Pay no attention to him Kerr. The fact that he's only using numbers as a means to justify why he thinks the film is good just shows he's not interesting in hearing opinions from anyone who do not share his opinion. Bryancd has a hard time understanding that people have personal tastes that don't conform to numbers or his own opinion on what makes a good movie actually good, and the reason he sticks with numbers and statistics is because unlike actual opinions, numbers aren't really refutable. Unfortunately that's all he has. Numbers, and numbers shouldn't mean jack when all you want to do is have a good time.
Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
Pay no attention to him Kerr. The fact that he's only using numbers as a means to justify why he thinks the film is good just shows he's not interesting in hearing opinions from anyone who do not share his opinion. Bryancd has a hard time understanding that people have personal tastes that don't conform to numbers or his own opinion on what makes a good movie actually good, and the reason he sticks with numbers and statistics is because unlike actual opinions, numbers aren't really refutable. Unfortunately that's all he has. Numbers, and numbers shouldn't mean jack when all you want to do is have a good time.
You realize you just managed to contradict your self over the course of two sentences. Numbers are devoid of opinion, they are the ultimate democratic arbiter. Another number worth considering is the 92% audience approval rating in RT. As I mentioned above, it's ok to not like the movie, but the reality is many more had a positive experience. So who is trying to justify their opinion? If you are part if the 8% I would think that would require more heavy lifting.
Kerr Avon
Master Member
You notice on that list though that it uses RT for it's rating right? STID has a high rating there so you just shot yourself in the foot with that argument...
greatwazoo42
Master Member
I have Guinness. All your arguments are invalid.
PotionMistress
Sr Member
Using numbers (especially dollar signs) to validate a subjective thing like the Arts is illogical and only speaks to how we have assimilated corporate-speak into our value systems, to our detriment.
I’m not saying I didn’t find pleasure in the movie, but to coin another corporate phrase, ‘it did not meet expectations.’
I’m not saying I didn’t find pleasure in the movie, but to coin another corporate phrase, ‘it did not meet expectations.’
Yes, but you posted a list of high grossing and low rating films. STID is high grossing (relatively) and high rated. Not sure what your point here is with that list.
I 100% agree that box office does not equal good. Hell, look at Avatar and (ducks) Avengers.
Number of people who voted the movie fresh on RT,
158,823
Average cost of a movie ticket is about
$7.94
Times that by the number of people who casted their votes on Rotten Tomatoes and you get
$1,261,054.62
Divide that number with the current total listed gross of $413,432,773 and the % of people who actually casted their vote on RTs is,
3.05%
So your entire numbers game is based roughly on 3.1% of all the audiences who actually saw the movie, not counting the fact that Rotten Tomatoes only has two ways of rating a movie. Fresh and rotten. A movie can be mediocre and passible with a fresh rating that has the same relevance as a review that calls the movie work of absolute genius. With such a small percentage that doesn't really figure in what the people thought about the film in a descriptive sense, I think the heavy lifting is on your end.
THAT just happened! And considering that critical reviews of Into Darkness are running 84% on RT and a cumulative A- on Entertainment Weekly's tally, the argument is invalid. I love data. We have a saying in the stock trading business "Price is truth." Same concept applies here both in terms of fans, critics, and box office. Numbers don't lie, people do.
Since you have already conceded this fact, why are you still arguing? And now this film has eclipsed the financial box office take of the first, so you are again incorrect. It must get tedious for you..,
Is Paramount happy with Star Trek's box office?
Um, no.
It has made barely over twice its budget.
The first ST made 2.5 times its budget.
Avengers made 7 times its budget.
Iron man 3, 6.
The Dark Knight Rises, 4
Fast and furious 6. 4.
Hansel and Gretel, 4.5
Gi Joe retaliation, almost 3.
I wouldn't consider all of those quality films but they have made the studios happy. Heck, even Oz the great and powerful did 2.2. Studios don't care if the movie is lousy or not, they care if it makes money. A movie has to do double it's budget to get profitable. It is certainly not a 'hit', but it didn't tank, either. But they really needed this movie to do better. The only way ST is coming back to the theater is if the next budget is much much smaller.
Um, no.
It has made barely over twice its budget.
The first ST made 2.5 times its budget.
Avengers made 7 times its budget.
Iron man 3, 6.
The Dark Knight Rises, 4
Fast and furious 6. 4.
Hansel and Gretel, 4.5
Gi Joe retaliation, almost 3.
I wouldn't consider all of those quality films but they have made the studios happy. Heck, even Oz the great and powerful did 2.2. Studios don't care if the movie is lousy or not, they care if it makes money. A movie has to do double it's budget to get profitable. It is certainly not a 'hit', but it didn't tank, either. But they really needed this movie to do better. The only way ST is coming back to the theater is if the next budget is much much smaller.
jlee562
Sr Member
The box office gross goes two ways. Yes, bad movies can make a lot of money, and no, RT is not a perfect metric of how good a movie is.
But at the same time, it is a more than fair statement to say that this movie was well received. It's not a runaway blockbuster, but it certainly didn't flounder either.
But at the same time, it is a more than fair statement to say that this movie was well received. It's not a runaway blockbuster, but it certainly didn't flounder either.
Why are you?
jlee562
Sr Member
I get the feeling that Paramount expected this movie to do slightly better than it did. However, it is by no means a flop.
laserpistol76
Well-Known Member
Hey guys, I thought of something kind of weird. What if new Spock told old Spock how they saved Kirk? What would old Spock think?
He'd probably say something like "Khan has blood that brings you back to life? WTF? Umm... Err... I mean that is highly improbable." :lol
laserpistol76
Well-Known Member
I'd bet he'd say, "funny, that happened to me..."
Similar threads
