RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,590
Posts: 5,404,012
Members: 24,867
Currently online: 600
Newest member: jack@gerryander

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Gold Key Archives Vol. 2 Comic
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

Cumberbatch In War Of Roses Miniseries
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

Trek 3 Filming Location Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

October-November 2014 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Cho Selfie TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

TPTB To Shatner: Shhh!
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Mystery Mini Vinyl Figure Display Box
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

The Red Shirt Diaries Episode Five
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

Shatner In Trek 3? Well Maybe
By: T'Bonz on Sep 28

Retro Review: Shadows and Symbols
By: Michelle on Sep 27


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 20 2013, 11:49 PM   #166
Creepy Critter
Admiral
 
Creepy Critter's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Yminale wrote: View Post
Besides, Oz, the Great and Powerful is suppose to be getting a sequel and it made $491 million worldwide on a $234 million dollar budget.
All I can say is that a sequel isn't "official" until they start filming.
So, a film is "official" once it starts filming. Gotya.

See also.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Creepy Critter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2013, 11:52 PM   #167
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Yminale wrote: View Post
As for a sequel, since Abrams is making Star Wars, isn't 2016 too early.
Abrams isn't doing the sequel.

Being a producer doesn't mean anything. Ask Gene Roddenberry.
Who cares ? The point is that your skepticism concerning the 2016 date is unfounded.

TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post
Nonsense, and quite defensive of a film which has a tendency to generate legitimate questions--like that driving this thread.
You think threads like these are representative of viewers in general ? Make no mistake, we represent a tiny minority.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2013, 11:53 PM   #168
Yminale
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Democratically Liberated America
Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Belz... wrote: View Post
Yminale wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote:
I'm not talking about profit, but attendance.
I seriousely doubt there are 400 million ST fans
1) Who said anything about fans ? I said attendance.
Ok If the average cost of a ticket is $5 (it's probably higher) and the current gross is $420 million and ignoring repeat viewings and piracy, you only get 84 million attendance.
__________________
This Space for Rent
Yminale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2013, 11:53 PM   #169
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Yminale wrote: View Post
Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
Yminale wrote: View Post
A movies[sic] has to make double (actually its[sic] closer to triple now) it's[sic] production cost because what it[sic] is usually reported is the Gross Box office.
No. This simply isn't true, although people seem to think that if it's repeated often enough on the Internet it must be.
Here's proof I'm right
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/t...rstanding.html

Now where is yours
From your proof...


These numbers tell the story. Ticket sales from theaters provided 100 percent of the studios' revenues in 1948; in 2003, they accounted for less than 20 percent. Instead, home entertainment provided 82 percent of the 2003 revenues. In terms of profits, the studios can make an even larger proportion from home entertainment since most, if not all, of the theatrical revenues go to pay for the prints and advertising required to get audiences into theaters. (Video, DVDs, and TV have much lower marketing costs.)

This profit reality has transformed the way Hollywood operates. Theatrical releases now essentially serve as launching platforms for videos, DVDs, network TV, pay TV, games, and a host of other products.
Which is what many of us have been saying all along.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2013, 11:55 PM   #170
Yminale
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Democratically Liberated America
Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Yminale wrote: View Post
Besides, Oz, the Great and Powerful is suppose to be getting a sequel and it made $491 million worldwide on a $234 million dollar budget.
All I can say is that a sequel isn't "official" until they start filming.
So, a film is "official" once it starts filming. Gotya.

See also.
hence "official" (BTW these films weren't sequels)
__________________
This Space for Rent
Yminale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2013, 12:00 AM   #171
Yminale
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Democratically Liberated America
Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

BillJ wrote: View Post

Which is what many of us have been saying all along.
That point is not in contention between you and me. I merely remarked that Superman Returns performed similarly and they rebooted after a 7 year hiatus. Seeing Abrams is committed to SW, I don't see why Viacom/Paramount doesn't do the same thing.
__________________
This Space for Rent
Yminale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2013, 12:02 AM   #172
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Yminale wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

Which is what many of us have been saying all along.
That point is not in contention between you and me. I merely remarked that Superman Returns performed similarly and they rebooted after a 7 year hiatus. Seeing Abrams is committed to SW, I don't see why Viacom/Paramount doesn't do the same thing.
The biggest thing is that Paramount is seeing a growth in International markets with Star Trek Into Darkness. They won't do an about face now when those markets are showing an increased interest in this version of Trek.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2013, 12:06 AM   #173
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

http://www.thehdroom.com/news/Star-T...Hotcakes/12634

For a least the past several days, the Blu-ray 3D edition of Star Trek Into Darkness has been in the first position. The Star Trek Into Darkness Blu-ray and DVD combo is right behind it in second place. It's not often that a film's pre-orders are so overwhelmingly strong that it can command the bestsellers list with multiple skus.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2013, 12:48 AM   #174
Noname Given
Vice Admiral
 
Location: None Given
Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

BillJ wrote: View Post
http://www.thehdroom.com/news/Star-T...Hotcakes/12634

For a least the past several days, the Blu-ray 3D edition of Star Trek Into Darkness has been in the first position. The Star Trek Into Darkness Blu-ray and DVD combo is right behind it in second place. It's not often that a film's pre-orders are so overwhelmingly strong that it can command the bestsellers list with multiple skus.
Yep -m in effect - the theatre release pays for the filming costs and most of the ad costs - and essentially helps set up later home video, PPV, and pay cable movie channel (HBO, et.) <--- And that's where the studio rakes in the dough. They DO want good word of mouth in theatres and a decent run to bolster that as mush as possible.
Noname Given is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2013, 01:34 AM   #175
TREK_GOD_1
Fleet Captain
 
TREK_GOD_1's Avatar
 
Location: Escaped from Delta Vega
Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

BillJ wrote: View Post
Yminale wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

It does when you own the company (Bad Robot) that makes the movie.
Uhm Viacom/Paramount OWNS Star Trek and Bad Robot is just a production company. If Paramount isn't happy, they can easily be replaced.
Keep hanging onto that dream. I'll see you at 'Star Trek 3 produced by Bad Robot' in 2016.
Hit the brakes. Yminale is correct: any contracted production company can be booted from a film, as Viacom/Paramount does indeed own all things Star Trek, and can do whatever they wish to it (including bad things such as TOS-R and nuTrek). Whether or not BR has any ivolvement in a hypothetical third film is irrelevant--if P/V decide to pull the plug, it will happen.
__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."
TREK_GOD_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2013, 01:40 AM   #176
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post
Hit the brakes. Yminale is correct: any contracted production company can be booted from a film, as Viacom/Paramount does indeed own all things Star Trek, and can do whatever they wish to it (including bad things such as TOS-R and nuTrek). Whether or not BR has any ivolvement in a hypothetical third film is irrelevant--if P/V decide to pull the plug, it will happen.
You're right, it's a brilliant idea to boot the production company that gave you the two highest-grossing Trek features ever and have penetrated international markets in a way Star Trek never has before.

I can't wait to get back to Berman Trek!
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill

Last edited by BillJ; June 21 2013 at 02:07 AM.
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2013, 01:44 AM   #177
TREK_GOD_1
Fleet Captain
 
TREK_GOD_1's Avatar
 
Location: Escaped from Delta Vega
Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Yminale wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

Which is what many of us have been saying all along.
That point is not in contention between you and me. I merely remarked that Superman Returns performed similarly and they rebooted after a 7 year hiatus. Seeing Abrams is committed to SW, I don't see why Viacom/Paramount doesn't do the same thing.
Excellent point. Superman Returns was rebooted because they wanted to incorporate the character in the "Nolanized" DC Comics film universe, so a latter-day Donner-esque sequel would not fit, no matter how it performed at the box office. If a truly creative director/writer stated an interest in directing a ST film (particularly after having his own hit), and V/P thought he would literally take a 21st century ST where no ST has gone before, a reboot would be considered.

It happened with Superman Returns, and it happened with the Raimi Spider-Man series (all highly successful, but did not matter).
__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."
TREK_GOD_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2013, 01:45 AM   #178
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Yminale wrote: View Post
Here's proof I'm right
That's not "proof," and you're not right. That's an eight year-old article on Slate that doesn't support your simplistic claim to begin with, if you read the whole thing.

But tell you what - since you think random links to outdated stuff are educational, why don't you go ahead and read a bit further into some of the rest of what that author has posted online about the way films are financed and how they turn a profit. You might actually start to get an idea of how much more complex the subject is than the "multiples of the production budget" foolishness you're repeating.

The Hollywood Economist

TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post
...any contracted production company can be booted from a film, as Viacom/Paramount does indeed own all things Star Trek...
So what? That has nothing to do with what's going to happen in this case, as you probably actually know. Bad Robot will produce a third Star Trek movie for Paramount, to be released in 2016, with a budget similar to the last two. But continue trying to misdirect and distract.

Last edited by Admiral Buzzkill; June 21 2013 at 03:34 AM.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2013, 01:47 AM   #179
TREK_GOD_1
Fleet Captain
 
TREK_GOD_1's Avatar
 
Location: Escaped from Delta Vega
Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

BillJ wrote: View Post
TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post
Hit the brakes. Yminale is correct: any contracted production company can be booted from a film, as Viacom/Paramount does indeed own all things Star Trek, and can do whatever they wish to it (including bad things such as TOS-R and nuTrek). Whether or not BR has any ivolvement in a hypothetical third film is irrelevant--if P/V decide to pull the plug, it will happen.
It's good to know that hate can defeat anything, including logic.

You're right, it's a brilliant idea to boot the production company that gave you the two highest-grossing Trek features ever and have penetrated international markets in a way Star Trek never has before.
See my post on the Raimi Spider-Man films, which were leaps and bounds above the box office of nuTrek, but that series was rebooted with no hesitation.

Don't blind yourself with on-bended-knee devoiton to nuTrek, that you glide over historical reference proving the opposing point.
__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."
TREK_GOD_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2013, 01:54 AM   #180
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post

Don't blind yourself with on-bended-knee devoiton to nuTrek, that you glide over historical reference proving the opposing point.
It's hilarious that you say that while I'm sitting here watching A Private Little War.

The general idea was that Spider-Man would be rebooted after three films and that the Nolan Batman films would be rebooted after three films. The was no sequel to Superman Returns because it just wasn't a very good movie.

General audiences seem to like Abrams Trek, Into Darkness will out perform Star Trek 2009. Paramount isn't going to ditch a production company that has a property that was completely dead on the upswing.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ 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 10:41 PM.

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