STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Dark Knight was made BEFORE Trek '09, Jarod.

The prequels started in '99, Jarod.

Well I find it entertaining and gripping but also pretentious, overrated, convoluted and full of plot holes.

True. There's enough material in that movie for a miniseries.

 

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'

 

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!

 

Not really.

 

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.

 

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.

 

"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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

that's almost a "so bad it's good" movie. And Travolta's performance is hilarious.

 

Actually, your second statement is one I can agree with. But not the first. They aren't the same thing, for several reasons.

 

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.

 

Ah, that is one glorious movie. So bad, it's awesome.

No, I believe that honour should be reserved to Manos the Hands of Fate or Monster a Go-Go.

 

I thought STVI treated the characters horribly. Kirk's a racist, Spock's a rapist*, McCoy and Uhura are incompetent, the entire plotline directly contradicts "Yesterday's Enterprise" etc. etc.




*and yes I'm aware Spock mind melds all the time, sometimes against people's will. But in VI the violation aspect was deliberatey played up. Add to that, the bridge crew just sit around and watch Valaris screaming in agony.

 

How many of you have seen the film "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters"? I just did. Man, this was a wretched, preposterous film. The music was annoying and loud, and the technology was anachronistic to the period. Established as being in the early 18th century, this film had characters using steampunk machine guns and tasers.

To illustrate the power of the international market, if this film was relying on the domestic box office, it would be a rated a critically-panned bomb with a budget of $50 million and a gross of $55.7 million. However, the international market gross was $170 million, making this film a financial success. Paramount has agreed to a sequel.

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/hansel-and-gretel-witch-hunters

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hanselandgretelwitchhunters.htm

http://www.joblo.com/horror-movies/news/hansel-gretel-witch-hunters-producer-promises-insane-sequel

The lessons I learned from this film was that one shouldn't be overly reverential to the source material, have over-the-board action, have likeable characters, have some comedy, have the women as objects of sexual desire and arousal but are able to hold their own in a battle, especially against other women, and have the characters speak enough to advance the plot and to give brief exposition to the audience. Another film that meets this mold and is succeeding is Furious 6.