I have been underwhelmed by most big movie scores recently, most notably this one and Man of Steel.
Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
I have been underwhelmed by most big movie scores recently, most notably this one and Man of Steel.
Solo4114
Master Member
Given the choice between "distractingly irritating" (e.g., Trek '09) and "underwhelming, but serviceable," (e.g. Into Darkness), I'll pick "underwhelming, but serviceable."
Also, I think we may have been spoiled by guys like Hermann, Williams, Zimmer, Silvestri, Goldstein, and even Horner. Giacchino so far is good at creating effective moods, but not stuff that I'd really want to listen to on its own or that is instantly recognizable. And that's at his best. At his worst, it's instantly recognizable because I want to punch the music in the face.
Zimmer is a shadow of what he used to be. From great scores to the Dark Knight, MOS, etc... No great themes anymore, just a tension track with a two or three note musical cue. :thumbsdown
It was that Inception score where Zimmer developed this new sound and now he can't let it go. It's two notes played again and again while moving up the scale. It's pervasive now it seems.
NakedMoleRat
Legendary Member
Well hey, that particular score worked once, so that means it will fit EVERY movie made from here on out!
Wait, that basically speaks to movie scripts too now-a-days!
Wait, that basically speaks to movie scripts too now-a-days!
DARTH SABER
Master Member
Apparently box office numbers arent an indication of a good film, and neither are critic reviews, or move site scores???
STID has high ranks in all these categories....So how exactly is a good film to be measured?
Its quite funny watching someone bring up the box office numbers and someone else says "Box office numbers mean nothing!"
Then someone brings up the critic reviews, and someone else says "Critic reviews mean nothing!"
Then someone brings up the average movie goers movie site scores and someone else says "Scores mean nothing"
Apparently every demographic that suggests the film was good "means nothing"....But yet no proof is needed when claiming the movie is "bad".
Too funny.
STID has high ranks in all these categories....So how exactly is a good film to be measured?
Its quite funny watching someone bring up the box office numbers and someone else says "Box office numbers mean nothing!"
Then someone brings up the critic reviews, and someone else says "Critic reviews mean nothing!"
Then someone brings up the average movie goers movie site scores and someone else says "Scores mean nothing"
Apparently every demographic that suggests the film was good "means nothing"....But yet no proof is needed when claiming the movie is "bad".
Too funny.
Solo4114
Master Member
Well, they don't. Not in terms of whether the movie is good from a quality perspective. Box office numbers mean the movie is popular and financially successful. Not that it was well made.
I think it depends heavily on the critic. Different critics review films from different perspectives and have different backgrounds. I mean, when Ebert was alive, I'd trust him to, usually, give a film a fair review. It might not change whether I liked the film, but he was usually concerned with things like the film's narrative structure and the quality of the craftsmanship involved in the filmmaking. By contrast, the folks at Entertainment Weekly or your local newspaper may just say "I liked it" and then describe why they liked it. In that sense, it's just some person with an opinion, no different from any of the other folks who bought a ticket that weekend except for the fact that they have a "megaphone" of sorts to project their opinion. So, yeah, critical reviews don't NECESSARILY mean a film is well made.
Also, Leonard Maltin gave Laserblast 2.5 stars. Also getting 2.5 stars or less: Taxi Driver, Animal House, Blade Runner, The Big Lebowski, The Shawshank Redemption, etc.
How valuable are those critical reviews again?
Again, they don't. Not in terms of the quality of the film. They speak to the popularity of the film. That's all.
Look, a film can be well made but dull as paint. Or it can be poorly made and still entertaining. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Transformers 1 is a BAD film. It's got awful cliches, horrible acting and writing, the fight sequences are nothing special...it's just large robots blowing stuff up and beating on each other for 2+ hours. But it sure was popular and it sure was entertaining to a lot of those people in spite of basically being a B-movie with a big budget.
By contrast, I think, for example, that Blue Velvet is a well made film. It is, however, creepy, weird, and probably NOT enjoyable to a lot of people. It was critically lambasted when it first came out, although critics have warmed to it over time. What does that say about critical opinion, though?
I'm sure plenty of us can come up with less-than-popular but extremely well made movies. There's also a question of what purpose the movie is attempting to accomplish. Is it just trying to be an adventure roller coaster ride? Then we can compare it to other similar films within the genre and determine how it compares to them. There are, usually, examples of extremely well made films within a given genre, even if that genre doesn't exactly get nominated for Oscars on the regular.
Think of it this way. McDonalds' food is popular and sells extremely well. McDonalds is also garbage. I don't think anyone here would claim it is good food, even within the "genre" of fast food joints. I'd argue that there are plenty of other burger joints out there that do a MUCH better burger, even if they aren't as popular or financially successful. Five Guys, Shake Shack, Goodburger, In & Out Burger, etc., etc. You can find better burgers out there. So simply saying "But it makes so much money!" or "But they've served over 1 billion people!" doesn't really speak to the QUALITY of the food. Just its popularity. See what I mean?
Now, personally, I enjoyed Into Darkness. I thought it was well done for what it was, and was a damnsight better than the first film in the Abrams Trek series. But appeals to popularity, financial success, or certain critical reviews which really are little more than "I liked it because it was fun" or "I didn't like it because I didn't like it," don't really get to the quality of the film itself.
DARTH SABER
Master Member
Well, they don't. Not in terms of whether the movie is good from a quality perspective. Box office numbers mean the movie is popular and financially successful. Not that it was well made.
I think it depends heavily on the critic. Different critics review films from different perspectives and have different backgrounds. I mean, when Ebert was alive, I'd trust him to, usually, give a film a fair review. It might not change whether I liked the film, but he was usually concerned with things like the film's narrative structure and the quality of the craftsmanship involved in the filmmaking. By contrast, the folks at Entertainment Weekly or your local newspaper may just say "I liked it" and then describe why they liked it. In that sense, it's just some person with an opinion, no different from any of the other folks who bought a ticket that weekend except for the fact that they have a "megaphone" of sorts to project their opinion. So, yeah, critical reviews don't NECESSARILY mean a film is well made.
Also, Leonard Maltin gave Laserblast 2.5 stars. Also getting 2.5 stars or less: Taxi Driver, Animal House, Blade Runner, The Big Lebowski, The Shawshank Redemption, etc.
How valuable are those critical reviews again?
Again, they don't. Not in terms of the quality of the film. They speak to the popularity of the film. That's all.
Look, a film can be well made but dull as paint. Or it can be poorly made and still entertaining. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Transformers 1 is a BAD film. It's got awful cliches, horrible acting and writing, the fight sequences are nothing special...it's just large robots blowing stuff up and beating on each other for 2+ hours. But it sure was popular and it sure was entertaining to a lot of those people in spite of basically being a B-movie with a big budget.
By contrast, I think, for example, that Blue Velvet is a well made film. It is, however, creepy, weird, and probably NOT enjoyable to a lot of people. It was critically lambasted when it first came out, although critics have warmed to it over time. What does that say about critical opinion, though?
I'm sure plenty of us can come up with less-than-popular but extremely well made movies. There's also a question of what purpose the movie is attempting to accomplish. Is it just trying to be an adventure roller coaster ride? Then we can compare it to other similar films within the genre and determine how it compares to them. There are, usually, examples of extremely well made films within a given genre, even if that genre doesn't exactly get nominated for Oscars on the regular.
Think of it this way. McDonalds' food is popular and sells extremely well. McDonalds is also garbage. I don't think anyone here would claim it is good food, even within the "genre" of fast food joints. I'd argue that there are plenty of other burger joints out there that do a MUCH better burger, even if they aren't as popular or financially successful. Five Guys, Shake Shack, Goodburger, In & Out Burger, etc., etc. You can find better burgers out there. So simply saying "But it makes so much money!" or "But they've served over 1 billion people!" doesn't really speak to the QUALITY of the food. Just its popularity. See what I mean?
Now, personally, I enjoyed Into Darkness. I thought it was well done for what it was, and was a damnsight better than the first film in the Abrams Trek series. But appeals to popularity, financial success, or certain critical reviews which really are little more than "I liked it because it was fun" or "I didn't like it because I didn't like it," don't really get to the quality of the film itself.
so ehat youre saying is theres no reasonable way to measure a films worth??
ill keep that in mind the next time someone says "abrams trek sucks" and they have nothing to back it up with.
Solo4114
Master Member
No, I'm saying citing mass appeal and numbers isn't a good way to discuss the quality of a film. None of which has to do with whether one LIKES the film or not.
For example, I think Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins is a terrible film.....which I love (partially because it's terrible).
Far too often, people conflate enjoyment with quality. The fact that you enjoyed a film doesn't mean it's a good film. It's an ENTERTAINING film, but not necessarily good. Quality has more to do with the artistry involved in the construction of a film. How well made it is. How effective it is at accomplishing its goals. Entertainment is a goal, sure, but there's more to it than just liking it.
A film might be really entertaining, but completely derivative as a genre film. Or it might be entertaining and exceptionally well constructed. Or it might be well constructed, but ultimately just not do it for you even if you can acknowledge that it's well done.
But in the end, who the hell really cares? If you like a film, great. Bully for you. The fact that someone else thinks the film is poorly made shouldn't matter. I think Transformers 1 is a piece of cinematic excrement. Didn't stop them from making three more sequels, and I rather doubt my opinion on the subject has diminished the enjoyment of those who like watching the films.
DARTH SABER
Master Member
also, your McDonalds metaphor is not very good since determining "good" or "bad" food is based on facts.
we know certain ingrediants and elements in food are bad for the human body..those are facts proven by science.
film, on the other hand, is based entirely on opinion.
we know certain ingrediants and elements in food are bad for the human body..those are facts proven by science.
film, on the other hand, is based entirely on opinion.
DARTH SABER
Master Member
i care because any time i go into a thread discussing a trek prop from the new film or a simple discussion on aspects of the film, it gets flooded with the same old tired lens flare jokes and bashing, implyig that anyone who likes the film is an idiot.
if someone started a JJ trek hate thread i know i wouldnt go in there...so why do they feelthe need to?
the real question is, why do the haters care if someone else like the film?
they dont like the film, then dont go see it and act as though it doesnt exist. problem solved.
hell, i dont like anchovies on my pizza but im not going out of my way to make people feel stupid for eating it.
and you really havent specified what method should be used to measure a films worth. all youve done is stated that every method currently used to measure a films worth doesnt mean anything...so if a combination of box office numbers, critic response, and fan response is worthless then how should we measure a films worth?
keep in mind films are a form of art and are subjective. opinions from fans and critics and box office numbers are the only reasonable ways to measure films worth.
if someone started a JJ trek hate thread i know i wouldnt go in there...so why do they feelthe need to?
the real question is, why do the haters care if someone else like the film?
they dont like the film, then dont go see it and act as though it doesnt exist. problem solved.
hell, i dont like anchovies on my pizza but im not going out of my way to make people feel stupid for eating it.
and you really havent specified what method should be used to measure a films worth. all youve done is stated that every method currently used to measure a films worth doesnt mean anything...so if a combination of box office numbers, critic response, and fan response is worthless then how should we measure a films worth?
keep in mind films are a form of art and are subjective. opinions from fans and critics and box office numbers are the only reasonable ways to measure films worth.
Yeah, I have to agree with DS here, Dan. I understand the argument you are trying to make but when you consider three separate matrix for a products success, you have gone a long way towards flattening out the variability if opinion. It is fair and accurate to say a film as a product is a success based on it's financial, critical, and audience reaction. To argue some critics are better then others or more competent doesn't really fly as long as you take a sufficient sample size as the basis. And audience reaction is really where the proof is in the pudding.
Solo4114
Master Member
STUPID ANCHOVY HATER!!!! YOU MUST EAT ANCHOVIES!!!!!
Nah, in all seriousness, I get what you're saying. I think the vitriol in discussing the thing is where it gets silly on both sides. I'm not out to "prove" my opinion to anyone, particularly with a film like this that, in my opinion, had its flaws but isn't a terribly made film.
Well, wait, are we talking worth or quality? Worth in the sense of a quantifiable dollar amount, I think is perfectly measured by popularity and box office take. If we're talking quality, I think we can discuss things like storytelling conventions, how well realized the characters are, how emotional beats are hit in the film, etc. There's still gonna be some subjectivity, but I still think you can have a discussion about the quality of the craftsmanship of the film vs. whether someone liked it, by appealing to certain artistic concepts.
Well, again, I'm talking less about whether people like it vs. whether it's well made. It's tougher to discuss, certainly. There's no denying that Into Darkness is very popular and financially successful, and has generally been fairly well received by the critics. But I also think there are things we could discuss about it's flaws (e.g., is Carol Marcus an effective character?), without regard to just "I liked it" or "I didn't." I mean, on a certain level, it'll be a matter of opinion rather than hard fact, but I'm talking more from the perspective of art criticism. Something that is at least in some respect appealing to a more thought-through discussion of the merits and faults of the film rather than just "It was cool that so and so appeared as a nod to the old series."
Example:
Pike was used mostly effectively, I thought. As a mentor and surrogate father for Kirk, I felt that Pike was acted and written well enough that, even though his appearance was brief, it was meaningful and clearly impactful. Thus, his death is also meaningful and ends up clouding Kirk's judgment.
Compare him, however, to Carol Marcus, who really just seemed to be there to provide a solution to a writers room question of "Why's he stop shooting?" and to be a "Look who we included!" nod to the older films. I don't think her appearance is particularly meaningful, nor is she particularly well-written (although I believed her emotions when she was acting, so that's something I guess). Her motivations are established, but the manner in which they're revealed seemed hasty and a bit too convenient.
I mean, I LIKED that they included her. I thought some of the scenes were kind of entertaining, but she didn't feel like all that real a character to me. I think we can discuss matters like that without it being a matter purely of opinion, or at least without it being unreasoned, baseless opinion or gut-reaction.
jlee562
Sr Member
There's no empirical metric that could be used to convince someone who didn't like the film, that it was good. That's the subjectivity of any art form.
But the empirical metrics that we do have (box office, critic reviews, user ratings) do show that most of the people who saw this movie, like it.
But the empirical metrics that we do have (box office, critic reviews, user ratings) do show that most of the people who saw this movie, like it.
First, I enjoyed the movie even if I have some serious issues with how we even got to this situation. And I'm still wondering why it was better to have the ship in the ocean where they cannot transport anyone instead of in space where they had some other reason they could not transport anyone. I wonder why the characters all seem so angry. I felt like Karl had to rush from the set of Dredd to the set of Star Trek.
I haven't been reading the forum lately so I'm not going to read 35+ pages to see if this has been covered, but JJ broke this universe. I don't know if this was on purpose or because of sloppy "let's just advance the story". You can now transport directly from Earth to deep in Klingon territory. And in the previous movie they flew from Earth to Vulcan in what, 15 minutes? The only way to go forward is going to require another reboot.
Also, Kahn didn't look very Indian to me. Sure Montalban wasn't Indian either, but he looked "Indian-ish" and had an accent.
I haven't been reading the forum lately so I'm not going to read 35+ pages to see if this has been covered, but JJ broke this universe. I don't know if this was on purpose or because of sloppy "let's just advance the story". You can now transport directly from Earth to deep in Klingon territory. And in the previous movie they flew from Earth to Vulcan in what, 15 minutes? The only way to go forward is going to require another reboot.
Also, Kahn didn't look very Indian to me. Sure Montalban wasn't Indian either, but he looked "Indian-ish" and had an accent.
Last edited:
I just love showing people that film and watch either their smiles or abject terror of that film!
:lol "SHUT THE #### UP FRANK!!" :lol
:lol "SHUT THE #### UP FRANK!!" :lol
Lynch is awesome
J.J. Abrams does not give a rat's butt about preserving any notion of the Trek that existed up until 2009.
It's all just a paycheque and he's cashed in and out.
Now he'll probably do the same with Star Wars. He'll probably do the first 2, then abandon the franchise to move on to something else.
I watched Search For Spock again last weekend and damn..it's even better than I remember it. Both J-abrams treks don't even come close, IMO.
J.J. Abrams does not give a rat's butt about preserving any notion of the Trek that existed up until 2009.
It's all just a paycheque and he's cashed in and out.
Now he'll probably do the same with Star Wars. He'll probably do the first 2, then abandon the franchise to move on to something else.
I watched Search For Spock again last weekend and damn..it's even better than I remember it. Both J-abrams treks don't even come close, IMO.
Similar threads
