The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Star Trek Movies XI+ (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=50)
-   -   ST 3: ST's equivalent of Skyfall..? (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=222442)

Roald August 11 2013 05:34 PM

ST 3: ST's equivalent of Skyfall..?
 
The parallels between the James Bond 'reboot' are very apparent...

Star Trek (2009) was like Casino Royale... Praised for being different, breaking away from traditions, polarizing fanbases but being appealing to new audiences...
STID was like Quantum... Good, but not as good as the first one (judged by Rotten Tomatoes score, general consensus, not my personal opinion per se), and where STID didn't fare as well as ST domestically, Quantum didn't fare as well as CR internationally...

Both CR and QOS made an equal amount of money, much like ST and STID...

Then came Skyfall...

For the record:
CR made 599 international...
QOS made 586 international...

Skyfall made 1,108..!!! It doubled both domestically and internationally..!

It may have had something to do with Bonds anniversary, well... ST 3 will also be released with ST's 50th anniversary..!

The parallels are there... I'm really hoping Skyfall's success is an indication for ST 3....

serenitytrek1 August 11 2013 05:55 PM

Re: ST 3: ST's equivalent of Skyfall..?
 
may be ...hopefully so.

however Trek 3 needs to get excellent reviews.

ComicGuy89 August 11 2013 06:13 PM

Re: ST 3: ST's equivalent of Skyfall..?
 
I too, thought of the parallels between the reboot James Bond and Trek.

Hopefully, with some new blood or newfound enthusiasm, the next Star Trek movie will reach heights that the franchise has never been before. I liked the previous two movies but who wouldn't want a movie that is truly great and ambitious?

The Keeper August 11 2013 06:27 PM

Re: ST 3: ST's equivalent of Skyfall..?
 
Fascinating comparisons. Hope the similarity's continue.

A reason for concern may be ST3 not having enough time for the spit and polish it needs for truly big time success. ID had four years, can it be topped in only three years while dealing with a [possible] change of director and reshuffling of the writers?

Roald August 11 2013 06:35 PM

Re: ST 3: ST's equivalent of Skyfall..?
 
Quote:

The Keeper wrote: (Post 8495839)
Fascinating comparisons. Hope the similarity's continue.

A reason for concern may be ST3 not having enough time for the spit and polish it needs for truly big time success. ID had four years, can it be topped in only three years while dealing with a [possible] change of director and reshuffling of the writers?

I think 3 years should be enough. I think the 4 it took STID was actually abnormally long. It took 3 years for The Empire Strikes Back to come after Star Wars, and that film is just about the greatest sequel ever made, so I do think 3 years should be enough.

Opus August 11 2013 07:19 PM

Re: ST 3: ST's equivalent of Skyfall..?
 
Interesting parallels to be sure. If anything, between the parallels drawn between Trek and big franchises like Bond and Batman, Star Trek is sure in great company!

It'll come down to the story, though. It always comes down to the story.

King Daniel Into Darkness August 11 2013 08:37 PM

Re: ST 3: ST's equivalent of Skyfall..?
 
It would be nice if Star Trek 3/XIII was as huge as Skyfall. But I must admit, after this early talk of them turning to the director of G.I. Joe 2, my hopes aren't nearly as high as they were after the '09 movie. :-/

Also, here's a pretty cool Youtube video this thread reminded me of:

BillJ August 11 2013 08:43 PM

Re: ST 3: ST's equivalent of Skyfall..?
 
Quote:

serenitytrek1 wrote: (Post 8495755)
may be ...hopefully so.

however Trek 3 needs to get excellent reviews.

Into Darkness got excellent reviews and still had a tough time because of so much competition. Regardless of quality, if Trek 3 has an Iron Man on one side and a Fast and the Furious on the other, it will struggle to make a billion dollars as well.

Opus August 11 2013 08:49 PM

Re: ST 3: ST's equivalent of Skyfall..?
 
^^They haven't decided on a director, so don't get too ahead of yourself just yet. Internet chatter has never proven to be exactly reliable.

Kruezerman August 11 2013 08:52 PM

Re: ST 3: ST's equivalent of Skyfall..?
 
Quantum failed because it was so erratic with it's action, ID was significantly better. But, I can see the parallels and I hope it to be true.

ComicGuy89 August 12 2013 02:10 AM

Re: ST 3: ST's equivalent of Skyfall..?
 
Quote:

Kruezerman wrote: (Post 8496271)
Quantum failed because it was so erratic with it's action, ID was significantly better. But, I can see the parallels and I hope it to be true.

I agree. In this aspect of the comparison, Into Darkness was a significantly more enjoyable movie than Quantum of Solace. I thought Into Darkness was excellent, but Quantum, less so.

I think one thing that should be noted about Skyfall is that despite being a critically and financially acclaimed movie, it remained unapologetically reboot Bond. People were complaining that Casino Royale and Quantum strayed too far from classic Bond tropes, such as less gadgets, supervillains or class, but Skyfall marched on unperturbed and made the reboot style work. It did this through strong characterization and addressing the core of what Bond is about. This is what I hope the next Trek movie will be, something that fully embraces the reboot style yet makes it work in a way that is distinctively Star Trek. Not try to pander to classic Trek while missing the point.

Talosian August 12 2013 06:26 AM

Re: ST 3: ST's equivalent of Skyfall..?
 
I don't care. I enjoyed both Trek 09 and Into Darkness.

It makes me sad that fans of all movie franchises are obsessed about not just box office numbers but financial minutiae as they are today. It wasn't always thus.

It's not the place of fans to judge movies aesthetically by the cold criteria of the market. That's a business decision. Let's not mix these two categories together.

ComicGuy89 August 12 2013 06:52 AM

Re: ST 3: ST's equivalent of Skyfall..?
 
Quote:

Talosian wrote: (Post 8498026)
I don't care. I enjoyed both Trek 09 and Into Darkness.

It makes me sad that fans of all movie franchises are obsessed about not just box office numbers but financial minutiae as they are today. It wasn't always thus.

It's not the place of fans to judge movies aesthetically by the cold criteria of the market. That's a business decision. Let's not mix these two categories together.

These details are not important of course, but it's still great to see Trek succeed. It doesn't need to succeed financially to be a good movie but it's really nice icing on the cake, I think. :)

Can we imagine a Trek movie that breaks the billion dollar barrier? It would be so enticing to the producers that CBS might immediately greenlight a new TV series. :lol:

Roald August 12 2013 07:24 AM

Re: ST 3: ST's equivalent of Skyfall..?
 
Quote:

Talosian wrote: (Post 8498026)
I don't care. I enjoyed both Trek 09 and Into Darkness.

It makes me sad that fans of all movie franchises are obsessed about not just box office numbers but financial minutiae as they are today. It wasn't always thus.

It's not the place of fans to judge movies aesthetically by the cold criteria of the market. That's a business decision. Let's not mix these two categories together.

Obsessed is too great a word. But one of the best things about being a fan is looking foreward to something new... That excitement, the first news, the first picture, trailer.. The only way to get that feeling again is when ST is succesful enough to ensure new ST to be made... If STID had bombed, a third film may not have been greenlit at all... So yes, the financial numbers are definately an important factor.

serenitytrek1 August 12 2013 08:54 AM

Re: ST 3: ST's equivalent of Skyfall..?
 
Quote:

ComicGuy89 wrote: (Post 8497384)
Quote:

Kruezerman wrote: (Post 8496271)
Quantum failed because it was so erratic with it's action, ID was significantly better. But, I can see the parallels and I hope it to be true.

I agree. In this aspect of the comparison, Into Darkness was a significantly more enjoyable movie than Quantum of Solace. I thought Into Darkness was excellent, but Quantum, less so.

I think one thing that should be noted about Skyfall is that despite being a critically and financially acclaimed movie, it remained unapologetically reboot Bond. People were complaining that Casino Royale and Quantum strayed too far from classic Bond tropes, such as less gadgets, supervillains or class, but Skyfall marched on unperturbed and made the reboot style work. It did this through strong characterization and addressing the core of what Bond is about. This is what I hope the next Trek movie will be, something that fully embraces the reboot style yet makes it work in a way that is distinctively Star Trek. Not try to pander to classic Trek while missing the point.


BINGO.......


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.