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

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by RAMA, Apr 26, 2013.

  1. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Location:
    Land of Enchantment
    In both films nuKirk has been shown to be:

    *Better than everyone else.
    *A man of action (act first, ask later).
    *Prone to mistake due to lapses in judgment caused by ego and hubris.

    All three of those define ShatKirk.

    The only difference is nuKirk's immaturity. He's younger and never had a father figure. He was also thrust from Hicksville townie to Starship commander rather rapidly.

    The reason why this part of both films' themes is because it's an on-going character arc.

    What's the problem?
     
  2. Out Of My Vulcan Mind

    Out Of My Vulcan Mind Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Wherever you go, there you are.
    Weekend actuals: $11,425,755 (-32%) for $199,866,194 to date. Very good fourth weekend hold.
     
  3. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    That inherent insecurity of the franchise, from the biggest top executive down to the tiniest fan, is funny at times.

    That's how you get mediocre films. Star Trek Into Darkness was a clear in your face attempt to cash in on the Dark Knight vibe, just as Star Trek Begins was an attempt to cash in on the Star Wars prequels and Batman Begins. Everyone of the involved told you that this was what they were aiming at. It didn't came to them organically, it wasn't an idea they genuinely liked, it was an idea that they thought was dictated by the market.

    They forget that the original films they were "inspired by" didn't do that. The Dark Knight is a genuine film through and through, and you notice that in every aspect of its execution (with The Dark Knight Rises on the other hand, you already notice that a lot of that got lost and they did try to make a second TDK).

    And that's also why they are disappointed, studios and fans alike, with the box office that is actually okay. So this film didn't became their Dark Knight or their Skyfall? Well, too bad. Don't expect your films to perform better than average just because you imitate the extremely successful ones.
     
  4. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    I don't think the arc itself is the problem, it's how rapid everything happens in Into Darkness. Kirk went from starship captain to cadet to first officer and back to starship captain in what seems like a twenty-four hour window.

    I know that we don't want to waste time showing inconsequential events between two important events. But we can denote a passage of time without bogging the film down. A simple snarky line about Kirk spending time as the Delta-Vega outpost commander would've shown that some time had past and that he was actually punished for something.

    But hindsight is 20/20.
     
  5. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    I thought the now-you're-captain-now-you're-XO-whoops-now-you're-captain-again was an...unnecessary detour and distraction in this one.
     
  6. Robert_T_April

    Robert_T_April Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Location:
    Yesterday's Enterprise
    Every episode, and especially every movie can be nitpicked to death, however, yours are extremely minor.
    The Klingons killed Kirk's son in Star Trek III. What is so unbelievable about his feelings towards Klingons? These feelings haven't been explored as they didn't fit into IV or V, and honestly, I really don't take The Final Frontier seriously as it was just a poorly written, and poorly directed movie. Not to mention, the f/x were cheap.

    As for the tracking device, a transponder could have been injected into Kirk but, it wouldn't have been as dramatic.

    Your issues with Uhura and Chekov aren't even worth mentioning as it had zero impact on the story. The bit in Klingon space added a little humour which didn't hurt.

    And as for McCoy saying he didn't even know his anatomy was not a big deal to me because, it was somewhat exaggerated under the circumstances, and he's a medical doctor...not a veterinarian.

    When I said perfect, I didn't mean nitpick free. I meant it was epic, touching, the humour was not forced, the f/x were awesome, the acting was awesome, and it was the best directed Trek to date! Hats off to Nick Meyer!

    The timing was perfect for this movie. It really was an EPIC sendoff for this crew. It couldn't have been done any better.
     
  7. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    I always thought the patch was composed of a rare element that the Klingons simply didn't know to look for.

    But then I love The Undiscovered Country. :techman:
     
  8. Noname Given

    Noname Given Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Location:
    None Given
    ^^^
    Change 1966 to 1969 (I was 6 when I first caught the original Star Trek on NBC and loved it) -- and I echo the above to a Tee.
     
  9. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    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.
     
  10. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    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.
     
  11. Phily B

    Phily B Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    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'
     
  12. Flake

    Flake Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    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!
     
  13. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    Not really.
     
  14. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    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.
     
  15. Harvey

    Harvey Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    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.
     
  16. newtontomato539

    newtontomato539 Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    "You like Abrams Trek! You are not a Trek fan!" :scream:

    I'm a fan since 1972.

    "Into Darkness is making alot of money!" :scream:

    Yes it is! :techman::drool:

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

    . . . .

    :eek::wtf:

    . . . .

    :rofl::guffaw:

    Try again.
     
  17. M'Sharak

    M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Location:
    Terra Inlandia
    Okay, newtontomato - more substance, please, and less, um... less of whatever emoticon-laden type of spammy thing that was.


    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.
     
  18. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    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.
     
  19. Ancient Mariner

    Ancient Mariner Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Location:
    A deserted gin joint on the Lower East Side
    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.
     
  20. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    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. :eek: