Nonsense, it presupposes you can only have a couple of fun scifi franchises. Clearly, $1.3 billion later ($1.6 almost with home video). Trek has proven it did quite well and in fact, has done better with modern Trek.
Forbes: How ‘Star Trek’ Became Obsolete Thanks To ‘Guardians,’ Fast & Furious’ And ‘Star Wars’
- Thread starter Khan 2.0
- Start date
- Status
The villain was originally going to be John Harrison, renegade Starfleet officer turned terrorist out for revenge. Lindelöf kept insisting on using Khan in the movie, and the compromise was eventually reached on having Khan working under the alias of John Harrison for half the movie. Indeed, Orci has admitted there was a draft of the script which is essentially the same story, just Harrison doesn't suddenly reveal "My name is Khan" halfway through.
Nonsense, it presupposes you can only have a couple of fun scifi franchises. Clearly, $1.3 billion later ($1.6 almost with home video). Trek has proven it did quite well and in fact, has done better with modern Trek.
I think what you're not understanding is that RIO of the Kelvin films was not good enough. That's all there is to it. It doesn't mater that they sold more tickets than the older films, because the Kelvin films had bigger budgets (ST09 $150m, STID $190m, STB $185m) that you normally give to movies you expect to do much better than $400m. It was fine for the 2009 film because that was largely considered a kick off for the franchise much like BATMAN BEGINS was (as cited in the article). The expectation was that the sequel, like THE DARK KNIGHT (which Lindelof cited as an influence for STID) would catapult to something closer to a billion dollars, but it just barely made half of that. Follow that up with BEYOND making even less than the first two films, and the writing was on the wall.
If the Kelvin films were grossing something between the $700m-$900m range, you could take it to the bank that Paramount would not only have already put out a fourth film in 2018 but we'd probably have a fifth film in post-production waiting a 2021 release, assuming COVID-19 subsides.
This whole thing is silly. Why does the number of tickets sold or the box office matter?
Consider this: the world population has increased by 75% since 1979. So are we next going to adjust for that growth to see which film sold the most tickets adjusted for population? I did the math using Rama's questionable numbers and got this:
See? Once you adjust for the percentage of the world's populace that bought tickets the order changes again, and this doesn't even take into account that foreign markets are now a much larger part of the revenue.
You can play numbers games like this all day and it doesn't mean a damned thing. All that matters to a studio is "did it make a significant profit on our investment?"
Consider this: the world population has increased by 75% since 1979. So are we next going to adjust for that growth to see which film sold the most tickets adjusted for population? I did the math using Rama's questionable numbers and got this:
See? Once you adjust for the percentage of the world's populace that bought tickets the order changes again, and this doesn't even take into account that foreign markets are now a much larger part of the revenue.
You can play numbers games like this all day and it doesn't mean a damned thing. All that matters to a studio is "did it make a significant profit on our investment?"
Last edited:
I would place Star Trek the motion picture at the top generally its visuallity is totally immense!
and I can see its art direction influence in all three of the new films.(just one of the things i like about them)
The Original series was so incredibly massive it was inevitable it would be made into a feature film, full stop
and I can see its art direction influence in all three of the new films.(just one of the things i like about them)
The Original series was so incredibly massive it was inevitable it would be made into a feature film, full stop
I would argue Star Trek franchise is inherently something nichey. It's a large niche but it'll never have as broad appeal as the big action franchises. It's the kind of franchise like Community that thrives on pleasing a smaller group a lot, and if you try to make it broader to get both the broad appeal and the niche appeal you'll do mediocre at both.
Well star wars is sort of finished and its all jj abrams fault.
I doubt JJ Abrams was ever truly a big star wars fan. I know he always talked about how he loved star wars but i always felt he said so because star wars was deemed the coolest and most popular franchise, his ...the new star wars movies proved he was no fan of the series and only did it because he wanted to be part of the popularity.
fast and furious was already a growing franchise before trek 2009
Guardians is part of that MCU Disney machine.
star trek would have been fine had paramount orci, kurtzman and jj not waited 4 years for the sequel and an inferior sequel.
I doubt JJ Abrams was ever truly a big star wars fan. I know he always talked about how he loved star wars but i always felt he said so because star wars was deemed the coolest and most popular franchise, his ...the new star wars movies proved he was no fan of the series and only did it because he wanted to be part of the popularity.
fast and furious was already a growing franchise before trek 2009
Guardians is part of that MCU Disney machine.
star trek would have been fine had paramount orci, kurtzman and jj not waited 4 years for the sequel and an inferior sequel.
It's JJ Abrams' fault that Solo, a movie he had nothing to do with, tanked and put Disney off their yearly Star Wars movie plans?
Which is why I've always said it thrives better as a television phenomenon rather than a cinematic one.
Well, this part is accurate...the rest...
Presumptive horseshit. Just like the flip side argument that Abrams' isn't a "real Star Trek fan" because he dared to like Star Wars more.
Solo flopped due to last jedi. the last jedi turned out to be such a difficult film because of the force awakens.
JJ's Force Awakens set the catalyst for the down fall of star wars.
Its a shame really, I think JJ should have just stayed and directed star trek 3 , complete the trilogy but he had to jump ship to star wars.
If Rise of the Skywalker tanked too you may have a point, but it made over a billion dollars.
If only I could fail while making so much money.
2012 was the year of avengers
in hollywood many people fail upwards. I think JJ is one of those guys.
Last edited:
You and I have very different definitions of failure. It's not failure because he made movies people don't all like.
Solo flopped because of a lack of marketing, lack of audience interest, and bad word of mouth. Rise of Skywalker, the direct sequel to Last Jedi, made three times what Solo did. If Solo's failure was a reaction to TLJ, why didn't TROS flop too?
It made half of The Force Awakens, it was a flop.
in hollywood many people fail upwards. I think JJ is one of those guys.[/QUOTE]
Him and Klutzman......
Him and Klutzman......
I know and like star wars and I saw the last film. i just dont think any big star wars fan would have done that, for me, they should have walked away the moment they saw the script or not have written what an awful script that retcons the 6 films
with star trek, jj admitted he was never truly a fan but with time the franchise grew on him.
ironic, since I think star trek 2009 is superior to the star wars sequel trilogy.
- Status
Similar threads
