Shame there was a lack of profit though
Profitability of Star Trek Movies
- Thread starter Giarc1982
- Start date
- Status
Shame there was a lack of profit though
Profit shouldn't be used either as a measure of quality or as a "gotcha" about same, IMO. There are plenty of wonderful movies that didn't make a profit. Cloud Atlas was a box office failure, but I'll cut the mofo* who dares tell me that it was a bad movie.
* With my wit, of course. *graciously leaves self open to obvious counterpoint*
* With my wit, of course. *graciously leaves self open to obvious counterpoint*
I don't think anyone is disputing that STID under performed slightly, my problem is that you are using these figures to ram home how 'shit' JJTrek is in the hope that people will agree with you.
They won't.
I don't usually repeat myself in threads, but since the OP is doing it I will say again: ST'09 and ID made enough that they are making a threequel. I call that a win, which all the figure massaging (or outright masturbating) in the world can't undo.
I don't usually repeat myself in threads, but since the OP is doing it I will say again: ST'09 and ID made enough that they are making a threequel. I call that a win, which all the figure massaging (or outright masturbating) in the world can't undo.
Since you keep repeating yourself, I'll say it again, a sequel is not confirmation that the previous film was a success, there is many factors that come into play like past success, franchise potential, existing contractual obligations, some execs may even like JJTrek for some reason, they could also do other things like reduce/increase the budget, alter the creative team, approach the marketing campaign differently.
Now I don't know the budget or marketing are being altered for the next outing but Kurtzmann is out, there is new blood in the form of Lin, Patrick McKay and J.D. Payne, also Orci and JJ have changed roles
But you are basing your entire argument on figures that you cannot possibly know - the sources you have posted in this very thread even confirm this.
This is the only thing we know for certain...
Star Trek 2009 and Star Trek into Darkness were both pretty big, but not massive box office successes and they are making a third movie.
I'm not one of these people who defend JJ Trek just for the sake of attacking someone, I happen to think that JJ Trek has several problems, mainly in the writing department, but the bottom line is that your argument is not only flawed, but it is clearly done out of hate for JJ Trek, and a formula thats based dodgy information at best, that happens to suit your dislike of the new movies, rather than reasonable discussion.
Provide concrete information about the marketing budget, and the various other associated costs and I'll be the first one to agree with you, but you and I both know that you can't, so you're using this weak formula to beat everyone over the head about how much of a failure these new movies are.
This is the only thing we know for certain...
Star Trek 2009 and Star Trek into Darkness were both pretty big, but not massive box office successes and they are making a third movie.
I'm not one of these people who defend JJ Trek just for the sake of attacking someone, I happen to think that JJ Trek has several problems, mainly in the writing department, but the bottom line is that your argument is not only flawed, but it is clearly done out of hate for JJ Trek, and a formula thats based dodgy information at best, that happens to suit your dislike of the new movies, rather than reasonable discussion.
Provide concrete information about the marketing budget, and the various other associated costs and I'll be the first one to agree with you, but you and I both know that you can't, so you're using this weak formula to beat everyone over the head about how much of a failure these new movies are.
Actually no, we know only that they are making another movie, that is all, all the rest is speculation, mine and yours.
The equation I'm basing my opinion on gives an estimate, that for me gives me believable numbers for every film I've tried it on.
I personally think if XIII only matches Into Darkness's performance we won't see Star Trek back again for a while.
It's not or doom and gloom, look at Bond, a successful relaunch with Casino Royale, that ditched a lot of familiar tropes, and continued with that vein into the disappointing Quantum of Solace, at which point they reintroduced some more traditional elements in a limited way, creating a blend that was a barnstorming success in Skyfall
These folks have the same capacity to marshal selective data, logic based on false premises, and general ignorance of the subject matter to "prove" a nonsense point that folks claiming Paramount's not making a profit on the Abrams Star Trek movies employ. Their conclusions are just as valid.
lol, I was thinking that about your good self, never mind that I'm providing stats, links, working, shown my assumptions and offered to incorporate new data if it is complete and available, where as the counter argument to be blindly chanting...
"it must be successful, if there is going a sequel, it made tonnes of money worldwide, it doesn't matter how much it cost, I don't care that it had a Top 50 budget and couldn't break the US top 100, WW top 150, it doesn't matter that it didn't match any contemporary film mentioned in this thread, even Amazing Spiderman 2 which is widely seen as a disappointment... your just interpreting the numbers wrong because you hate JJTrek"
I guess I don't understand why it's so important to convince us that these movies don't make money. I don't care if they're profitable or not, just as long as they keep making movies.
Well, for dweebs like Para Mobius - who goes on and on about this on Facebook - this assertion is part of the foundation of a wish-fulfillment belief that Paramount and/or CBS are on the verge of abandoning their current Star Trek projects and plans in favor of a retrograde approach that revives the old continuity that finally failed commercially.
They've got quite a cult going over there.
Finally we have some progress, you admit it is just speculation. and therefore open to questioning.
Believable to you, maybe.
I can agree with this to an extent, but I think after 3 getting all the cast together again will present just as big as a challenge.
It's not important, I thought it would be an interesting discussion, it does imply that XIII may evolve somewhat from what was presented in the last movie. Will it bring things more in line with what the older fans like? Will it double down on the more glossy,showy elements? Will the budget be cut/increased? Will a Shatner cameo bring the stubborn fans(like me) back to the theaters? Will a return to TV be more/less likely? Will they shy away from past stories like Khan in the future?
I think that I will just sit back and wait. Because it is just fun to go sit in a theater and enjoy the experience, whether the movie is good or bad.
It's a tough life to live when you simply can't sit back and enjoy something for what it is.
When I went to see the original Abrams, I was a fiery anti-Abrams person (ask Dennis or M'Sharak). I went to see it the first time, loved the experience. Came to places like this and thought that the film sucked because it "violated" some assumptions people had about Star Trek. Went a second time, loved it. Went a third time, loved it. After a while, I realized the problem was with me and how I related to a fictional universe instead of the actual movie. It didn't mean the movies didn't have flaws, they both do. But, damn, are they fun to watch.
Life is too short to stay engaged in an unhappy relationship. Whether it be with people, things or entertainment. The only thing I need to know is whether or not there is going to be another movie. None of the other stuff concerns me, except for the spread of misinformation.
For me, I have no problem with a version of Trek existing to appeal to the masses, I object to it being the only Trek available, and the notion that you have to put up with it or go without, just feels so long since I got a proper Star Trek fix, sometimes I just feel I need to be vocal in my support for Star Trek even if I don't support JJTrek or else it'll left to wither and die, once the mainstream has moved on to its next fad.
Star Trek has been around for fifty-years, I doubt it is going anywhere.
Might want to look towards the novelverse if the Abrams movies aren't scratching your itch. They have continued on from the 24th century series with old and new characters, ships and adventures.
The Destiny trilogy by David Mack is a home-run.
I'm not so sure about that.
Pine let it slip last year during the STID press tour that he is signed for 2 more. For all we know others may have already extended their contract.
The only Trek available? What does that even mean? Recently I have enjoyed ST09, STID, Star Trek Continues, Star Trek: TNG/Doctor Who: Assimilation² comics, as well as revisiting much of old Trek – it is still there, you know, including in remastered versions. There are plenty of books too, but I am not a book person. How on Earth is J.J. Abrams Trek the only Trek available?
It's probably not impossible that CBS will try to get a one-off Trek special of some sort out in some kind of video format in order to rake in some 50th anniversary money. Could turn out to be anything, though, including just a long retrospective narrated by Shatner and Stewart. 
- Status
Similar threads
