|
01-11-2010, 01:24 PM | |
Take a Chill Pill
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South Carolina
Casino cash: $7649900
|
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
|
05-19-2013, 08:37 PM | #661 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 88,960
|
05-19-2013, 09:36 PM | #662 |
I'll be back.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Casino cash: $2850478
|
Why? Isn't 84m a lot?
__________________
Chiefs game films |
Posts: 288,100
|
05-19-2013, 09:55 PM | #663 |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
1. Into Darkness earned $70 million it's opening weekend. Star Trek earned $75 million.
2. Industry analysts and the studio expected $90-$100 million, so it's far short of expectations. 3. Studios DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT expect sequels to earn less than their predecessors, especially when the budget of the sequel is $40 million more than the original. Look no further than Spiderman 2, The Dark Knight, The Matrix Reloaded, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, etc. Iron Man 2 was slightly below Iron Man ($6 million less) but Iron Man 3 has already exceeded both films. 4. Into Darkness will likely earn its $190 million dollar budget back domestically (minus marketing, of course) but it won't be a major earner and will certainly have a disappointing take. Generally speaking, a film begins to decline in its second week of release by 50%. Given that next weekend is a 3 day holiday, it's likely that Star Trek will only see a modest loss of maybe 30%-40%, so the total would be around $135 million or so in week two (and I'm being optimistic). By week three, the domestic gross would likely be around $20 million and by week four, all bets are off because The Man of Steel is released and it will get crushed. $10 million in week four would be huge. So for the sake of guessing, that puts the film at the following: Week 1: $85 million Week 2: $50 million ($135) Week 3: $20 million ($155) Week 4: $10 million ($165). By the end of an 8 week run, it should probably reach $190 million but that isn't exactly a given, especially when considering the tepid response the film received this weekend and the other choices available in Iron Man 3, Man of Steel, in a addition to Monsters University and World War Z the weekend of June 18th. If it hasn't hit its budget by the end of June, it's dead in the water. |
Posts: 88,960
|
05-19-2013, 09:57 PM | #664 |
I'll be back.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Casino cash: $2850478
|
What about the overseas take? That doesn't count for anything?
__________________
Chiefs game films |
Posts: 288,100
|
05-19-2013, 09:59 PM | #665 |
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS
Join Date: Aug 2000
Casino cash: $1263385
|
Did you see the movie, Dane?
|
Posts: 120,121
|
05-19-2013, 10:00 PM | #666 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
Quote:
Given that actors, producers and directors are usually given some backend (depending on the final numbers, of course), this film will be lucky to break even with its theatrical release. |
|
Posts: 88,960
|
05-19-2013, 10:04 PM | #667 |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
No, unfortunately I haven't seen it. With everything that's going on my household, it's likely to be a PPV or DVD screener.
I'm bummed because we went to opening night at the Cinerama Dome back in 2009, which was a blast! I'm pretty sure I mentioned it but more than 75% of the audience was dressed in TOS gear and some cast members came out to greet us. |
Posts: 88,960
|
05-19-2013, 10:06 PM | #668 | |
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS
Join Date: Aug 2000
Casino cash: $1263385
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 120,121
|
05-19-2013, 10:08 PM | #669 |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Antonio Tx.
Casino cash: $2154454
|
Damn, who knew Dane was a corporate bean counter?
__________________
Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning: Matt once made a very nice play in Seattle where he spun away from a pass rusher and hit Bowe off his back foot for a first down. One of the best plays Matt has ever made. |
Posts: 66,914
|
05-19-2013, 10:15 PM | #670 |
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS
Join Date: Aug 2000
Casino cash: $1263385
|
Another thing about the opening - wasn't changing the opening from Friday to Thursday a last minute thing? I don't think a lot of people realized it. Mainly because I saw it Thursday night at 8:00 and the theater was only about 2/3rds full.
Clay's ranting aside, this is a good movie. It's gotten good reviews and everybody I've talked to that saw it has liked it. Is it possible that Abrams dicking around for four years lost some non-Trekkies? |
Posts: 120,121
|
05-19-2013, 10:15 PM | #671 |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
|
Posts: 88,960
|
05-19-2013, 10:17 PM | #672 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hollywood, CA
Casino cash: $10053648
|
Quote:
Have the 3D glasses improved since Avatar? I got a massive headache and had to take them off repeatedly when watching it in the theater. I have a good friend that's working on 3D holographic programming that is incredible, with glasses that weight less than like 3 ounces, but it's not available for feature film just yet. |
|
Posts: 88,960
|
05-19-2013, 10:19 PM | #673 |
I'll be back.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Casino cash: $2850478
|
I personally don't mind 3D at all now.
I'd prefer NOT to have it, since the picture is brighter without it, but it's worth the tradeoff of seeing the film in IMAX. Seems like 9/10 movies I want to see that are on the IMAX here are shown only in 3D. Which sucks, because when they're not, it's truly amazing. I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark in IMAX 2D a few months ago and it was epic.
__________________
Chiefs game films |
Posts: 288,100
|
05-19-2013, 10:20 PM | #674 | |
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS
Join Date: Aug 2000
Casino cash: $1263385
|
Quote:
Imax doesn't really do anything for me. Seemed like a waste of money. |
|
Posts: 120,121
|
05-19-2013, 10:21 PM | #675 | |
I'll be back.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Casino cash: $2850478
|
Quote:
The third act is horrific, stupid and insulting.
__________________
Chiefs game films |
|
Posts: 288,100
|
|
|