RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,160
Posts: 5,434,789
Members: 24,937
Currently online: 624
Newest member: bryanb2014

TrekToday headlines

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 11 2013, 12:09 AM   #1951
Phily B
Fleet Captain
 
Phily B's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
View Phily B's Twitter Profile
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

TMP was an attempt to cash in on Star Wars. Star Wars was supposedly named Star Wars cause of Trek being fairly popular.

Just sayin'
Phily B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 12:13 AM   #1952
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Belz... wrote: View Post
throwback wrote: View Post
Fast and Furious changed its direction, by focusing less on car racing.

The question becomes, what has Star Trek to change for it to succeed? I think some people are thinking the change was too much, that it lost something of its quality when it was adapted to international markets.
Humm... well I think there's a way to adapt it and make it a blockbuster franchise without losing the "core values" of Trek. Damned if I know how, mind you. It shouldn't be impossible. We just need someone with the right idea.
I think they are getting the action and explosions and trek ratio just right in the Abrams movies. Imagine a Star Trek movie in 1967 with a $20m dollar budget (in 1967 $) and I wonder what they would have come up with? My guess? Lots of action and adventure and more explosions & fighting than an Abrams movie will ever have!
Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 12:19 AM   #1953
Creepy Critter
Admiral
 
Creepy Critter's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Phily B wrote: View Post
TMP was an attempt to cash in on Star Wars.
Not really.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Creepy Critter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 12:43 AM   #1954
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Flake wrote: View Post
I think they are getting the action and explosions and trek ratio just right in the Abrams movies. Imagine a Star Trek movie in 1967 with a $20m dollar budget (in 1967 $) and I wonder what they would have come up with? My guess? Lots of action and adventure and more explosions & fighting than an Abrams movie will ever have!
Oh, absolutely. But I meant, some posters here seem to think that Trek should do a billion a movie, and of course I'd like that. My comment was that, in order for that to happen, I have no clue what they'd have to change.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 12:50 AM   #1955
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Phily B wrote: View Post
TMP was an attempt to cash in on Star Wars.
Not really.
I'm not sure what you're link is supposed to prove. Yes, a Star Trek revival (both as a television series and a modestly-budgeted motion picture) was conceived prior to Star Wars. But, when Star Wars was such a major success (quickly followed by another big-budget sf movie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind) Paramount tried to cash in on that success by turning the series into a major motion picture.

If Star Wars wasn't a big success, I doubt Paramount would have spent $44 million to bring their space franchise to the big screen.
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 12:56 AM   #1956
newtontomato539
Commander
 
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

"You like Abrams Trek! You are not a Trek fan!"

I'm a fan since 1972.

"Into Darkness is making alot of money!"

Yes it is!

"Into Darkness is not making alot of money! It's a Failure!"

. . . .



. . . .



Try again.
newtontomato539 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 01:02 AM   #1957
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

newtontomato539 wrote: View Post
"You like Abrams Trek! You are not a Trek fan!"

I'm a fan since 1972.

"Into Darkness is making alot of money!"

Yes it is!

"Into Darkness is not making alot of money! It's a Failure!"

. . . .



. . . .



Try again.
Okay, newtontomato - more substance, please, and less, um... less of whatever emoticon-laden type of spammy thing that was.


TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post
Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
Hugh Mann wrote: View Post
The only thing I can say to that is that anyone who claims to have been a fan of TOS and says that J.J. "Michael Bay" Abrams' films "feel like TOS" are lying, and they either have not seen TOS or they have not seen Abrams' films (or they have not seen either).
I've been a Trek fan since 1966.
I've seen every TOS episode many, many times.
I've seen Abrams's Trek films multiple times.
STID in particular captures a good deal about TOS that previous TOS-based movies never did.
I'm not lying.

Therefore, your statement is flat-out 100% wrong. That's not an opinion. It's a fact.
Your opinion is incorrect in thinking Hugh Mann's observation is "100% wrong" based only on your opinion--which completely ignores the reality that there are other TOS fans (40+ years and running) who just might fit his assessment.
No. Buzzkill's opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Hugh Mann is wrong, and I can only suppose that you've misread his post.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 01:18 AM   #1958
Creepy Critter
Admiral
 
Creepy Critter's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Harvey wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Phily B wrote: View Post
TMP was an attempt to cash in on Star Wars.
Not really.
I'm not sure what you're link is supposed to prove. Yes, a Star Trek revival (both as a television series and a modestly-budgeted motion picture) was conceived prior to Star Wars. But, when Star Wars was such a major success (quickly followed by another big-budget sf movie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind) Paramount tried to cash in on that success by turning the series into a major motion picture.

If Star Wars wasn't a big success, I doubt Paramount would have spent $44 million to bring their space franchise to the big screen.
It's supposed to prove that it's not like the producers saw the success of Star Wars and said, hey "let's make a film to ride that wave." TMP was an end product of concrete attempts to revive Star Trek, which date back at least to 1975, and follows from an attempt, Phase II, in the form of TV series that began concurrently with the release of Star Wars.

Your last sentence, which I agree with, is not synonymous with "cashing in on" Star Wars. If Star Wars had not been a big success, then it's entirely possible that we would have gotten Star Trek in the form of a TV series whose first episode had a plot similar to TMP, called "In Thy Image".

If you want an example of cashing in on Star Wars, see Starcrash: The Adventures of Stella Star.

If cashing in on Star Wars was really the motive behind TMP, they wouldn't have spent all that money on it before deciding to make a movie.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Creepy Critter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 01:39 AM   #1959
Ancient Mariner
Rear Admiral
 
Ancient Mariner's Avatar
 
Location: Great Pumpkin, is that you?
View Ancient Mariner's Twitter Profile
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
If cashing in on Star Wars was really the motive behind TMP, they wouldn't have spent all that money on it before deciding to make a movie.
Nor would they have made what is, admittedly, an action-deficient film. Aside from being set in space and using spaceships, there isn't a whole lot in common between A New Hope and The Motion Picture.
__________________
Ancient Mariner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 02:46 AM   #1960
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

People who say Star Trek Into Darkness is the worst movie ever obviously haven't seen Battlefield Earth. I'm watching it on Cinemax right now.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 03:18 AM   #1961
Phily B
Fleet Captain
 
Phily B's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
View Phily B's Twitter Profile
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Harvey wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
I'm not sure what you're link is supposed to prove. Yes, a Star Trek revival (both as a television series and a modestly-budgeted motion picture) was conceived prior to Star Wars. But, when Star Wars was such a major success (quickly followed by another big-budget sf movie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind) Paramount tried to cash in on that success by turning the series into a major motion picture.

If Star Wars wasn't a big success, I doubt Paramount would have spent $44 million to bring their space franchise to the big screen.
It's supposed to prove that it's not like the producers saw the success of Star Wars and said, hey "let's make a film to ride that wave." TMP was an end product of concrete attempts to revive Star Trek, which date back at least to 1975, and follows from an attempt, Phase II, in the form of TV series that began concurrently with the release of Star Wars.

Your last sentence, which I agree with, is not synonymous with "cashing in on" Star Wars. If Star Wars had not been a big success, then it's entirely possible that we would have gotten Star Trek in the form of a TV series whose first episode had a plot similar to TMP, called "In Thy Image".

If you want an example of cashing in on Star Wars, see Starcrash: The Adventures of Stella Star.

If cashing in on Star Wars was really the motive behind TMP, they wouldn't have spent all that money on it before deciding to make a movie.
It was a sci-fi movie, they moved Trek to a movie format because Close Encounters and Star Wars proved that science fiction movies could do mega business.
Phily B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 03:25 AM   #1962
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

BillJ wrote: View Post
People who say Star Trek Into Darkness is the worst movie ever obviously haven't seen Battlefield Earth. I'm watching it on Cinemax right now.
And that's not even the worst movie ever made. Though, once you dive that far into the cesspool, it's kind of hard to pick.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 03:25 AM   #1963
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

BillJ wrote: View Post
People who say Star Trek Into Darkness is the worst movie ever obviously haven't seen Battlefield Earth. I'm watching it on Cinemax right now.

that's almost a "so bad it's good" movie. And Travolta's performance is hilarious.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 04:45 AM   #1964
Creepy Critter
Admiral
 
Creepy Critter's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Phily B wrote: View Post
TMP was an attempt to cash in on Star Wars.
Phily B wrote: View Post
It was a sci-fi movie, they moved Trek to a movie format because Close Encounters and Star Wars proved that science fiction movies could do mega business.
Actually, your second statement is one I can agree with. But not the first. They aren't the same thing, for several reasons.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Creepy Critter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 05:00 AM   #1965
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
If you want an example of cashing in on Star Wars, see Starcrash: The Adventures of Stella Star.
I think we're pretty much agreed, only stating things differently. So I'll only say this: I have seen Starcrash. It's certainly...unforgettable.
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:42 PM.

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