|
Quote:
A couple of things...I alluded to it earlier, but Trek is somewhat niche. Limited female appeal and limited under 21 appeal. It also had much stronger competition this time in contrast to 2009 when it was basically the only big movie at the time it opened. IM 3 and Gatsby both opened huge in the weeks prior. In 2009 it's competition was a horrible Wolverine film nobody liked and that was basically it. http://boxofficemojo.com/weekly/char...9&wk=19&p=.htm |
Quote:
If there's another Star Trek film with this cast, the budget will be nowhere near $190 million dollars. I'd venture to say that $125 would be the limit. |
Quote:
|
Star Trek VI had a $27 million budget, and made $96 million.
So you can kind of see Dane's point when he says Paramount didn't spend $190 million on a movie to break even. |
Here are all the numbers.
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Star-Trek Voyage Home made an absurd amount of profit. |
|
Quote:
I liked: /sound of facepalm followed by: /sound of gun being loaded Ending with: /sound of gun being cocked |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Can't wait to see the Plinkett review. He'll rip this a new asshole. |
Quote:
|
Iron Man 3 has already made a billion dollars worldwide (with a budget of only 200 million). It's opening weekend was 174 million. Paramount has to be disappointed with Star Trek in comparison.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ironman3.htm |
Quote:
I haven't found if the 3d conversion is in the 190m total budget, nor have I seen the 3d tally for opening weekend. That conversion was expensive if it is additional investment. It is not a flop, but it is not going to spawn another massive budget. |
The more I reflect on this pile of shit, the more I realize how big of a pile of shit it really is. Jesus, way to mail it in, JJ.
|
Quote:
|
How much of the low opening weekend numbers can be attributed to people not wanting to get caught in the opening weekend rush? I know I am definitely one of those people; I'm planning on seeing it this weekend...
|
Quote:
I still liked it. In this case, the movie was an adaptation of a universe based on a set of stories, which had been re-imagined, remade, retold, and revamped dozens of times on film and television. There is no "hardcare" Sherlock Holmes fan (at least I have yet to meet one) that complained that those movies are hardly at all in the TRUE spirit of Sherlock Holmes, because the character and the setting has been done dozens of different ways. Not so for Star Trek. Like it or not, there IS a standard that should at least be considered when doing these movies. You can recast it. Fine. You can change the course of events in the timeline. Uhh... okay, sure, why not? You can apply different roles and functions for each character and element. Excellent, that's exactly what you should be doing. But you should NOT try to make a Frankenstein's monster of different lines and references all while uncreatively inversing the roles instead of changing them and creating something NEW. That's the problem I have with it. That doesn't mean it wasn't fun and entertaining. But it doesn't mean it's a good movie. |
Saw it tonight. I can understand why some really don't like it. It entertained me as a movie goer but as a Trek fan it did fall kind of short for me in the third act.
Spoiler!
That being said, this cast is still great and I'll take it for what it is. I really entertaining popcorn flick. |
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Just saw it. I was entertained, but the script is really shit. There was no resolution. By the time the denouement was underway I didn't yet realize that the climax had ended.
Spoiler!
|
0-2 so far for me with summer blockbusters. I didn't really like IM3 and same with this movie. Hopefully Man of Steel gets the crappy taste out of my mouth and go 1-2.
|
To be fair, by "the script is really shit," I mean that it is really, truly terrible. This is a horrible movie.
|
Reaper, you're my boy.
The movie had absolutely zero emotional payoff. Oh, Kirk died saving the Enterprise, and Spock had a generic fistfight and they captured Khan. Oh and Kirk was predictably resurrected? Oh. Ok. Well, that was cool. I guess. |
Worst kept secret ever.
|
I saw it Sunday. I've been busy as ****, but I had some thoughts.
I really can't disagree with the haters, but I probably have lower standards than you guys. I liked (not necessarily loved) it. I had a big douchey grin on my face the whole time. I thought the story was good enough. They did a good job with the character development and of course the graphics were good. I left entertained and that is what I paid for. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Abrams needs to learn that "making an alternate version of an already existing Star Trek story but reversing some character roles" does not make for a good idea. This whole movie was
Spoiler!
It really doesn't get any deeper than that. Then there are the dozens of plot holes.
Spoiler!
I'm not even a Star Trek fan. I've probably seen less than twenty full episodes of TNG and the other series I've seen less than 5 full episodes of each. So I'm not having an angry fanboy reaction. I'm having an angry moviegoer reaction. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Super space blood is mild compared to that. |
Quote:
|
Smart Marketing 101: HBO (owned by Time-Warner, which owns Warner Brothers) is bombarding its channels with the 1978 Superman this month and into next.
Paramount? Not so much. |
Quote:
(early word is that it's also very, very good) |
Quote:
There were good people there during my tenure but I'm happy to have left when I did. |
Quote:
I know Watchmen has its critics, but I loved the movie. Even edited for mainstream cable, the movie is good, and the visuals are fantastic. Very stoked to see what he can do with the Supes story... |
Quote:
Warner Brothers is doing it right: Paramount did not. As to my box office receipt projections, Into Darkness was off by 56% from Friday to Friday, which is even more than my "optimistic" projection. It'll be interesting to see where they are on Monday night. |
Quote:
I've heard the movie is excellent but I've done my absolute best to make sure I'm not spoiled in any way. |
Quote:
And you're right about Snyder - his visuals work alone made Sucker Punch worth watching. Well, that and the bevvy of hotness of his actresses..... |
Quote:
Well, that is, if J.J. Abrams doesn't **** it up beforehand. |
Quote:
It's really well suited for his style, and the bar was set low with the prequels. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
My fear is that they somehow weasel their way in to the stand alone's and trilogies that follow. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I realize that John Carter of Mars wasn't received well, but that's partially because there was too much source material for one single film. That and the fact that they tried to stay true to ERB's vision of Mars, which is different than it would be if it were imagined today. IMO, he did an excellent job with the actors, especially the interaction of Carter and Tars Tarkas, played by Willem Dafoe. Because of his work in animation at Pixar, he was able to get the humans to emote with their voices only in such films as Finding Nemo and Wall-E, which led to very convincing scenes between humans and CGI aliens. I'm very wary of Abrams ability to get his actors to be convincing when filming in front of a green screen, let alone to CGI characters such as R2D2, etc. |
Interesting. According to boxofficemojo.com, Star Trek will have a four day holiday weekend gross of 47 million, putting it just behind Hangover 3 for the weekend. Fast and Furious dominates with 120 million. Through 12 days of release, Into Darkness has now grossed almost the exact same amount as its predecessor, 155 million and change. In terms of drop off, that is about 33% compared to its four day opening of 71 million. That has to be a pleasing number to Paramount, dropping on 33% in a second weekend is an excellent number.
|
A lot of that is word of mouth. I haven't run into anyone who has said anything negative about the movie. Most recommend seeing it. I rather enjoyed it.
|
Saw it today. I wholeheartedly understand why the truists are upset at Abrams for this movie. For me, I look at it like this - Abrams and Co. have taken the literal universe of TOS Star Trek and re-shaped it for this line of telling, and I don't fault them for being lazy for telling this story like the way they have. These characters in these new movies are NOT the same characters from TOS. The happenings in their lives have molded them differently than their original timeline selves, obviously, and I for one enjoy seeing the differences in a brash Kirk and emotional Spock. It's the point of these movies - EVERYTHING IS NEW, nothing is as it was.
Spoiler!
This movie succeeds at being a fun, entertaining summer blockbuster movie. Also the theater I saw it in was absolutely jam packed. I'm curious what the gross number for the movie is after this weekend. |
It's been out for two weeks now. I think we can dispense with the spoiler tags at this point.
|
Quote:
|
Saw it yesterday, made it a family event. I enjoy the reboot. Makes for more interesting twists, and I approach it from a "What the hell are they going to do next?" perspective. I hope and think Gene would've approved.
|
How pissed would gochiefs have gotten if they ripped off the score from TWOK? :D
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It's a cluster**** over there. Not that I care... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Eh, maybe it's just the way I see it because I want to like the movie, nothing more. |
while I mildly enjoyed the first one, didnt really enjoy this one at all except for the villain who is also good as Sherlock Holmes.
And **** JJ Abrams. How does this asshole get to direct both Star Trek AND Star Wars?! No one man should have all that power imo. He will **** it up for sure. Hope I'm wrong but if the Star Trek sequel is any indication, the Star Wars reboot is gonna blow. |
Quote:
|
big time dissapointment. Oh well. The first one was pretty decent but this one sucked besides the Khan/Spock fight which I thought was well done.
And I said this in another thread but **** JJ Abrams. No one man should have all that power. You mean to tell me Hollywood couldnt find another ahole to direct the Star Wars reboot?! Come on man. |
One question - What kind of name is Benedict Cumberbatch? Sounds like the guy ought to be teaching Elementary Hygiene class at Hogwarts.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Disney will be releasing a new Star Wars film every year for the foreseeable future. J.J. Abrams is just the first to be announced. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't know about any other details but as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I thought he did a magnificent job with John Carter, especially given the source material. I'm more excited about him than Abrams, who's shown me very little as a "human" director. |
He's a name that makes some sense. Give him a chance to recoup his losses from John Carter.
(Everything about the marketing of that movie was wrong, btw, starting with calling it "John Carter") |
I've NEVER watched any Star Trek my entire life. Trekkies would keeel me, I know.
But, I've just started going back and watching all of the movies in order. (Sorry, not doing the episodes...) I thought the first movies plot was great! The second one, Wrath of Khan was so-so, and the Search for Spok was a little better. I'm getting ready to watch IV.... |
Quote:
Unlike, ahem, J.J. Abrams (or George Lucas for that matter). |
I think they need to do as much practical as possible, and lean as much as possible towards the art style of the original trilogy. The look of the prequels turned me off almost as much as the script, performance and direction.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
