Maybe ~$230-250, but what about toys, other franchise and stuff? It's gonna make some money too, maybe more than ever !
A lot of kids are quite conceptually mature, they just don't really have an outlet.
In short...
If its pure action, trekkies will get annoyed(i know i will)... and people won't see it because of its stigma.
Sci-fi has been gone to long, look at some recent releases...
Name, Budget, Income....
Hancock 150 600
Legend 150 585
I, Robot 120 347
I think the opposite is true--if it is a good action film with a simple, yet coherent story, more people will see it, and fewer trekkies.
There will be always be people, who hate spaceoperas, even with excellent story and action... They see "star" in the name and say: "Eww, more stupid space shooting and blah blah nerdyness..."I think the opposite is true--if it is a good action film with a simple, yet coherent story, more people will see it, and fewer trekkies.
Just hate when they say that![]()
Name, Budget, Income....
Hancock 150 600
Legend 150 585
I, Robot 120 347
Box office receipts like that will kill Trek as a movie franchise.
Haven't Paramount already greenlit the sequel??
Misread it then, my bad. What I mean is a 150 million take isn't good enough. Not sure about what the figures mean.
I want this thing to do huge numbers; I'm just concerned it won't.
Dear god, no.This is where Paramount shot itself in the foot by disbanding the "Star Trek office" and dumping their inventory. They could make Trek films cheaper than other movies because they had a HUGE catalogue of stored set pieces, costumes, and props to pull from and modify. They had an in-house production team that was used to getting feature-film results on a TV shoestring budget.
Dear god, no.
The last thing we needed was another movie with reused/modified old props and sets and something that looks like it was made on a shoe string budget.
If Paramount did something right for once, it was starting fresh and from zero. Even if the film fails financially, in my opinion it was absolutely the right and only way to try and make a new Trek film that aims to revive the franchise.
WOW! Just WOW! So sad to see such prejudice and hatred from the other side of the pond. Especially from a supposedly advanced/enlightened Trekkie. King George underestimated us, too... and we know how that turned out for you!...here in Glasgow (that's in the United Kingdom, for some of our geographically challenged American friends)
AMEN!! Today's audience may, or may not, be intellectual, but they recognize a cheap, reworked set pretty quickly.Dear god, no.This is where Paramount shot itself in the foot by disbanding the "Star Trek office" and dumping their inventory. They could make Trek films cheaper than other movies because they had a HUGE catalogue of stored set pieces, costumes, and props to pull from and modify. They had an in-house production team that was used to getting feature-film results on a TV shoestring budget.
The last thing we needed was another movie with reused/modified old props and sets and something that looks like it was made on a shoe string budget.
If Paramount did something right for once, it was starting fresh and from zero. Even if the film fails financially, in my opinion it was absolutely the right and only way to try and make a new Trek film that aims to revive the franchise.
WOW! Just WOW! So sad to see such prejudice and hatred from the other side of the pond......here in Glasgow (that's in the United Kingdom, for some of our geographically challenged American friends)
So it's not too surprising that many Americans don't pay as much attention to other nations as citizens of much smaller countries do, especially Europeans.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.