Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by RAMA, Apr 26, 2013.
Yeah. And I believe it involved a urinal.
He was asking for the (nonexistant) on-screen quote where it is stated Chekov had just came aboard as a member of the crew.
There never was any.
Well, tomorrow night is the final showing in the last theater in my area to still be running the film. I wish I had the chance to see it more than once, but this has been a crazy summer. Still and all, thanks to an amazingly robust Foreign box office response, which for the first time has matched the US box office, Into Darkness brought in the most money of them all. It's great that Star Trek can coax over $444,000,000 out of people.
Hence the part about there being "several non-canon explanations"? If it had been explicitly stated in dialogue such that it could be cited and quoted, what use would anyone have for a non-canon explanation? I suspect that Noname Given did see the "recently transferred" line somewhere, but may be remembering something from a novelization rather than a televised episode.
Not a "fact", just an opinion. Despite having a great time watching ST II over and over, for me (and other newbie friends) it just didn't compare to TMP. And there were definitely fans at the time who pointed angrily at ST II/III, and especially IV, as "the dumbing down of Trek for the masses".
For me, I didn't get another Trek film experience the equal of TMP until... 2009.
I was just a little confused someone asks about a quote for the episode where it was stated and the next guy puts a quote for 'non-canon' explanations.
Of course there are many non canon explanations.
mea Culpa -- I actually thought there was a dialogue snippet about Chekov's crew status at the start of "The Trouble With Tribbles"-- so (I am at work but allowed to bowse on breaks) -- I checked on Hulu and it turns out I was indeed mistaken.
That said, I don't know what part of my 'argument' is 'weal ass' as Chekov WEAS NEVER a part of the cast in Season One and Space Seed was a Season One episode.
That doesn't change the incongruity in the STII:TWoK script of Khan 'never forgetting Chekov's face' as he hadn't seen it (as far as anything shown on screen in "Space Seed".)
I just am left to wonder if Mr. Abram's and Co had referenced something back to the prime universe and had a similar glaring inconsistency in a script -- how many fans would be calling for their heads, or claiming they did bother to really watch any episodes, etc.
Again, I just find it interesting how some fans hold up STII:TWoK as 'excellent Star Trek writing' when all the inconsistencies I listed in my previous post (and more) exist in said script; yet it gets a complete pass by many, while other Star Trek films, etc. get roasted at the stake for the smallest canon inconsistency at times.
(And again, I repeat that such inconsistencies don't affect my enjoyment of STII:TWoK at all and it's still either tied or slightly behind -- depending on my mood -- with ST:ID as my favorite Star Trek feature film.)
Time heals all continuity wounds. Whatever's new is held to a far stricter standard (by some) than what came before. Voyager and TOS/movies I-VI depict warp speeds so differently they can't possibly co-exist, yet nobody seems to care. Instead everyone has a conniption fit over the upteenth time a Trek starship goes underwater...
I especially agree with the bolded. To me, it seemed like STID was thrown together, and I'm guessing that this might be true at least to some extent from the fact that they pushed back filming so the writers could finish putting together a script. I think it was Lindelof that said they were "lazy" in getting together to do it... Like you said, it shows.
I can agree with this.
I can agree with this too.
Your comment reminded me of a few articles that I've read. I'll quote one in particular:
Please forgive the length. Source: http://www.telegram.com/article/20130510/NEWS/305119990
Edit: Just in case anybody needs me to link to the actual NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/business/media/star-trek-into-darkness-aims-for-world-audience.html?_r=0
Now if Brooks is to be trusted, as well as other sources I've come across, then they did expect this film to do better than the 2009 movie did overseas, and probably much better. They would not have poured such resources and time (and research) into their efforts overseas if they did not expect a significant gain.
Massive? That's a relative and subjective term. If by that Serenity means 100% over ST09's overseas gross, then what she said may not only not be crazy, she may actually be right. But again, only Paramount and Bad Robot can really say what "massive gain" means to them.
Anyway, what they ended up with was kind of an opposite situation. The 2009 film was a domestic smash hit, but it was disappointing overseas. The aggressive marketing campaign overseas worked and STID was a hit there, but domestically it is not performing as well as ST09. STID's overall gross number is better, in an "absolute values" sense, but who knows if it has profited Paramount and Bad Robot more than ST09? Only they can say.
Perhaps the third time will be the charm. Maybe the 2016 movie will perform really well domestically and overseas. Obviously, at least to me, from reading this article, it sounded like ST09 gave them hope for overseas numbers because they saw "potential" (and "progress") there. And it looks like they've tapped into that potential by essentially making an action movie that they heavily marketed as such.
I guess all I'm saying is that I don't think her statement is "crazy" at all, at least not based off of what I've read.
Yep. It seems to have done well enough. So, on to the next one, I guess.
Interesting. I've never looked up ROI on boxofficemojo. I'll have to check into that. But, even without it, I'd figured they'd need to make around 480 million in order to be doing just about as good as ST09. It sounds like from your calculating, they might need a little more. We'll see how things turn out. Thanks for the numbers.
"I care." - Luke Skywalker
Woo-hoo! It's now showing in the cheap theaters (Danbarry) $3 (1.75 on Tuesdays) 4x a day. Also, still playing @ the 2 AMCs in the area.
Trek is number 3 on Rotten Tomatoes' Summer Scorecard.
But... but... what about all the plot-holes? And why must Star Trek be fun?
I thought I was the only person who replies with this quote.
It's the highest rated of the big summer movies so far as well. The only movies ahead of it are limited releases.
Can you prove that? And what would be your assessment?
Still, third is not bad at all.
I didn't even know there was a new Before film. I'm going to have to go look for that.
I noticed STID bombed big time in Spain, opening less than ST09 and opened in 3rd place behind After Earths second weekend, a second weekend down nearly 60% from its first weekend! Best to have a limited opening in Spain next time! Same for the other countries that bombed.
Or do better marketing there next time.
Also, opening a movie in a Mediterranean country in the middle of summer is not the best. Not to mention all the economy problems going on.
Separate names with a comma.