Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by RAMA, Apr 26, 2013.
At its base, a car race/crime film has more instant appeal than nu Trek.
Damn, that speaks volumes.
Nearly everyone owns a car. Not everyone owns a spaceship.
They'll make similar amounts domestically, unless Fast & Furious 6 is significantly leggier than prior sequels in the franchise. It's in foreign markets that F&F 6 will make far more.
I don't get it, myself, but hey- whatever floats people's boats.
Shooting in 3D is actually more expensive then converting in post. Some of the reason are because the 3D cameras and lenses are more expensive to run, maintain and setup. It also takes more time to plan, prep and then execute a scene in 3D. There is also more to double check after each shot, to makes sure everything looks right which could lead to even more takes per scene if things go wrong. Basically, shooting in 3D is more time consuming which adds up to more dollars on a movie set.
It also adds more work and time for the special effects teams during post production, which again adds up to more money. It's just quicker and doesn't require as many extra steps to post convert a movie to 3D, which adds up to savings in a movie budget. This is why 3D converted movies are more common the ones shot in 3D.
The first thing to do to save money is to cut out the shooting in IMAX. STID used IMAX film cameras which are bigger, louder and eat through film like crazy. The film itself is a whole lot more expensive as well. Other reasons are very similar to shooting in 3D, prep time and execution time go up with IMAX cameras. Retakes just pile on the cost. Also, because IMAX cameras are so loud, it could cause more ADR to have to be done during post. Because of the higher resolution, special effects work takes longer to create and render. The whole IMAX process is very expensive and would be the first thing to go if I was trying to cut nuTrek 3's budget.
This is just a guess on my part but, I bet the IMAX box office gross doesn't even cover the cost of the IMAX shoot.
Corrected that for you. No Trek film is EVER going to reach mass market appeal like films such as Fast & Furious, Transformers, Star Wars, Avengers or the like.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Trek doesn't need to be a mega hit in order to be a success and get sequels.
"Definitely" doesn't belong anywhere in that sentence - everything in it is pure speculation.
As long as we're playing though, I'll speculate that there will definitely be a third big budget Star Trek film produced for Paramount by Bad Robot and it will be released in 2016.
But then, who knows - I was wrong all year about the "Khan" thing...
Why would anyone expect anything different?
BTW, that might just as well read "Trek" as "nu Trek" - if something has more box office appeal than nuTrek, it automatically leaves oldTrek in the dust.
I really hope Paramount will analyse the possible reasons for the disappointing gross. Sure, it will make money, but I do think Paramount was really hoping for a hit on par with the Iron Mans, the Pirates, the Harry Potters...
The main problem I think, is that ST just doesn't have "The Name"... When people hear there's a new Iron Man playing, they go: 'Cool, I'll go and see that!'... Star Trek doesn't have "The Name" like that... I thought it did after 2009, but then Paramount waiting 4 (!) years to ride on that, and I think that's one of the main reasons for the "failure" of making something REALLY big...
Another problem is the whole "who's the villain?" marketing... Looking back, I think it really didn't work... When the 'bigger audience' got wind of the fact that a villain from the 'old ST lore' was involved, I think it pushed people away instead of creating a sincere interest. I think many people thought: 'Well, I don't know any old ST villains... I guess you need foreknowledge to really enjoy this film, so I think I'll pass...'
I love the fact that JJ somehow made this films fit into the existing canon, but I think it stands in the way now... I think that true stand alone films that require no knowledge of old Trek would be far more succesful...
Though the truth is, I really don't want that. Again, I love the idea that Trek since 1966 all the way to STID is connected, is part of an established canon... But it does backfire when it comes to attracting large crowds...
I think for the next film, we should really just go to some exotic alien world, where the villain is not this one guy bent on revenge or whatever, but rather an animalistic, creepy alien race or something... I think something like 'Pitch Black meets The Galileo Seven'... I really think it could work...
Also, the constant "dark, dark, DAAAAAARK" hoopla in the promo didn't help. People don't wanna see Star Trek with dark undertones in it during summer blockbuster season.
Thankfully, the movie itself is not JUST "dark". Plenty of humor, bright spots and charm.
Btw, I went to see it with a non-trekkie friend today who's been waiting to see it with me. She was totally unspoiled, kind of a Cumberbatch fan (not the obsessed kind). We went to the Udvar-Hazy IMAX theater. HUMONGOUS crowd. Literally thousands of people. All kinds of people. Little ones (even some babies, ugh, poor things!), big ones, medium ones. A good mix of the genders.
We'd reserved tix earlier so we were able to get into the 4:30 show. The show was sold out (they announced that) and we could literally TASTE the anticipation in the theater. This was my 2nd time (first time on IMAX). I'll be going tomorrow to either a 3D or a 2D with my brother and niece. Brother is an avowed non-Trekkie and niece is a dyed-in-the-wool Trekkie. I'll watch it one more time in 2D and then write a review on the grading thread.
Oh, funny story: On the way out today, I heard (right behind me) someone (I think a dad or an uncle or an older brother) ask a younger dude: So did you like it?
Younger dude: Yeah! It was really good!
Dad: See? Not every good movie has to be Transformers!
Rth's numbers for Sunday
Very true... The promotional artwork was very populistic, very 'Dark Knight'-like... And WHY..? Did Paramount really think that conveyed the film well..? STID is such a fun, entertaining film, and we have these posters of doom and destruction, as if they're promoting a totally different film... Looking back, I think Into Darkness, -albeit being a very cool one-, is a teribble title for the film... It does not reflect the spirit nor tone of the film, and ends up trying to be too cool, too hip...
I think the movies lack any big name actors too tbh.
It is a factor, yes. There were rumours once that Jack Black might be playing Harry Mudd in the ST sequel, and I thought that would be a very good move... Just like Paramount's idea in the '80's to involve Eddie Murphy in Star Trek IV, I think that would have been brilliant...
Benedict performance is great of course, but who knows; if they had tried to get an 'big name' things would have better commercially...
One film did reach a general audience. That film was Star Trek IV.
This was the cinematic trailer for Star Trek IV.
This was one of the official three trailers for this film:
The older film set out the film's story in a few sentences, while showing some of the key moments of the film. A general viewer of the new film couldn't tell you what the film was about in a few sentences. It was a sequence of events.
In the UK it was promoted as The Voyage Home: Star Trek IV
I'm convinced to this day my Mum took us to see it mixing Star Trek with Star Wars.
According to one article, a film has to make twice its production budget to be successful.
According to Box Office Mojo, the production budget for ST:ID was $190 million. Double that to $380 million. The film has made $285 million to date. By that simple standard, the film has not proven successful. (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm)
Star Trek IV was made for $21 million. The film was released largely domestically, with a smaller number of overseas theaters showing it. Yet, the movie made $133 million worldwide. (Dollars are rated to 1984.)
Interestingly enough, even with the success of that film, Paramount found that paying the lead actors, who agreed to a reduction in pay, expensive, so the company decided to put money into a TV show instead.
We live in an era of increasing demands being put upon by companies to have successful products. The numbers may seem stunning, but to the people who do the accounting, if a program fails to meet expectations, the results can be catastrophic.
So, Star Trek is failed in the box office. I don't know if I will be able to see another Star Trek movie in the future.
I think its a mistake to say it isn't successful when its only been out for two weeks.
It is not a massive hit, but far from a failure. John Carter was a failure. 250 million dollar budget, US gross 73 million. *THAT'S* a failure.
Separate names with a comma.