|
01-11-2010, 01:24 PM | |
Take a Chill Pill
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South Carolina
Casino cash: $7829900
|
Star Trek 12 Gets Release Date
I'm not sure if its Star Trek 12 or Star Trek 2, but the release date is June 29, 2012.
http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/01/11...-nothing-else/ UPDATE: Paramount has confirmed to MTV that the projected release date for the "Star Trek" sequel is indeed June 29, 2012. This counts as news, but there's not much to it. We all know there's a "Star Trek" sequel coming. Hell, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, writers/producers of the May reboot, were talking about sequel possibilities as far back as the week after the first movie came out. Now we have a date to pin our hopes to: June 29, 2012. Nothing else is known or announced, so don't ask. Maybe director J.J. Abrams will return to helm the sequel, maybe he won't. Maybe Khan will be the villain, maybe not. For all we know, the plan is to give us an epic "Star Trek Meets Star Wars" crossover. Could happen, right? The news comes from a variety of sources, including Ain't It Cool News and Box Office Mojo, but there's no Paramount-issued press release that I can find. The information ran through some trustworthy sources, but we've yet to receive comment from the studio directly. Regardless, there really hasn't ever been any doubt that we'd be seeing more "Star Trek." Abrams' take on the series made it friendly to an entirely new, much wider audience than its ever known before. Were you anything less than certain that a "Star Trek" sequel was coming eventually? Where would you like the story to go from where it is now? Any specific hopes for the sequel? |
Posts: 44,565
|
06-24-2013, 12:57 PM | #886 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
Quote:
After six weeks, it's not equal to its predecessor in terms of domestic gross versus costs. And given that exhibitors earn a higher percentage with each passing week, it's unlikely that Into Darkness will be much of a "winner" for Paramount (although it's foreign grosses are nearly 50% higher). The bottom line is that this film isn't performing as expected, which makes it unlikely that Paramount will even entertain investing $150 million into another Trek film, let alone $190 million. With Abrams off doing Star Wars, the future of this franchise is murky at best. |
|
Posts: 88,960
|
06-24-2013, 01:01 PM | #887 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Some Dude's asshole
Casino cash: $8021398
|
Quote:
Recently, I read that Into Darkness has been thrown around as an example of how the industry is going to become more reliant on international ticket sales and less influenced by the US market. What are your thoughts on that? |
|
Posts: 3,834
|
06-24-2013, 01:05 PM | #888 | |
World's Best Boss
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bronco Country
Casino cash: $5004654
|
Quote:
That's not to say that the movie is without flaws. Like any J.J. Abrams film/work, he seems to get so caught up in creating plot twists and "mindblowing" story-arcs that he creates blackhole sized plot-holes in the process. Focusing a moment on Abrams, he is developing a reputation for being almost deliberately unfaithful to the universes of which his franchises operates. This fact has alienated a lot of "purists" from his work, and those expecting him to be faithful to Star Wars universe may be in for a unwelcome surprise. On the whole, I feel Abrams is one of the more overrated directors currently in the business, and believe he and his brand could suffer a huge blow if his interpretation of the Star Wars Universe fails to meet the expectations being constructed around it. I believe Abrams is a slightly smarter version of Zack Snyder, because even though Abrams has shown he is committed to style over substance, he has demonstrated the ability to tell a story which causes the audience to become emotionally invested in his characters. Anyways, to answer your question, I felt Into Darkness was entertaining and had a story original enough to be worth a watch. Last edited by Chiefspants; 06-24-2013 at 01:21 PM.. |
|
Posts: 18,468
|
06-24-2013, 01:08 PM | #889 | |
World's Best Boss
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bronco Country
Casino cash: $5004654
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 18,468
|
06-24-2013, 01:10 PM | #890 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
Quote:
Overseas earnings rarely play into the reasoning behind producing and funding a Hollywood movie. Banking on non-Americans to get behind American films and concepts, especially in the wake of a non-movie star type of film such as Star Trek, is not the type of gamble that studios and producers like to make. |
|
Posts: 88,960
|
06-24-2013, 01:14 PM | #891 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
Quote:
Then, you add European principles such as Christian Bale, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman and of course, Christopher Nolan (not to mention Australian Heath Ledger), and you've got immediate interest from an overseas audience. An added plus is that the movies themselves were phenomenal. |
|
Posts: 88,960
|
06-24-2013, 01:16 PM | #892 | |
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS
Join Date: Aug 2000
Casino cash: $1613385
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 119,883
|
06-24-2013, 01:18 PM | #893 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Some Dude's asshole
Casino cash: $8021398
|
Quote:
Well said. And I agree with a lot of it. Regarding Abrams, how many times has he been "unfaithful" to a franchise? We could argue Star Trek all day, so I'll give the naysayers that one. But what else? How is he developing a reputation for it, if he's only done it once (twice if you count ST 09 and ID separately)? I don't think Abrams is one of the greats. He certainly has flaws, but so do people like Lucas and Spielberg. But, I think what you just said about his ability to connect and make audiences care is really important. And one of his biggest strengths as a filmmaker. |
|
Posts: 3,834
|
06-24-2013, 01:18 PM | #894 | |
World's Best Boss
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bronco Country
Casino cash: $5004654
|
Quote:
I now wonder if that could provide the explanation behind the weak domestic and strong overseas totals for Into Darkness. |
|
Posts: 18,468
|
06-24-2013, 01:20 PM | #895 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Some Dude's asshole
Casino cash: $8021398
|
Quote:
Is this something you could ever see happening? |
|
Posts: 3,834
|
06-24-2013, 01:23 PM | #896 |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Some Dude's asshole
Casino cash: $8021398
|
I don't know about his international appeal, but I can tell you I saw the movie a month after it came out and my theater was full of teenage girls.
|
Posts: 3,834
|
06-24-2013, 01:23 PM | #897 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
Quote:
But even more importantly, I think they'd have extreme difficulty finding a network partner to even air it. You're basically looking at a Game of Thrones type budget ($40-$50 million) to do it "properly" and I can't see that happening because I doubt the ad money is there to support it. That's been the biggest issue facing the live-action Star Wars TV program. They've got more than 100 scripts completed but can't find a network to air the show because of the enormous cost to produce each episode. |
|
Posts: 88,960
|
06-24-2013, 02:10 PM | #898 | |
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS
Join Date: Aug 2000
Casino cash: $1613385
|
Quote:
And Star Trek with Captain Kirk will certainly sell better than Star Trek with Captain Whoever. |
|
Posts: 119,883
|
06-24-2013, 02:16 PM | #899 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
Quote:
I'm totally with you but I'm not sure there's a TV audience out there that will support the cost of doing business. Otherwise, they would have done it by now. |
|
Posts: 88,960
|
06-24-2013, 02:26 PM | #900 | |
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS
Join Date: Aug 2000
Casino cash: $1613385
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 119,883
|
|
|