. If you come at it from the perspective of being an intricately crafted movie then it FAILS. But if you come at it from the perspective of a summer blockbuster, action flick, then it succeeds! "Ratatouille" in comparison looks like the best movie ever made with 96% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. But that's because it's not being come at from the perspective of ALL movies ever made. It's being come at from the perspective of an Animated childrens film, which it succeeded at highly. But no one's going to say it was somehow better than The Godfather or Casablanca.


Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Dec. 08 2012, 6:19 am

Quote: Somniac @ Dec. 08 2012, 2:41 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>

>....

>I guess we can agree to disagree on the JJAbrams movie. It has its faults, but for my part I still enjoy it. I don't think that referring to fans of the new movie as "apologists" is an entirely valid assessment, however. Rather they are just fans of a movie, whose reasons to enjoy it are as valid as any person's reason to hate it. Take for example Stanley Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey, which I think is the most rotten, slow, & tedious piece of wasted time and that I might as well go and do something much better with two hours of my day... like watch paint dry, or rip out my own fingernails, but which another viewer might think of as epic cinema.

>Now in order to form that opinion of course I sat through 2001. I and the anonymous hypothetical dai-fan both have valid points of view on the movie -- but I can resolve my own view on the matter quite simply, by never watching 2001 again. It's annoying to have wasted money on a movie ticket to something that you don't like, but that's just part of the gamble that you take in today's marketplace.

>

 

Of course we can agree to disagree. I do think ST09 is a bit of a different case to 2001 though. I understand you might find it tedious and boring. ( I, of course, predictably loved it! )

but 2001 was not a continuation of a franchise with millions of fans. It came out of the blue. No one had any expectations of it.It played in a tiny soho cinema for years in London before it caught on.

ST09 was awaited with baited breath by fans who were hoping for an in depth exposition of how the characters as we know them, came together in the beginning. How the relationships we are familiar with formes and developed. We did not get that. We got a new and unfamiliar scenario which was emotionally, quite a long way from that.

Even the Romulans had inexplicably changed into tatooed goth/punk stereotypes. If this wasn't a mercenary attempt to cash in on current youth taste in entertainment, I'll eat my ticket.


 


1. I think it's telling how now the argument suddenly becomes about "we" in an effort to strengthen what has clearly become a weakened position. Really, is that what WE wanted? That's not what I wanted. I simply wanted to be entertained for 2 hours. Stop trying to appear to speak for the majority of the fans. The whole point of this is that the majority DOESN'T AGREE with you. And, they don't NEED to. You're entitled to your opinion. Just stop trying to make it about something more than you. If you're so secure and certain about your stance on this issue, why the need to convince others and drag the fictional "WE" into the discussion? 


2. Please DO eat your ticket. If you dislike the direction of the franchise so much, don't go see STID. But, you will, won't you? Not becuase you're curious. Not because you're hopefull it will be better. You'll go because you NEED to be able to gripe and complain about it and point out how stupid it is and how everyone who went to see it is just a young, ignorant, tasteless member of the low-brow masses. Because it makes you feel better than you really are. 


 


Please, give us all a break. 


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Dec. 08 2012, 6:20 am

Quote: Blockman @ Dec. 08 2012, 4:48 am

>

>Quote: Somniac @ Dec. 08 2012, 2:20 am

>

"I'm not going to moderate my opinion because I'm afraid of coming across as elitist.

It's not my fault if the masses have no understanding of what makes great entertainment.

(Witness:Strictly Come dancing, Big Brother, Celebs in Jungles, X factor  etc)

The fact is, most people would not know a good movie or piece of music if it kicked them up the arse. To deny this is naive at best.

Anyroad up, it takes one to know one.

I find your criteria for "successful" movies offensive and destructive.

That criteria has blighted American cinema for decades."

>------------

>
What do you want to hear/you keep pushing this? That it was a bad movie but some people liked it? You already said you're fine with peoples opinions if they like it. I know that I enjoy many bad films. If you watch the Red Letter Media Review you'll see that many people consider it to be a guilty pleasure. In fact all its positive reviews only boast about it for its fun, fast-paced, action filled ride. No one ever gave it positive reviews based on deep award winning story. You already have no argument there.

>
It's about perspective. If you come at it from the perspective of being an intricately crafted movie then it FAILS. But if you come at it from the perspective of a summer blockbuster, action flick, then it succeeds! "Ratatouille" in comparison looks like the best movie ever made with 96% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. But that's because it's not being come at from the perspective of ALL movies ever made. It's being come at from the perspective of an Animated childrens film, which it succeeded at highly. But no one's going to say it was somehow better than The Godfather or Casablanca.

>


 


Precisely.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this Dec. 08 2012, 7:06 am

 I am not “pushing” anything. I am replying to posts that I do not agree with. The same as you are.


Actually I am a great fan of “bad” films. But there is bad and there is bad.


An enjoyably bad film (for ME, if I must qualify it as  my opinion every time) has a camp or humourous aspect. For ME  ST09 has neither.


It doesn’t have to be intricately crafted. But it does have to deliver the promise. A ST prequel. It was sold and publicised as such.


Has my position become clearly weakened?  I don’t feel that it has but if you want to think so, fine.


You have no idea why or if I will see the next one. If I go, of course it will be in the hope that it is better. Again, if it makes you feel better thinking otherwise, go ahead.


Finally, I don’t have to visit Rotten Tomatoes or read critics to know if a film is a disappointment.I can decide that for myself thanks.


 


BTW, thanks for telling me what I am going to think and say after seeing it.


Oh yeh, I forgot. I think everyone who is going to see it is just a young, ignorant, tasteless member of the low-brow masses.  Oh well, that excludes me then.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: darmokattanagra, FleetAdmiral_BamBam

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