ChiefsPlanet - Movies and TV Star Trek 12 Gets Release Date

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Media Center (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- -

Star Trek 12 Gets Release Date (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=221538)

Quote:

Originally Posted by underEJ (Post 9694734)

Par. is a marketing wasteland these days. They can't open a film domestically, meeting expectations, to save their lives. It is really strange.

It's really not doing that bad., sure it underperformed to their expectations, but it's not like its going to be a flop.

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:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 9694923)

It's really not doing that bad., sure it underperformed to their expectations, but it's not like its going to be a flop.

The fact that it's a minimum of $20 million under expectations means that it IS indeed "doing bad".

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:

Originally Posted by DoucheMcCloud (Post 9694937)

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.

Your probably right. That's why most the films with the original cast and next generation had limited budgets. Trek has sort of always had a limited gross ceiling. Limited audience.

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:

Originally Posted by bowener (Post 9695197)

i09 review

Exactly.

I liked:

/sound of facepalm

followed by:

/sound of gun being loaded

Ending with:

/sound of gun being cocked

Quote:

Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls (Post 9695004)

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.

I wonder what those numbers translate into today's dollars? The budgets for these summer blockbusters has gotten ridiculously high.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowener (Post 9695197)

i09 review

Holy shit, that's great. LMAO

Can't wait to see the Plinkett review. He'll rip this a new asshole.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9694383)

Saw it last night. Here are my thoughts:

Spoiler!

What I liked:

-The acting in general. All of the characters put forward fairly strong performances (terrible script and writing notwithstanding). I actually think Simon Pegg is brilliant as Scotty. Yeah, he's very nearly a different character entirely than the James Doohan-inspired Scotty, but like it or not, the original Scott is full of funny bits in both the movies and the episodes. Pegg's acting was the only thing I enjoyed at all about the shitty ****ing Kirk/Spock death reversal. Huge props to Benedict Cumberbatch, too. I knew he'd be good in this.

-It was fun. I was entertained.

-Getting a glimpse of the Klingons for the next films was great. I'm excited by the possibilities there, provided the producers don't take a massive shit on them like they did everything else.

What I didn't like:

-I love Star Trek. That being said, **** tribbles. **** everything about them. They're not funny, they're not charming, and Trouble With Tribbles is a mediocre episode. It's boring. ****, I can't believe that geezers point to that episode has one of the hallmarks of the franchise. I can explain that McCoy probably altered the tribble in Into Darkness so it wouldn't reproduce, but still. They threw a ****ing tribble in there to save the day in the end just to appease stupid ****ing blowhards who want more Trek references. It was like Abrams was saying, "Okay, look, I ****ing hate Star Trek, so you people want a re-imagining of it? Here you go! There's some tribbles! Happy now? Good, let's move on." And he did that kind of shit MULTIPLE times, including with the entire character of McCoy. Karl Urban was fine, but the writing for his character was ****ing awful. A trainwreck.

-Spock is a huge ****ing pussy. Being half human half Vulcan doesn't mean you selectively choose when to be human and when to be Vulcan when it's the appropriate circumstance.

-Kirk is an innovator. A genius. A rabble-rouser, even. A guy who thinks outside the box. Somebody who gets the job done. He's not supposed to be a raging ****ing psychopath with unchecked emotions. Same goes for Spock. Evolution of humanity my ****ing ass.

-The ending. It doesn't die. It doesn't ****ing die. Jesus Christ. Pick a climax and stick with it for ****'s sake. At times this movie felt like just one long extended megalopic chase sequence. It reminded me a lot of Pirates of the Carribbean Dead Man's Chest, except Jerry Bruckheimer wasn't writing a movie within an established framework of characters. There's nothing wrong with lots of action, and I don't even think there's such a thing as TOO much action provided the plot and the surroundings actually call for it. A run from the Nibiruians followed by a run from the Klingons followed by a run from Wallace's crew, yeah, you get my point. It's along the same line that many people have been making: Your actions should have MEANING.

-I agree with Clayton here. Abrams was endowed with the task of re-imagining Kirk's Enterprise crew in a set of new Star Trek movies. That means you can use elements from prior episodes and movies (including Kahn), concepts, settings, and even famous lines. I think he did that okay in Star Trek (2009). In this movie he said, "I want Kahn, but I can't just remake Wrath of Kahn... umm, I'll add a bunch of other shit to it... **** I'm still writing the same movie basically... uhh... I KNOW! Kirk can die instead of Spock in the radiation! Yeah! Now it's different! Oh, and tribbles! Brilliant!" That shit is lazy as all ****. JJ Abrams with this script shouldn't have made it into a piece of online fanfiction much less a $190 million movie.

That being said...

It was entertaining. There were some good parts. I have a couple of other friends who want to see this movie, and I'll likely go see it with them. Multiple times.

I was pretty high on Star Trek (2009). I liked that movie. This one gets a final grade of "meh". Too much lazy shit that got slapped together with JJ Abrams' own diarrhea.

Star Wars is his first love? Yeah, it probably is. ****ing moron. At least that body has already been raped by Lucas, so whatever "revival" he does of it will be hard to disappoint fans of Star Wars. They've already seen the worst.

I hated this movie! But I loved it and will go see it multiple times!

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:

Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls (Post 9696719)

Iron Man is not a comparison for it. Star Trek is not a big international franchise. They did hope to make headway in that regard, so much of the marketing money went overseas. The goal was to beat the domestic opening weekend of the first one, and to double the international total. It only made 127m international in 2009, they want 250 this time. This is still a long shot possibility, as it is opening stronger in most international markets than 2009, but not as strong as hoped. It will probably hit 200 internationally.

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:

Star Trek is not a big international franchise.

Disagree completely. It's huge in Britain and Europe.

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...