Tidbits: Orci & Kurtzman Update + Rorschach’s ‘Trek Nerdgasm’ + Nimoy’s Late Night Calls + more July 8, 2009
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Great Links, Star Trek (2009 film), Star Trek sequel (2012) , trackback
TrekMovie took a bit of a break for a day but we are back with a brand new ST09 tidbits. We have new interview and status update from Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, plus Watchmen’s Rorschach actor talking Trek love, Nimoy talking about strange phone calls and more.
More from Bob and Alex
Star Trek scribes Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman are profiled with an interview in today’s Screen Daily. The article covers their careers, ascent in Hollywood, and approach to screenwriting. Bob and Alex explain how they always start with the character story first, even with Star Trek and Transformers. Here is an excerpt:
The one formula we have is to find the character story first and know that it is honest and true and emotional and ask ourselves if we removed all the gloss could we still make a $2m indie out of that story
There is an idea:. an indie movie about a troubled kid from Iowa stuck with a half-Alien exchange student on a road trip to Vegas!
Bob and Alex also confirmed that they have finished their script for Cowboys and Aliens and will get to work on the Star Trek: Something Something sequel next (after a vacation).
Rorschach’s Star Trek nerdgasm
MTV has an interview with Watchmen’s Jackie Earle Haley (Rorschach) about various things, including this quote:
In working on ‘Watchmen,’ I feel like I’m starting to understand that Comic-Con world,” Haley told MTV News. “The way people get into movies and television shows — it’s just awesome. I recently saw ‘Star Trek,’ and I had a nerdgasm watching it. It was just so cool.
Rorschach would be good for flaming Star Trek nitpickers
Box Office Update: Still at 11
Star Trek sales numbers have moved into the watching paint dry stage with the film remaining in 11th place, with a total domestic gross of $250,335,827 by Tuesday. Add on to that $125,266,285 for international sales and you get a total global gross of $375,602,112. Both of the two new films opening Friday are comedies (I Love You Beth Cooper and Bruno), so Star Trek may have one more seven-digit weekend left in it before the next potential top 5 movie opens (Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince) next Wednesday.
Nimoy’s late night calls
Star Trek’s Spock Prime appeared at TrekExpo on Tulsa a couple weekends ago, here he is talking about getting calls from strange women when he spoke at small colleges .
More ST09 and Star Trek Bits
- i09 lists Star Trek II on their 15 SciFi Sequels That Don’t Utterly Suck
Loading ...
Comments»
All I want is a fun story.
oooo Indy in space
Nimoy looks like he’s having a great time these days! Good for him!
It’s gotta be tremendously exciting to be Bob & Alex these days. Write long and prosper, guys!
More Fleet! More Fleet!
Bring is some more “Kelvin” ship action but with Kirk in the chair!
They start with the characters first? I saw Transformers and it lacked in character development compared to other movies like Star Trek. It was all action. I hope this isn’t a trend.
@ #7 Yeah, but it was a Michael Bay film, Which is not about characters. it is about explosions.
and robots, In disguise. and explosions.
Great line…yes, agreed!
“WRITE LONG AND PROSPER”
But don’t write too long because if you do, you have studied wrong!”
Bob and Alex, you guys aren’t seriously riding around the country on a motorcycle and side-car, are you? I can see a “rather long” Vegas stop!!!
Either way, be careful, and as in Spock Prime’s famous last words: “BE HAPPY!”
Transformers as an indy. THAT I’d pay to see (wouldn’t be caught dead seeing a movie based on an 1980s toy-marketing robot car cartoon otherwise).
I can’t say I have tremendous faith in these guys. I’d give the current Trek a slightly positive mixed review as far as the story (the origin story was great to see as a fan, the villain story meh–nothing compelling and I’ve seen it a million times before, plus plotholes you could drive V’Ger through).
I hope the script authors have a relaxing time off so this fall they are able to give 110% effert in their next Star Trek script. With their authoring talents raking in the money I just hope that the desire of people trying to buy them do not clog there brains in the creative thought process.
May you bless us with a great adventure this Christmas (but we have to wait 14 to 18 months to view the result)
STAR TREK (XII): DARK HEART – Khan is found, saved from a dying botany bay, not all of his crew make it. Two years go by, he is rehabilitated, capts a engineering fixer ship. He is equal to Kirk. Then, adapt the Trek book Troublesome Minds, as the chess game begins… Khan and Kirk, two sides of a coin, one light, one dark… BOTH vying to save or exploit the mind control abilities of Berlis. Just an idea.
I hereby challenge Mr. Alex Kurtzman and Mr. Roberto Orci to write a successful (at least an 80% on RottenTomatoes.com, with $250,000,000 domestic gross)….
Wait for it…..
Wait for it…..
Aquaman Movie!
I’d like to see these two write a $2 million indie movie…
Also; put in it the aspect that Khan’s lust is strong, but without McGivers, he would’ve been less impetuous and more cold and calculating, add the line: “his truly was a dark heart.” (Vulcan saying?) A being capable of bending entire planets to his will, with Kirk, a ray of hope, Khan, salaciously solicitous, and McGivers being Khan’s fuel for his own end.
Sorry. My p.s. posted twice… Enter button maladay.
Any Aquaman movie would HAVE to be a comedy.
And it would no doubt make tons of money!
So does anybody know what kind of actual profit Star Trek has made to this point- if any?
The actual story on Screen Daily is pretty cool. Some nice insight.
Cast Rorschach in the next Trek movie/TV series! He did a great job in Watchmen.
Yeah, I agree what they said about the whole writing for a $2m budget. I think this movie coulda done this, because honestly I thought the special effects werent that great considering the budget. Nemesis had hardly the budget this movie did, and despite it being a FAIL in most respects, but the FX were pretty good, not a huge difference that I could see between them and ST09. But yeah, I think their story would hold up, but Id like to see something next time that’s a little closer to the better Trek writing.
No Khan for the sequel, it’s classic and it’s been done.
We have a chance here for brand spankin new Star Trek stories don’t blow it with a rehash of old material. Enterprise was doomed by re-heating old stories we’d all seen before, and Voyager was regularly guilty of the same.
Brand new Trek only please! New species, new villain/villains, new adventures, follow the motto and ‘Boldly go where no one has gone before’
I agree with #21. There must be so many other stories out there. The social issues and suspicions of our world are still so prevalent .Why not the Enterprise exploring other planets with the problems we are experiencing today. A ” 911 ” scenerio on a distant planet where the Enterprise and her crew intercede to prevent it and perhaps enlighten them on the worlds that are out there and the ignorance they show in dealing with their petty swuabbles and mistrusts. Please leave Khan done with !
Watchmen demonstrated how original material can be treated with the utmost respect and carefulness. JJ could have learned a few lessons here but he didn’t.
@23
Watchmen was a critical and financial failure. Slavish devotion to the original material can backfire. And IMHO Zack Snyder didn’t get what Watchmen was about. He was so busy trying to duplicate comic book panels, he missed the nuances and subtext of a brilliant piece of writing. And his few choices for original interpretation were disasterous…again IMHO.
Maybe it’s Zack Snyder who should learn from JJ’s Star Trek.
I want to catch ST 09 one more time before it leaves theaters. Gonna try to make it this weekend!
“Rorschach would be good for flaming Star Trek nitpickers”
Rorschach would be good for flaming Star Trek apologists
Don’t think we don’t see how the debate is framed, moderator.
The problem with these writers is that they didn’t have to do a lot of original work on the Star Trek movie. The characters were already well formed by decades of TV and movies, and most of the differences (Kirk’s “Rebel Without a Cause” phase) were trite and derivative. Nero was a pretty weak villain, the plot was borderline stupid and the solid characterization at the heart of the film (the McCoy stuff, the interplay between Spock and Sarek) was merely an alteration things written by better writers. The film is a solid foundation for something better to come, but I doubt that’s going to come out of the pens of the people who wrote Transformers 2.
27. CJS
“..the plot was borderline stupid and the solid characterization at the heart of the film (the McCoy stuff, the interplay between Spock and Sarek) was merely an alteration things written by better writers. The film is a solid foundation for something better to come, but I doubt that’s going to come out of the pens of the people who wrote Transformers 2.”
The only thing you forgot to add was “IN MY OPINION,” cos I, for one, do not share this opinion, and I’m sure you don’t mean to dismiss anyone else’s opinion, eh?
27
“Nero was a pretty weak villain”
Nero was a weak villain as portrayed exclusively in the film. The Countdown Nero was pretty interesting. Perhaps the next villain’s backstory and motives will be properly discussed in the actual movie
I’m not dismissing other opinions, I’m just pretty sure that mine is the correct one. Transformers 2 has made over 600 million dollars. That means, in my opinion, there are a lot of people out there willing to digest cinematic garbage. The whole world, apparently, is free to disagree.
I don’t agree that Nero was weak. His role was somewhat small, but I found him more compelling when he was on screen than any Trek villain in quite awhile. Of the movie villains, I’d rate him 2nd following Khan. A lot of that is due to Bana’s performance; the man did a bang up job!
Perhaps there’s a place for Jackie Earle Haley in a future Trek movie? Thoughst at to who he could be? Anyone?
#32 … I know who he should play!
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Master_thrall
I’m curious if Mr. Orci or Kurtzman have read the Horatio Hornblower series of books. It inspired Gene Roddenberry in the creation of the original Star Trek and Nicolas Meyer in his films. I can see one of those stories inspiring the adventure aspects of the next film as well as inform the Kirk character as it did for Mr. Roddenberry. Why not look outside of the Star Trek universe for inspiration on the next film? Too many of the past films relied on the past Trek films.
I can see the Hornblower stories could apply to the Star Trek universe. Perhaps stories that relate to the current political and social events of our times. Oppression of peoples, or a Prime Directive story and the conflict it presents to our characters. Just a thought.
#11: Thanks for the shout-out, but my guess is “Troublesome Minds” and Khan in a story wouldn’t mix well. ;) If they’ve read the book, they’re free to use the story–Star Trek owns it already. I’d love to see their take on it–I bet it would rock! My guess is that they could movie it up quite well.
#26—”Rorschach would be good for flaming Star Trek apologists
Don’t think we don’t see how the debate is framed, moderator.”
Lol.
I don’t think that Anthony’s use of the term “Star Trek nitpickers” was specific to ST09. Star Trek had nitpicking fans long before Abrams directed the latest entry…
Here you are, nitpicking the comic caption under the photo in the article!!!
And “apologists” suggests that there is actually something for which to apologize…and there isn’t.
Bad Robot just made the most critically-acclaimed and most domestically attended film in the history of the franchise.
That hardly equates to something for which any fan of the film should “apologize”.
24: Watchmen received a mixed response from critics and it made decent money, far from being a financial failure.
Both outcomes are to be expected from a great movie.
@34 – Or, how about a story about the creation of the Prime Directive? And how it took Kirk’s interference with a pre-warp society – and subsequent “repair” of the damage he did – to lead to the creation of General Order One.
27. CJS – July 9, 2009
The problem with these writers is that they didn’t have to do a lot of original work on the Star Trek movie. The characters were already well formed by decades of TV and movies, and most of the differences (Kirk’s “Rebel Without a Cause” phase) were trite and derivative. Nero was a pretty weak villain, the plot was borderline stupid and the solid characterization at the heart of the film was merely an alteration things written by better writers.
CJS,
I don’t think you can fault writers for having a good subject matter to start wtih. I think you can say the same for any franchise where you have significant material to draw from or react to (Batman, Superman, Harry Potter).
I have frankly seen more reboots or franchises fail because the authors tried too hard to make something new or different in the 1 1/2-2 1/2 hours of screen time allotted and in the process did not effectively connect to and represent the original subject matter.
I admire their self-restraint and/or JJ’s and think that there is a reason that these people are called on again and again to revisit franchises and bring them to life.
But, the reality is that there are very few original stories (look at TOS, not much that was original there) so it is less to me about originality as identifying a story that can be told in the context of that world and those characters. They could look for stories that are obscure or haven’t been retold in a while, but please do not mistake these for original. If someone hires them to make a script in 1 year that’s going to work for a large audience, I don’t think that’s the place they should look for something profound and original. I don’t think that’s what they were paid for.
What they did do and I think largely bulls eye each time they are called upon is to create scenes that work with dialogue that work that takes the audience on an interesting and enjoyable ride consistent with the source material. I did not find that much in this film that surprised me in a positive way, but I thoroughly enjoyed the witty dialogue, characterizations, and mostly the acting. My wife was one of the people who cried within the first 10 minutes.
I would agree about Nero being a villain whose motivations are not well explained, which makes him somewhat caricaturish (like the villain in Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing) but I think that Bana’s self-described “cameo” was well acted and demonstrates a mix of seriously, informality, conviction, thoughtfulness, and anger that makes the character maybe not “believeable” but certainly not distracting (for contrast watch Christopher Plummer as a Klingon with weak Shakespeare quotes here and there to pepper a lifeless movie). I would also say that there is so much we want to know about the crew itself that not explaining Nero is perfectly fine for me– there are many times we percieve villainy in our lives and don’t have time to understand it’s cause so why does Nero’s story need to be told to make this feel “real.”
I think if you go back to Star Trek TOS and movies II-IV, I would argue that many of the villains are quite simplistic archetypes as well so Nero is not out of bounds for a Star Trek villian.
I would also agree that the film’s story was somewhat derivative and obvious and would say the same about the Dark Knight and most action fims of late. If your only point is to encourage them to identify a better story (that already exists somewhere) and translate that into the Star Trek universe for the next film so people who expect something more intellectually interesting will enjoy the 2nd film, I would tend to wholeheartedly agree; so long as there is still enough action and humor and they find a story that is true to the characters stories. As I’ve said before I’d love to see something inspired by Forbidden Planet or Solaris with these characters.
#39…
The Undiscovered Country “a weak movie”? I must have seen a different one because the one I saw was tight, strong and packed with good stuff. A fitting sendoff for the crew.
Plummer’s Chang was the best villain since Khan, bar none.
Re: #35 Mr. Galanter; I’m nearing the end of the book now, I love it. I’m not really sure where I stand, New Khan or No Khan, for a new film. I think the book by itself is movie worthy to be sure. The psychology behind Berlis, his people, that world… It’s a thing I’ve missed in Trek. The reason for my suggested mixture, I’d like to see something more than just a baddie who wants to destroy everything. The book has a real unique-ness to it in that you ask the question, how do we perceive if a person is knowingly bad, or just a being guided by instinct etc. And the sign language quotient is intriguing as well. Good read!
39. tman – July 9, 2009
Bana did okay with the material given to him, but I’ve always found him an uneven talent at best. His biggest problem vis-a-vis Nero is that he was just a prop for creating an alternate reality. These guys didn’t even try to create a sufficiently alien name for him. They mined Khan for both his motivations (dead wife) and methods (let me stick this creature in your head) and got away with calling it an homage. They never made me feel anything toward this character, either sympathy or hate. No one is going to be dressing up as Nero for Halloween this year.
But your right, he’s about par for the course with Star Trek villains. The only decent ones have been Khan and the Borg Queen.
#36 “Bad Robot just made the most critically-acclaimed and most domestically attended film in the history of the franchise.”
from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics
“Today the term “apologist” is colloquially applied in a general manner to include groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies, or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or “whitewashing” their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term generally has a pejorative meaning.”
hardly the standard definition of “apologize” now is it..
of course your tactic is to turn my argument around on me.. standard redirect tactic.. but I must point out my observation concerning the caption was not without thought or cogitation
from:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nitpick
nitpick:
“to be excessively concerned with or critical of inconsequential details.”
you see the caption in my mind was indicative to the trend here to negatively react to fans who have problems with the consequential details not the inconsequential details.. by your posts I tend to see your definition of what is significant and not differs from my own.. but either way your ploy to show reverse nitpicking was at best a simpletons solution that has neither merit nor distinction
I dare you to do better.
42. CJS,
I agree that Nero was a bad name. Romulans are distinctly Romans in space with Praetors, Centurian, etc so Roman names is in my view are okay. I think it funny that they couldn’t have culled from the extensive Latin texts a more appropriate name that is more obscure, so doesn’t conjure an image. Nero immediately evokes an incompetent ruler who’s true love was theatre. Bana’s character is an understated guy of lower birth who is bent on revenge to make up for his loss. Nero he is not.
Regarding “lifting” the torture scene and the “homage” to Khan, again if I look at the comments by the writers and JJ as reported at this site over last 2 years, they saw TWOK as the best or only example of an exciting Star Trek film so I thikn they thorougly analyzed it and compared their product to it as a sanity check. There are many other things they could have done in that scene to make it torture which would have resonated with the modern realistic world much better and been truer to the depiction of Nero and his team. I think physical brutality itself is extremely powerful and not showing the actual torture can actually be more frightening when time isn’t there to show it. I also think the scene was too abrupt and didn’t build any suspense or fear so it seemed very cartoonish. The only explanation I can come up with is that they may have wanted to ensure no kids were scared away from this film so they intentionally made that scene cartoonish, but I think they could have done it very differently.
#43—-You apparently missed the point, which was to suggest that your interpretation of the comment was in itself born of “selective perception”.
You obviously took the term “Star Trek nitpickers” to mean those who only nitpick ST09.
My point was that there have always been “Star Trek nitpickers”—in fact, that’s one of the things for which (fairly or not) fans of this franchise are best known. With that in mind, it is far more likely that the joke was intended in the latter manner.
As for your use of the term “apologist”, again the notion that “negative facts” are there to be ommitted at all would suggest that there is indeed something for which to apologize—-so I’m not sure how that definition is supposed to support your inferance toward the irrelevance of its root word (apology).
Once again, the only “negative fact” of which I am aware is that Star Trek (2009) did not do well abroad. Perhaps you know of another?
There have been subjective criticisms of the film itself, but that’s hardly the same thing as “negative facts”.
ST09 is not in need of an apologist. There are those who are fans of the film, and those who are not.
Jeffrey Dean Morgan (The Comedian) would be great as Khan. He is Javier Bardem clone. :D
#45 “You apparently missed the point”
Yet I clearly stated above:
“you see the caption in my mind was indicative to the trend here to negatively react to fans who have problems with the consequential details not the inconsequential details..”
with nitpicking being:
“to be excessively concerned with or critical of inconsequential details.”
with the caption being a debatable consequential detail (you say it is not)
and then went on to point out what is and is not consequential is in the eye of the beholder.. this certainly pertains to your comment that my “interpretation of the comment was in itself born of “selective perception” and thus refutes your idea that I somehow “missed the point”
Your best bet would be to site reference to our discourse here as nitpicking and I would have a mind to agree as the consequential probabilities have proven to be limited
as in many things: time will tell
@ 37. Watchmen will not come close to turning a profit. Negative profit means it’s a financial failure. Check Rotten Tomatoes. The majority of reviews were negative. It was a critical failure. (I’m a Fanboy so I was personally disappointed in the results of the movie.) A GREAT film needs to be a critical or financial success…preferably the former in terms of priority. Star Trek was both! My point was that trying to perfectly recreate your source material is usually huge mistake. I can’t think one successful example. JJ and team seemed to discover the “secret sauce”…honor the source but put a fresh spin on it. (As part of my prep for new Trek I watched a lot of old Trek. IMHO…an exact duplicate of the ’60s era Enterprise, interior or exterior, would have been laughable and kept mainstream audiences away.)
Nimoy is still going strong. Good for him.
Anyways.. The use of the word apologist was to show the divisive nature of such comments (as nitpickers).. I believe the point was made.
#40 The Undiscovered Country “a weak movie”? I must have seen a different one because the one I saw was tight, strong and packed with good stuff. A fitting sendoff for the crew.
There were some good things in that film so I’m sorry to be so harsh. I think the Vulcan proverb Spock shares with Kirk was the best line. However, it is somewhat absurd of a film and because it doesn’t take itself too seriously and we get to see characters we love again and it’s not as bad as it’s predecessor or postcessor, we watched it happily. The story is so contrived from the whole prison scene, prison escape, shape shifter, fan dance+rescue, etc and a Klingon spouting Shakespeare is a campy representation of a Klingon (the prison was farsical, stealing in large part from good classic films and making as a result a world that is so Hollywood and unrealstic it’s hard to invest in). I’m frankly curious to see how JJ envisioned a Klingon prison. I picture something truly savage.
The Undiscovered Country was a good Star Trek movie. Judged purely from a fan’s perspective, it was perhaps one of the best ever. The music and special effects complimented rather than overwhelmed the story. TUC had a broader moral message about racism and prejudice. With Chang, it also had a literate and cunning villian. Through the shipboard murder investigation, it had enough “science fiction jargon” to keep the political thriller aspects of the movie grounded in the ST lexicon. And the loyalty and friendship angles were consistent with TOS’ focus (e.g. Sulu helping the Enterprise, the crew defying orders to rescue Kirk and McCoy).
Whether it was a good movie for non-Trekkies, however, is debatable. As is often the case with “classic” pre-Abrams Star Trek, general audiences might find the moralizing in TUC a little heavy handed. The Cold War references were numerous. And the film certainly has a viewpoint about all that. Portraying the Klingons as more than “violent barbarians bent on conquest” was a risky move in terms of attracting mainstream audiences as well. Personally, I liked the movie a lot. But I’ve heard very critical comments about it from those who aren’t into Star Trek. Admittedly, the Shakespere quotes might constitute overkill for some. But if they examined the movie as more than a straight action-adventure flick, it actually does fit with the theme.
@48: I’m reading Watchmen grossed 182 million dollars worldwide and cost 130 million dollars. That does not qualify as losing money.
As for critical acclaim: I wasn’t talking about Rotten Tomatoes, where everyone can write anything whatsoever. I was thinking of established movie critics. If you value the outputs of the Tomatometer, fine, but be aware that there’s no warrant that its results are in any way representative of anything except the opinions of exactly those people who participate there, including possible multiple voting.
I don’t know why a great film has to be financially successful. That maybe great for the production company, ok, but what do I care? I’m a moviegoer not studio boss! I’m talking about great films which are great *as films*. Usually, good films do not appeal to wider audiences and therefore they don’t collect the same money as Transformers.
#53—”I don’t know why a great film has to be financially successful. ”
I don’t believe it does. “Great”(which is never quantifiable) and “successful”(only partially quantifiable) are not quite synonymous in this context.
“Usually, good films do not appeal to wider audiences and therefore they don’t collect the same money as Transformers.”
I’m not sure it is so much about “appeal” as it is exposure.
Two films out right now which are being almost universally praised by critics (”The Hurt Locker” and “Afghan Star”) are in extremely limited release, and won’t be seen in theaters by enough people to gauge their potential “appeal” to a wide audience.
Sometimes, a film which is initially in limited release, like “Slumdog Millionaire”, will catch a break and ultimately gain a fairly wide release. But given the perceived aversion of audiences to any film set in the middle of the Iraq War, “The Hurt Locker” is unlikely to catch such a break. That’s a shame.
In other cases, a film which is deemed a box office disappointment can even eventually become one of the more popular and beloved films of all time—-Brian DePalma’s “Scarface”(1983) is one such film.
“If you value the outputs of the Tomatometer, fine, but be aware that there’s no warrant that its results are in any way representative of anything except the opinions of exactly those people who participate there…”
As are all critics’ reviews…But the Tomatometer has never been merely a popularity contest. It is historically difficult to achieve the type of score there that ST09 has been fortunate enough to garner. There are far more “popular” films that do not even approach those numbers. For instance, ROTF has blown Star Trek out of the water in terms of box-office sales—-but last time I checked, it had about half of ST09’s percentage score. I certainly wouldn’t dismiss the value of the Tomatometer in guaging critical acclaim.
#52—-I think that TUC is okay (and certainly a vast improvement over its immediate predecessor), but it is not among my favorite Star Trek films either.
There is no accounting for taste—but I prefer ST09, TWOK, TMP, and TVH over TUC without a doubt. I’d say it is better than TFF and three of the four TNG-era films. I guess I would place TUC on par with TSFS and FC—-I am not likely to ever go out of my way to watch it, but I probably would not change the channel if I happened upon it with nothing better to do.
54 Closettrekker: Sure, what a movie critic writes is his or her opinion. But still, it may be interesting to know what someone who is (or at least should be) a cinema expert thinks about a movie. At least you (usually) get some detailed and reasoned information about a movie from a professional movie critic, i.e. the critic’s job is to tell you *why* a movie is good or sucks.
Tomatometer numbers obviously are particularly good if a movie appeals to younger-to-middle-aged frequent internet users. That’s certainly a skew in the Tomatometer numbers.
#56—” At least you (usually) get some detailed and reasoned information about a movie from a professional movie critic, i.e. the critic’s job is to tell you *why* a movie is good or sucks.
Tomatometer numbers obviously are particularly good if a movie appeals to younger-to-middle-aged frequent internet users. That’s certainly a skew in the Tomatometer numbers.”
Well, I’ll admit that my experience with RT has been limited—but I’ve never read a review there that wasn’t from a “professional movie critic”, and the percentage of good to bad reviews among those critics (at least with ST09) has been comparatively porportionate to the tomatometer.
As for your suggestion that the numbers might be skewed by repeat voting, I have to point out that the same is true the other way. Multiple voting can be done by those who wish to tear something down just as easily as by those who wish to build something up.
Given that the only notable critic I can recall who did not review ST09 favorably is Roger Ebert, while all (at least those whose names I recognized) of the other similarly reputable critics seem to have seen fit to review it favorably—-I think it is safe to say that if Star Trek’s rating there is skewed at all, it is not significantly so.
But again, my familiarity with most other films and how they fare on RT is quite limited.
57: The discussion I had with Check the Circuit! wasn’t about ST09, but about Watchmen. In the case of ST09 the Tomatometer public voting, critics’ voting and what you could read elsewhere (from pro critics, and for instance, right here) are pretty much unanimously in favor of the movie. I’m not suggesting there’s a skew here.
What I was insisting on was that Circuit was wrong when he claimed that Watchmen was a failure with the critics as well as financially. Watchmen received a mixed critical acclaim, in the newspapers as well as on Rotten Tomatoes. (64% from the RT critics is still a majority in favor, by the way.) And I was suggesting that one shouldn’t trust Rotten Tomatoes too much in general, but I admit that in this respect I was thinking more of the community vote.
You know, there’s quite a number of acquaintances of mine who will dismiss or hoorah a film just because of its RT values. I’m more skeptical about RT.
What I find interesting is your comment that you’re “not sure it is so much about “appeal” as it is exposure” – concerning the success of summer blockbuster movies. Sounds plausible to me.
Do you suggest that different movies, e.g. movies which are somewhat off mainstream, would gather wider audiences if there was more advertising and broader distribution? Or do you think that examples like Scarface are rather exceptional?
#58—”The discussion I had with Check the Circuit! wasn’t about ST09, but about Watchmen. ”
I understood. I was just trying to be open about the fact that my familiarity with RT did not extend very far beyond ST09, but still wanted to chime in on the value of the Tomatometer.
” Do you suggest that different movies, e.g. movies which are somewhat off mainstream, would gather wider audiences if there was more advertising and broader distribution? Or do you think that examples like Scarface are rather exceptional?”
You know, I’m not really sure how well ‘Scarface’ was advertised, but it was distributed in over 1000 theaters (pretty good for 1983)—so I didn’t mean to say that it was necessarily lacking in exposure. I just meant to use it as an example of a film that was considered a box-office disappointment, but is obviously viewed in many circles as “great”—to the point where it is actually one of the more iconic films of the modern era.
But I think that, in general, whether or not an otherwise not-so-widely distributed film “catches a break” definitely can make a big difference.
In other words, “The Hurt Locker” may very well be every bit as great as critics are saying—-but since the industry is convinced that people do not at this point wish to see films set in the Iraq War (even though it is very much a character story, and not a political one), it probably isn’t going to get that break, much less suddenly show up in nearly 3000 theaters (as did the similarly praised “Slumdog Millionaire”).
It (”The Hurt Locker”) was released on June 26th, but despite being pretty much universally praised by critics from all directions (and even featuring a very well-respected actor with an impressive resume in Ralph Fiennes), it has only appeared in 60 theaters and taken in a meager $601,172 in Worldwide grosses.
This is definitely a film which suffers from a lack of proper exposure, due to the perceived notion among TPTB that people would refrain from spending their Summer dollars to see it because of the controversial nature of its setting. But 10 years from now, this could be widely considered one of the best films of 2009—in which case, the fact that it made very little money at the box office would be all-but-forgotten.
Holger…My point was about your first post…that JJ should have learned from Watchmen by honoring the source material, suggesting that he didn’t. My argument was that Watchmen failed to live up to expectations because it was too focused on recreating the source material. And that Zack Snyder may learn from JJ’s formula for ST09 which garnered critical, financial and audience success. That’s extremely rare!
BTW, Rotten Tomatoes pools professional critics for its “tomatometer.” It isn’t about voting…it’s just a compilation of what critics said in their reviews.
Also, $180mm in worldwide gross doesn’t translate to profit on a $130mm budget. The studio doesn’t get every dollar generated form ticket sales. I think (and I could be WAY wrong) it’s about half. Plus there are separate marketing costs. Unless Watchmen catches fire on video, it will NEVER turn a profit for WB. Which is too bad. I love superhero flicks. The more the merrier for me. So when one is dud…it can hurt the green lighting prospects for other genre movies. (I also hope that the hour-longer director’s cut of Watchmen helps me enjoy it more. I think the original mini-series is probably the best example of graphics storytelling ever made. So I had high hopes for the movie…but like so many other fanboys…I felt let down.)
Finally, I stand corrected on Watchmen’s Tomatometer score…it did edge into the positive “fresh” range….but no where near Star Trek’s 95%.)
What is “good” to one person can be “bad” to another person, but to inherently presume that one’s own opinion is the “right” one, or the “correct” one borders on megalomania. If 100 people see a movie and 99 of them believe it to be “good,” then it is good to those 99 people. The other person who believes it is “bad,” is a minority. Now, if the movie is being made to appeal to as many people as possible, then, based on the fact that 99 out of 100 people thought it was good, means the movie is a success, simply on the basis of that’s what the film-maker set out to do. If the movie is made with the intention of attracting 1 out of every 100 people, then it could also be considered successful, since, again, it’s what the film-maker set out to do.
Obviously, no one makes a film with the intention of appealing to a minority of people. Trek09 was made with the intention of reaching a wide-ranging audience (in order to re-invigorate the franchise), and this is precisely what happened. If the majority of movie-goers felt that Trek09 was not a good film, that it had a lousy story, that the characters were not appealing, etc, etc, then it would be unlikely that it would have performed as well as it did. To me, this is simple logic and has nothing to do with opinion.
Yes, my opinion is that Trek09 was a terrific film (which I enjoyed enough to see more than once), and I found it to be a very satisfying two hours. If I thought the movie sucked, I A) would not have gone to see it again, and B) I would have told others that I didn’t like it. But apart from opinion, the film has done excellent numbers, and has attracted many positive reviews and repeat viewers, so those who did not like the movie are clearly in the minority. Since the film-maker’s intention was to produce a money-maker that would appeal to many people, I would say Star Trek is a success.
While I find it odd that some people continue to harp on this film as some kind of failure, or that it wasn’t a good film, I accept that they have a right to their own opinions. Unfortunately for them, their opinions do not reflect the reality of Trek09’s popularity and, yes, success.
60 Circuit: There are two Tomatometers, one which pools pro critics views, and one public. We probably talked past each other here.
I know that studios have complicated ways of calculating their net profits (or losses). And some biz insiders have commented on how studios like to downsize their profits for various reasons – for example in order to deny Jackson his due share in LOTR’s profits by claiming the movie barely made any positive profits. It is not transparent how much money really ends up in net profits. Therefore we’ll have to stick with published numbers.
My point was: Zack Snyder respected the source material. This may have resulted in a movie which is complicated and artful, because the comic was, too (if you wanna call it ‘graphic novel’, fine, but to me a comic is a comic and there’s nothing wrong with comics :-) These features will most probably result in a mixed response from the audience and critics, but, and that’s my point: screw the critics and the mass audience if you have a chance of producing a lasting piece of art!!! (And if it is a good film, at least a visible portion of the critics will acknowledge this, even if the audience doesn’t.)
JJ, on the other hand, displayed next to no respect for the original material, he aimed the film at a contemporary mass audience with full deliberation. And he succeeded, obviously, and it’s not too difficult: just stay with established patterns and recipes of contemporary blockbuster cinema.
So what I meant JJ could have learned from Watchmen, i.e. Zack Snyder, is how to treat original material with respect and care.
61 P Technobabble: “While I find it odd that some people continue to harp on this film as some kind of failure, or that it wasn’t a good film, I accept that they have a right to their own opinions. Unfortunately for them, their opinions do not reflect the reality of Trek09’s popularity and, yes, success.”
How does this last statement of yours line up with what you said before in your post? I mean, first you elaborate the obvious about personal tastes and majorities, and then you say it’s *unfortunate* for people who don’t like ST09 that their opinion does not reflect the majority. What?! What is it you want to tell us here? Surely you don’t wanna tell me (I absolutely hate ST09) to adjust to the majority and start to love the movie. Or do you want to tell me that there actually is something wrong with my opinion because it’s not the majority view? I don’t quite get what you want.
I believe we can do one thing which goes beyond uttering personal opinions or counting majorities: point out verifiable features of the film (any film, in fact) and base your verdict on such features (that’s subjective again, of course). This is what good professional reviews do for you. They don’t just say: Wow! The movie rocks! or The movie sucks big time! They explain various features of a film (how it’s cut, how the actors performed, the quality of FX, etc. etc.) and base their verdict on this. This way, even if a critic’s opinion does not coincide with your own, you can get some information about a film which might interest you.
As for ST09 I think we needn’t go over all the details *again*, as we can say, for example that it was fast cut, that there was hardly any longer scene (which means longer than 10 sec nowadays) which featured typical TOS interaction between the Big Three, there was no final frontier, etc. What your opinion on these features may be is your own business, of course, but we can discuss without subjectivity whether a certain feature is in the film or not.
I don’t want to suggest we start doing that here and now, because, as I said, it’s been covered excessively on Trekmovie. I only want to suggest that discussing a movie is more than just ascertaining the percentage of its audience which liked it, or its box office numbers.
Unfortunately, I have all too often read the following schematic response to critical remarks about ST09 here: The movie was a huge success with the audience, therefore your criticism isn’t valid (i.e. shut up)!
62 Holger
“…How does this last statement of yours line up with what you said before in your post? I mean, first you elaborate the obvious about personal tastes and majorities, and then you say it’s *unfortunate* for people who don’t like ST09 that their opinion does not reflect the majority. What?! What is it you want to tell us here? Surely you don’t wanna tell me (I absolutely hate ST09) to adjust to the majority and start to love the movie. Or do you want to tell me that there actually is something wrong with my opinion because it’s not the majority view? I don’t quite get what you want.”
Your point is well-taken, I wasn’t very clear. It’s “unfortunate” for people who don’t like the film because they don’t get to enjoy the fun and pleasure all the rest of us are getting from it. And, no, I am not saying one has to adjust their point of view to fit into the majority. It’s just that when the team wins, the fans of that team revel in the victory. Those who continue to criticize the winners just come across as sore losers. And, no, there is nothing wrong with your opinion at all. But being one of the few cats in a roomful of dogs has got to be a pain in the ass, hmm?
HI Holger…yes I was talking about the “professional critics” scores on Tomatometer.
For the rest, we agree to disagree. Watchmen was uninspiring as a movie…for me. Which was a huge disappointment. I had high hopes after Zack Snyder’s 300. The early production photos looked amazing. As a movie…like so many others…the book was better.
As for Star Trek, I’ve seen it 5 times. Loved it. Wasn’t perfect by any stretch but I think the foundation of the relationships and a sense of wonder is there. But is was an “origin” story and that can be a challenge in it’s own right. I hoping for an Empire Strikes Back or Spiderman 2 with Star Trek II(2).
But…We reach, brother.
63 P Technobabble: I can’t see this as a competition between different teams (”TOS Geek-Purists vs Mainstream Moviefans”??) and I can’t see the success and popularity of ST09 as a win or loss for a “team”. I just don’t think about it this way. Don’t take this personally, but I think this is a very odd way of looking at things. The notion of a competition you suggest is utter nonsense to me. What kind of a competition is this supposed to be? Where are the efforts and accomplishments of the opposing teams? Who are the members of the teams, anyway? What are the rules?
I for my part watch a film, looking at the big picture and at as many details as possible, and then, after the film ends, I usually have a distinct impression of it. If I think the film is worth it, I’ll spend some time reflecting on it afterwards, why in particular I liked or disliked it. And I enjoy discussing a movie with others afterwards.
So, no, I definitely don’t feel a cat in a room full of dogs because I don’t look at things the way you do apparently. But I’ll tell you what IS a pain in my ass. I’m a longstanding Trekker and I had been looking forward to new and better Trek finally coming up, and now I am deeply disappointed that I won’t get any (at least none I accept as real Trek). That annoys me, but that has nothing to do with what others think about the movie.
Sorry, man, that I have to spoil your victorious feelings, but I didn’t even participate in your contest. I simply like to discuss movies, I don’t derive any winner-loser categories from them.
64 Circuit: Yeah, we reach, brother.
I for my part have rated Watchmen #6 in my All-Time Top Ten Films after watching it four times and now I can’t wait for the DVD to be released.
Holger
Wow! 4 times? Well…I hope to have a better experience with the DVD. I’ll be picking it up the day it comes out. I hope the added footage improves my experience. (I hated…HATED…the way the movie changed the ending. The USA’s secret weapon going bonkers would establish world peace?! How would that unite the planet versus an extraterrestrial threat?)
And I hope you give Star Trek II (A) a chance and that it works better for you.
65. Holger
Fair enough, I’m not really trying to debate you, or annoy you. I like talking about movies too. The thing here is that I see a number of people talk about this movie as if it were a failure of some kind, as if it were a shitty movie, etc. and my point was that if that were, in fact, true, the movie would not have been a hit. So, unless every one of the thousands of people who went to see the movie came out disappointed, it simply seems a waste of time to keep ragging on the movie as if it were a statement of fact. Sure, we can make our own claims as to whether we liked it or not, but then we should say “in my opinion,” simply because the fact is the movie was overwhelmingly received in a positive way, and did some great numbers. This was my point. You haven’t spoiled anything for me, mainly because the movie, itself, did not spoil anything for me, and, after all, “the play’s the thing.” I’m a long-standing Trekkie, as well, and I accept this film as Star Trek just fine.
PS: the “competition between teams”-thing was just an analogy, and I accept that perhaps it wasn’t a very good one…
66 Circuit: That they changed the ending of Watchmen was a letdown. I understand Synder’s choice, though. The story was already complicated and telling the actual comicbook-ending, introducing the giant squid, would have made things still more complicated.
67 P Technobabble: I think it would be absurd to deny that ST09 was a big success with critics, audiences and at the box office. That I think of it as kind of a shitty movie is my personal opinion, of course, and I apologize if that wasn’t pointed out clear enough.