Star Trek into Darkness Box Office Prediction Thread

[danoyse]

I didn't notice the truther allegory in STID.

Unlike in IM3, where I felt like they were beating me over the head with it.

I didn't pick it up until reading complaints about it afterwards.

I know about Orci's nonsense, but I pay so little attention to him that it's pretty easy to forget about him.

Honestly, if Star Trek IV were released today, you know there would be complaints that they were trying "shove" an environmental message down our throats.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Just finished listening to the new MovieMoan and you all gave a great history of that issue. By the way, have you taken your dad to see the movie yet and, if so, did he end up liking it?

I have not. Probably won't. Have a feeling he would hate it.

 

[terry78]

Damn whales, lowering our property values.

 

[DKDetective]

Bob Orci, who was one of the writers, is a complete jackass who posts truther and false-flag crap on Twitter (like, on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and the day of the Boston Marathon bombings ). So that's where that's from. [...] Iron Man 3 took on a lot of the same subjects as well. Political allegory and statement making aren't exclusive because Star Trek has one jackass in their midst...especially when it wasn't a particularly original plot twist as far as Admiral Marcus' intentions are concerned.

One of my biggest problems with the film was how extreme Marcus was.

Spoiler

I just did not find it believable how far off the deep end the guy in charge of all of Starfleet and who recruited such a paragon of virtue as Greenwood's Pike into the fleet went. Past Trek stories like The Undiscovered Country, TNG's The Wounded, and DS9's Homefront/Paradise Lost and In the Pale Moonlight especially did far better jobs telling similar stories about Starfleet officers being seduced to betray their ideals far more intelligently and even-handedly. You often understood why the fallen angel characters did what they did and felt some sympathy for them. On DS9 Admiral Leyton only tried to destroy the Defiant as a last resort and was clearly conflicted about ordering the death of Starfleet personnel, whereas Weller's Marcus was a cackling mad man who was vindictive in his single-minded intention to destory the Enterprise when Kirk attempted to surrender. He was a laughably evil and one-dimensional character. Now that I know Orci's truther credentials, I can't help but wonder if Marcus' depiction as a caricature, evil war hawk is in part influenced by Orci's beliefs.

I have not. Probably won't. Have a feeling he would hate it.

So Phil and the others calling you a bad son for thinking of doing so had an effect!

 

[Octoberist]

Abrams had final approval on story and script. He knew what this was and OKed it. For that, I find him as guilty as that jackass Orci.

I'm telling ya, I like Abrams a lot but it's time for him to let Kurtzman and Orci go.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

So Phil and the others calling you a bad son for thinking of doing so had an effect!

Seeing it again tomorrow night. Pal of mine who is quite the devoted Trek fan seeing it for the first time. I want to get his live reaction(s).

Clearly I'm into self-mutilation.

I'm telling ya, I like Abrams a lot but it's time for him to let Kurtzman and Orci go.

Someone will take the fall for this under-performing. Have a feeling it will be them.

 

[Octoberist]

Seeing it again tomorrow night. Pal of mine who is quite the devoted Trek fan seeing it for the first time. I want to get his live reaction(s).

Clearly I'm into self-mutilation.



Someone will take the fall for this under-performing. Have a feeling it will be them.

Regardless of Abrams' guilt or not, he's off the hook because he's on the 'WOO WOO" Disney/Lucas Express and he aint' looking back!

Yeah, Orci and Kurtzman will be the scapegoats. Not to say that Bad Robot won't be involved with Star Trek 3, but I'd image they'll treat it like how they treats Mission Impossible for from this point on. Different writers and directors per film.


I think it's for the best in the long run, and this is coming from a guy who moderately liked 'Into Darkness' (I prefer ST 2009).

 

[Octoberist]

Might I add that, to give more perceptive, I've got non-geek friends who enjoyed Star Trek into Darkness. I know the movie has issues, but I always have to remind myself that comments from ST fans will always be the same, since they're the hardest fanbase to please. Even when they're right!

Because the film has a great RT score and the general public (well, the ones who saw it...hehe) seemed to like it. I mean, it's not like how Star Wars will be JJ's redemption like how Zack Synder's redemption from 'Sucker Punch' is 'Man of Steel'.

 

[Octoberist]

I have to agree with Tony Stark. I didn't expect the 2009 film to lose so much of its audience. I think the four year gap and the marketing may have had something to do with it all. The marketing made the film appear to me as if most of the movie takes place on earth, which doesn't really seem like a "space" movie. The 2009 trailers had more space action featured, I think.

But also, I wonder if the Star Wars Episode VII announcement hurt the film. To be hoenst, ST 2009 scratched an itch that many Star Wars fans had for more movies in that vein. It was very similar to SW in a lot of respects. With the announcement of more movies coming, are said fans going to go see ST or just wait on it to come out on DVD? I mean, we shifted from "no more SW ever" to "SW movies coming soon." Honestly I think the announcement may have stolen some of nu-Trek's thunder.

Dude I'll be honest, ever since the announcement of JJ's involvement with Star Wars, i became less interested in Star Trek.. (Dramatic music...tha tha thaaa)

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Bad Robot will be about as involved as Syncopy will be on the Man of Steel sequel.

They get credited and a fat paycheck but little to no direct involvement.

 

[Octoberist]

Bad Robot will be about as involved as Syncopy will be on the Man of Steel sequel.

They get credited and a fat paycheck but little to no direct involvement.

I agree.

 

[jmc]

One of my biggest problems with the film was how extreme Marcus was.

Spoiler

I just did not find it believable how far off the deep end the guy in charge of all of Starfleet and who recruited such a paragon of virtue as Greenwood's Pike into the fleet went. Past Trek stories like The Undiscovered Country, TNG's The Wounded, and DS9's Homefront/Paradise Lost and In the Pale Moonlight especially did far better jobs telling similar stories about Starfleet officers being seduced to betray their ideals far more intelligently and even-handedly. You often understood why the fallen angel characters did what they did and felt some sympathy for them. On DS9 Admiral Leyton only tried to destroy the Defiant as a last resort and was clearly conflicted about ordering the death of Starfleet personnel, whereas Weller's Marcus was a cackling mad man who was vindictive in his single-minded intention to destory the Enterprise when Kirk attempted to surrender. He was a laughably evil and one-dimensional character. Now that I know Orci's truther credentials, I can't help but wonder if Marcus' depiction as a caricature, evil war hawk is in part influenced by Orci's beliefs.

What, Vulcan getting completely destroyed wouldn't change people's attitudes to security?

 

[BestGirl]

I didn't notice the truther allegory in STID.

Unlike in IM3, where I felt like they were beating me over the head with it.

Ditto. If STID was meant to act as political commentary, it was the shallowest I've ever seen. It blows my mind that anyone could be offended by such a harmless movie.

 

[DKDetective]

What, Vulcan getting completely destroyed wouldn't change people's attitudes to security?

Never said that. I pointed to half a dozen Trek stories involving similar events and reactions that were handled with far more class, intelligence and nuance. In STID, Marcus goes from paragon of virtue, Fleet Admiral and paragon of virtue (recruiting Pike and all) to laughably insane Disney villain. It was a childish caricature.

 

[jmc]

Do you not think Vulcan getting completely destroyed is a bit more extreme and would equally produce extreme reactions? There is a bit of a September 11 vibe within this movie.

 

[DKDetective]

Ditto. If STID was meant to act as political commentary, it was the shallowest I've ever seen. It blows my mind that anyone could be offended by such a harmless movie.

The shallowness itself is what is offensive and I do believe the writers claimed in advance while promoting the film that it would hold up a mirror to real world events in the best traditions of Star Trek, so I think it is reasonably for old fans to complain about the so-called commentary/allegory being offered.

 

[Octoberist]

I'm gonna have to side with Rachel with this.

 

[DKDetective]

Do you not think Vulcan getting completely destroyed is a bit more extreme and would equally produce extreme reactions? There is a bit of a September 11 vibe within this movie.

Seriously, have you seen Homefront/Paradise Lost? It is a brilliant 9/11 allegory that aired years before 9/11 actually occurred. Hrmm, having a crackpot from the future destroying one world and being vanquished such that there is no hope of renewed threat from him versus having all Federation/Bajoran colonies in the Gamma quadrant wiped out by an evil empire run by shapeshifters who inflitrate Federation government and set off bombs at the most secure locations on Earth? Or what about having a Borg ship destroy a massive Federation armada and almost assimilate Earth with the knowledge that they are still out there and coming? I'm sorry but while the former is a terrifying loss of life, the latter two situations are far more unnerving and actually threatening. It wasn't just that Marcus acted extremely but that he became completely unbelievable as a person who could rise to the position of Fleet Admiral given what Starfleet is supposed to stand for to a guy who takes pleasure in killing Kirk and an entire ship full of Starfleet officer and who beats his daughter. It was a cartoon-ish turn.

 

[jmc]

Which is reflective of the cartoonish nature in which the US government acted on occasions after September 11. Thing is Marcus' action may be over the top, but it falls in line with a lot of what happened after September 11 especially the paranoid gun hoe attitude from the US Government. I think his reaction is pretty spot for the events that happened. Thing you're not taking into account is that this is a different timeline and also an earlier timeline when things like The Borg weren't known about. Everything that happens now is different, and Vulcan's destruction, the first planet to make contact with Earth, is going to resonate harder because it's closer to home.

 

[DKDetective]

But Starfleet is not the US Military. It is not even A MILITARY really so its leaders would not see the world through the same sort of blinders, thinking solely about threats and neutralization. Second, the whole point of Star Trek is to portray a humanity 300 years in the future that has changed, that has evolved. You undermine that premise if you see them react in the same way to problems as current day people. Finally, I never said that increased paranoia and war mongering were unrealistic, just that Marcus is a parody of such ideas.

Spoiler

The destruction of Vulcan somehow makes him a one-dimensional villain who is a horrible human being. He takes pleasure in taunting Kirk and in the murder of hundreds of his brothers-in-arms, that is completely ridiculous. There is no parallel for that sort of thing regarding 9/11 except in Truther fantasies. Yes, it was a time of saber rattling and shoot first, ask questions later policies, but the US military did not kill people in cold blood to cover up its conspiracies and Rumsfeld or Cheney did not take pleasure in doing such acts. That is a huge difference.

 

[jmc]

But things change. It only takes one event to change peoples perceptions and bring fear into the equation. You're trying to tell me what Star Trek is suppose to be, this isn't what Star Trek is now because Vulcan's destruction changed everything, it brought out the defensive nature in the people in the series, it altered perception and caused people to go to extreme lengths for the sake of protecting humanity. You throw the threat of the Klingon's into that and you've just escalated people's paranoia even further. Stuff like that can bring out the worst in people which is what happened with Marcus, he built a war ship and saw Kirk's crew as a threat to protecting Earth, it's the same you're either with us or against us attitude that the US had albeit done to an extreme measure.

 

[DKDetective]

Well, the other characters still seem to think that Trek is supposed to be a certain way, as per Scotty's "Aren't we supposed to be explorers?" or Pike's description of Starfleet's mandate in ST09 (even after the Kelvin incident). The whole point is that these people WOULD react differently to a problem like the destruction of Vulcan. That is the idea present throughout Trek. That when faced with life and death circumstances and extreme dangers, the people of the Federation try and often succeed in reacting to those events in a more evolved way. If people react the same way, when **** hits the fan, they haven't changed. The whole story of Star Trek is the idea of the people of Earth rising from the ashes of the nuclear holocaust of the Third World War and changing for the better.

Furthermore, you lose the real life parallels if you don't continue to portray people like Marcus as good, but misguided. Those sort of ideas make for far more effective stories if you can sympathize and really understand why and how these people made the mistakes they did. It's like Magneto in the X-Men films (the good ones at least). The threat posed by humans to mutants didn't turn him into a monster right away and he has far more reason to be extreme. It was slow and gradual and you see much of his humanity. He only faces off against Charles, his old friend, because he has to and it is necessary. He doesn't take joy in it. There is a tragedy to it. That is how Marcus should have acted towards Kirk. [BLACKOUT]Instead, he is downright malicious and sadistic, taunting Kirk with the fact that he intended to kill him and his crew from the start.[/BLACKOUT]

 

[DarKush]

I didn't notice the truther allegory in STID.

Unlike in IM3, where I felt like they were beating me over the head with it.

I didn't see a truther allegory in either film. In regards to Star Trek I think it was explained well enough that Harrison's actions were his own and why he felt motivated to do them. It was an 'inside job' but only because of Harrison's Section 31 ties. He acted alone.

As for Iron Man 3, I think the movie showed that Killian and AIM were not insiders, though it did depict the Mandarin as a puppet for them.

 

[dark_b]

I have not. Probably won't. Have a feeling he would hate it.

good movie moan podcast. to bad that Kristina was not on. it would be amazing to hear how she hated it t:

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I didn't see a truther allegory in either film. In regards to Star Trek I think it was explained well enough that Harrison's actions were his own and why he felt motivated to do them. It was an 'inside job' but only because of Harrison's Section 31 ties. He acted alone.

As for Iron Man 3, I think the movie showed that Killian and AIM were not insiders, though it did depict the Mandarin as a puppet for them.

They were insiders to a large degree and Mandarin as a puppet for the military industry is definitely "truther" territory.