Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

[ArtistTheGeek]

Going by this way of thinking though, the original Blade Runner is a terrible film, because nobody went to see it. Of course we know that's not the case. If the people who saw something liked it, but the public at large weren't convinced to go see it or simply had no interest, then it would have a high score and low box office.

 

[Mottrex]

Going by this way of thinking though, the original Blade Runner is a terrible film, because nobody went to see it. Of course we know that's not the case. If the people who saw something liked it, but the public at large weren't convinced to go see it or simply had no interest, then it would have a high score and low box office.

It also depends on what other Big movies were on at the same period of time, people were more selective back then and back then it was heavily promoted as a film noir Phillip Marlow affair..
Bleak dystopia didn't fair well until the mid 80s..
But..would flock to see a Tootsie like comedy..

 

[Gregatron]

Oh, look. Right after the accusations of negative review-bombing of the abysmal KENOBI show, the RT audience score suddenly jumped up nearly 10%, so that the audience score is now no longer rotten. Almost as if there was a flood of positive review-bombing, and/or negative reviews were culled from the site.

Not suspicious at all.


I no longer care what “professional” reviewers and corrupt aggregate review sites say. My eyes were opened when a former online pal of mine—a professional reviewer based in San Francisco who constantly posts about politics and “diversity”, mind you—softballed his review of THE LAST JEDI and then later posted photos of a meet-and-greet with Ruin Johnson at an event, and how happy he was to tell Johnson about the impact the film had had on him.

It’s all about access and greasing the wheels. Sucking up to corporations, and aligning themselves with people who espouse their politics.

Fortunately, I have no financial or social stake in any of this stuff, and so am free to express my opinions based on the quality of the work and its fidelity to what has come before. Because, for me, those two elements are inextricably linked, when it comes to long-running franchises.

 

[Noeland]

Like I said, I don't hate Strange New Worlds by a sight. I like a whole lot more than Discovery (which I also don't hate) I do not love it though, and I wanted to. I love some of the actors on the show, love some of the art direction, and I love seeing Star Trek on The Starship Enterprise again. But I always take the bad with the good and acknowledge both when I watch a movie, TV show, or play a game. I wanted the show to be better. I appreciate that they are trying to be better. They just ain't there yet. Of course this is only my opinion, that's what we do here.

 

[Picard102]

In my observation, a lot of the armchair critics out there are very good at pointing out and articulating what doesn’t work about a show or film, but then their own suggestions for improvement are just as bad, if not worse.

The irony.

And thanks for reporting to us from your world where opinion is fact and your view is the only one.

Don't bother, they are set on "Nu-Trek" being an evil plot to destroy masculinity, and they'll just block you and make low quality memes so they can stay in that bubble.

 

[asalaw]

Going by this way of thinking though, the original Blade Runner is a terrible film, because nobody went to see it. Of course we know that's not the case. If the people who saw something liked it, but the public at large weren't convinced to go see it or simply had no interest, then it would have a high score and low box office.

Well, not exactly. The world is full of highly regarded films that bombed on release, and vice-versa, huge hits that are awful, forgettable films (Dirty Dancing comes to mind). (In the case of Blade Runner, you have the peculiar example of a production executive who hurt the film prior to release, and a different edit today that’s much more highly regarded because it undid the damage.)

I never meant to imply that a film’s financial success is a measure of its quality. Airport, for instance, was a big hit, but largely forgotten today. But Chinatown, though it did well, wasn’t nearly as successful. The test of time is a much better indicator than box office or even contemporary critical reception.

However, financial success is a reliable measure of popularity and a quantifiable indicator of what audiences really want—and much more reliable than aggregating online opinions. Even if there are no bots and no shills, there’s still the matter of self-selection bias—rendering the RT audience score, at best, unscientific.

Of course, the hard part about collecting real data is interpreting it. History is also full of sequels to big hits that themselves flop. Speed 2, Ghostbusters 2016, Basic Instinct 2, et al.

 

[Cephus]

However, financial success is a reliable measure of popularity and a quantifiable indicator of what audiences really want—and much more reliable than aggregating online opinions. Even if there are no bots and no shills, there’s still the matter of self-selection bias—rendering the RT audience score, at best, unscientific.

Mostly, what audiences really want is to be entertained and the current studio system is meant to keep people from honestly reacting to movies so that people keep going to see it. Add to that big name "franchises" where people will go to see it regardless, at least until those early reviews start coming in and the studios desperately trying to keep the news positive to prolong the money flow for as long as possible and you get things like the modern review site. The review sites get perks like studio advertising, but only, whether it's said or not, if the reviews keep looking good. Professional reviewers get benefits like early screenings and freebies, but only so long as they're making the movie out to be good. Otherwise, they won't get invited any longer and they'll lose whatever advantage they might have had. There's a really good reason for these sites to skew the results in Hollywood's favor because they benefit directly from doing so.

Even immediate financial success is a poor indicator. The studios have a vested interest in keeping a lid on early reviews so that people don't know how bad the movie is before opening night. First weekend box office often looks good and then it falls completely off of the cliff because word of mouth spreads and people take their money elsewhere. Yet even a bad movie can sometimes make money if there's nowhere else to go. It's why you get studios dumping movies in January and February. There isn't a lot else for movie goers to spend their money on and they'll sit through a sub-standard movie rather than be bored.

I'd really say that the real indicator of whether a movie is good is it's long-term financial income. Not first weekend. Not first week. How long does it remain in theaters as a profitable movie? How does it sell in DVD and Bluray? How long until the studios are dumping copies at a massive discount because they're not selling? That's the kind of thing that I'd look at.

 

[asalaw]

Mostly, what audiences really want is to be entertained and the current studio system is meant to keep people from honestly reacting to movies so that people keep going to see it. Add to that big name "franchises" where people will go to see it regardless, at least until those early reviews start coming in and the studios desperately trying to keep the news positive to prolong the money flow for as long as possible and you get things like the modern review site. The review sites get perks like studio advertising, but only, whether it's said or not, if the reviews keep looking good. Professional reviewers get benefits like early screenings and freebies, but only so long as they're making the movie out to be good. Otherwise, they won't get invited any longer and they'll lose whatever advantage they might have had. There's a really good reason for these sites to skew the results in Hollywood's favor because they benefit directly from doing so.

Even immediate financial success is a poor indicator. The studios have a vested interest in keeping a lid on early reviews so that people don't know how bad the movie is before opening night. First weekend box office often looks good and then it falls completely off of the cliff because word of mouth spreads and people take their money elsewhere. Yet even a bad movie can sometimes make money if there's nowhere else to go. It's why you get studios dumping movies in January and February. There isn't a lot else for movie goers to spend their money on and they'll sit through a sub-standard movie rather than be bored.

I'd really say that the real indicator of whether a movie is good is it's long-term financial income. Not first weekend. Not first week. How long does it remain in theaters as a profitable movie? How does it sell in DVD and Bluray? How long until the studios are dumping copies at a massive discount because they're not selling? That's the kind of thing that I'd look at.

I’d broadly agree with that, though I’d maintain that whether a film is a financial hit and whether it is, in the end, a good (or great) film are two separate questions. The first gets answered directly by the marketplace (whether in the short- or long-term), but the second requires more thought and might sometimes take years. But when a film withstands the test of time, that is a good reflection of the film’s artistic merit—most of the time.

For instance, Casablanca and Citizen Kane are still, some 80 years on, widely regarded as the two greatest films ever made. They’re both examples of both great screenwriting and great directing (though Casablanca’s story was famously finished during production), and should absolutely be required viewing in film school—both as history and art. On the other hand, Birth of a Nation also has to be studied because D.W. Griffith basically invented the long-form film narrative, but as a piece of “art” it’s morally appalling.

 

[Gregatron]

Well, not exactly. The world is full of highly regarded films that bombed on release, and vice-versa, huge hits that are awful, forgettable films (Dirty Dancing comes to mind). (In the case of Blade Runner, you have the peculiar example of a production executive who hurt the film prior to release, and a different edit today that’s much more highly regarded because it undid the damage.)

I never meant to imply that a film’s financial success is a measure of its quality. Airport, for instance, was a big hit, but largely forgotten today. But Chinatown, though it did well, wasn’t nearly as successful. The test of time is a much better indicator than box office or even contemporary critical reception.

However, financial success is a reliable measure of popularity and a quantifiable indicator of what audiences really want—and much more reliable than aggregating online opinions. Even if there are no bots and no shills, there’s still the matter of self-selection bias—rendering the RT audience score, at best, unscientific.

Of course, the hard part about collecting real data is interpreting it. History is also full of sequels to big hits that themselves flop. Speed 2, Ghostbusters 2016, Basic Instinct 2, et al.

I've come to take a more individualistic approach. I like what I like, and I dislike what I dislike. There are good bad movies, and bad good movies. What other people--be they reviewers or audiences--think is less and less important to me than just enjoying what I enjoy.

There are absolutely great movies which have unfairly failed (like BLADE RUNNER), and terrible movies praised as gold (like THE LAST JEDI).

When everyone else went to see TOP GUN: MAVERICK, two weeks ago, I went to see CRIMES OF THE FUTURE. And I don't regret it.


But I take it personally when people praise the zombie-corpses of my favorite franchises, and tear down legitimate criticisms because THEY can't handle the fact that not everyone loves them.

 

[Gregatron]

Mostly, what audiences really want is to be entertained and the current studio system is meant to keep people from honestly reacting to movies so that people keep going to see it. Add to that big name "franchises" where people will go to see it regardless, at least until those early reviews start coming in and the studios desperately trying to keep the news positive to prolong the money flow for as long as possible and you get things like the modern review site. The review sites get perks like studio advertising, but only, whether it's said or not, if the reviews keep looking good. Professional reviewers get benefits like early screenings and freebies, but only so long as they're making the movie out to be good. Otherwise, they won't get invited any longer and they'll lose whatever advantage they might have had. There's a really good reason for these sites to skew the results in Hollywood's favor because they benefit directly from doing so.

Even immediate financial success is a poor indicator. The studios have a vested interest in keeping a lid on early reviews so that people don't know how bad the movie is before opening night. First weekend box office often looks good and then it falls completely off of the cliff because word of mouth spreads and people take their money elsewhere. Yet even a bad movie can sometimes make money if there's nowhere else to go. It's why you get studios dumping movies in January and February. There isn't a lot else for movie goers to spend their money on and they'll sit through a sub-standard movie rather than be bored.

I'd really say that the real indicator of whether a movie is good is it's long-term financial income. Not first weekend. Not first week. How long does it remain in theaters as a profitable movie? How does it sell in DVD and Bluray? How long until the studios are dumping copies at a massive discount because they're not selling? That's the kind of thing that I'd look at.

Yes, the signs of a bad movie tend to be no screenings for critics, dumping them out in January/February/March, and front-loading them as much as possible for that opening weekend box office by generating hype and FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) with the advertising.

You can often tell when they're desperate after the post-release TV spots start to pummel you with positive review pull-quotes, rather than letting the marketing and the film and word-of-mouth speak for themselves.

 

[asalaw]

I've come to take a more individualistic approach. I like what I like, and I dislike what I dislike. There are good bad movies, and bad good movies. What other people--be they reviewers or audiences--think is less and less important to me than just enjoying what I enjoy.

There are absolutely great movies which have unfairly failed (like BLADE RUNNER), and terrible movies praised as gold (like THE LAST JEDI).

When everyone else went to see TOP GUN: MAVERICK, two weeks ago, I went to see CRIMES OF THE FUTURE. And I don't regret it.


But I take it personally when people praise the zombie-corpses of my favorite franchises, and tear down legitimate criticisms because THEY can't handle the fact that not everyone loves them.

I totally hear you—but do treat yourself to TG: M. It’s as un-woke as it gets, Maverick is refreshingly masculine, noble, and heroic, and the flying scenes are amazing. It’s definitely a finger in the eyes of both woke/intersectional main characters, and over-baked CGI.

And to add to your list of bad film signs, I’d say a trailer that basically shows you the entire plot instead of titillating you with compelling snippets is a pretty reliable indicator of a turkey in the oven.

 

[ArtistTheGeek]

...because THEY can't handle the fact that not everyone loves them.

Meanwhile you can't handle the fact that not everyone hates them.

See how that works?

 

[Gregatron]

I totally hear you—but do treat yourself to TG: M. It’s as un-woke as it gets, Maverick is refreshingly masculine, noble, and heroic, and the flying scenes are amazing. It’s definitely a finger in the eyes of both woke/intersectional main characters, and over-baked CGI.

And to add to your list of bad film signs, I’d say a trailer that basically shows you the entire plot instead of titillating you with compelling snippets is a pretty reliable indicator of a turkey in the oven.

Mind you, I meant no slight against TOP GUN. Just saying that I chose the smart indie movie over the action blockbuster.

 

[Gregatron]

Meanwhile you can't handle the fact that not everyone hates them.

See how that works?

Incorrect. People are free to like what they like, just as I'm free to ask "How?" And "Why?"

What I can't handle is STAR TREK being denigrated and turned into brain-dead pap by frauds and hacks who are more than happy to plagiarize the works of better people, and use identity politics as a shield against criticism. The "useful idiots"(for lack of a better term) who gleefully support this cultural vandalism are inconsequential.


Still, thanks for playing. Ignored.

 

[PhantomForge]

Really enjoying the show so far— came on here to say this week's episode surprised me with the subject matter and how it all played out. Reminded me in a few ways of "Torchwood: Children of Earth." Obviously very different plot but... well, there's a through line.

It's been a nice weekly talking point with my dad, who watched TOS as a kid and has been a consistent Trek fan since TNG. He really likes it as well (but hates Pike's hair, seems to be the consistent jab he has each week).

 

[Gregatron]

I get that. I saw Downton Abbey: A New Age with my wife before we did TG, and I’m delighted I did. Beautiful film. Julian Fellowes is a magnificent writer. If you go, take a box of tissues.

I agree with you about the cultural vandals. Some people think graffiti is art, too, but it still defaces property. Star Trek is being defenestrated and deconstructed before our eyes, in real time, and whole legions of fans neither realize it nor care.

Also, I think that we're seeing pure greed and selfishness on display, both from Secret Hideout and those who loudly and proudly defend these shows. People who get their knickers in a twist over criticisms of these bastardizations seem unable to grasp the fact that fans existed before they came along, and that these franchises have been bent, folded, and twisted into something they're not.

Pretty darn selfish to shove someone out of their longtime sandbox, piss in it, and then tell them that they should stop complaining about it. There's room for more than one sandbox on the playground, after all. STAR TREK's unique identity has been slowly stripped away from it, as Abrams and company have twisted it into STAR WARS LITE and any other number of inferior knockoffs of other, better things.

When THE ORVILLE does STAR TREK better and more respectfully than "real" STAR TREK (and it absolutely does), then something has gone seriously, seriously wrong.

 

[pengbuzz]

Meanwhile you can't handle the fact that not everyone hates them.

See how that works?

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt: there's a big difference between disliking something and not being able to handle it.

DIslike means that you cannot bring yourself to like something.

Can't handle means you're running down the hallway screaming your head off.

Example: Gregatron dislikes woke movies and tv shows. Hunky_artist can't handle that statement.

 

[robn1]

 

[asalaw]

Oh yeah. The Drinker always cuts right to the bone. I’d say that’s a mic drop moment, but I dislike that metaphor. Because anyone who drops a mic has clearly never had to pay for one.

 

[Krieger]

The one thing that I noticed lately, is a very subtle shift in how I view all of this, and how everyone reacts to the existence of SNW, now that Season One is in the can.

• I am not a fan of the franchise, just a viewer that likes the content.
• I enjoy this series as much as the first one when it aired years ago. To the point I watch each episode of SNW a couple of times, in between reading all the posts on this site (and others). I may eventually find my viewing count matches between TOS and SNW, that is a possibility.
• Picard I didnt 'get', but thats ok, you watch a show, mull it over, move on.

I know the second season of SNW is in the works, and I wish all of the people working on the project, all the best and much success.

After all, we all have a choice in what we want to read, watch, listen to, create, etc - for Strange New Worlds, its getting attention, which in itself, is something I expected just as much as when Gene shook things up in a previous generation.

And yes, its just a TV show, and one I enjoy watching