good point. although it got 77% at RT. this film is poised to do better than that. also, the action and pace are more at a blockbuster level than that of superman, which, aside from the airplane catch, wasn't exactly thrilling.
'Variety' reviews Star Trek XI
- Thread starter jefferiestubes8
- Start date
good point. although it got 77% at RT. this film is poised to do better than that. also, the action and pace are more at a blockbuster level than that of superman, which, aside from the airplane catch, wasn't exactly thrilling.
Right now STXI is at 100% on RT, with 7 posted reviews.
You know what's important about these two reviews?
This is the voice of the Industry. This is the Movie industry telling collective Hollywood that Abrams just hit the jackpot and that everyone who eats lunch on Robinson Street better get the fuck on the train before it leaves the station.
Six months from now, Abrams is going to be one of the Bad Mojo Men in Hollywood. Not up there with Lucas and Spielberg, but certainly in the Line of Succession.
Here's the problem with Lucas and Spielberg, especially Lucas: in large measure, they get films greenlit because of their reps. The prequels did a large bit of damage to GL's sterling rep from the Episode IV-VI. Spielberg has been a whole hell of a lot more inventive, but is doing the best he can to kill off Paramount's crown jewel, the Indiana Jones franchise. I'm almost certain that's one of the reasons Abrams was given Trek: Paramount doesn't know how much gas Spielberg has left in Indy.
Trek may not only have saved Paramount, it may just have conquered the summer in the way that Spielberg's Henry Jones offering of last summer did not. For example, the stupidity of killing off Irina Spalko in mid-Cold War is one of the worst examples of franchise-killing that I can think of, but there you have it. I still can't believet that Spielberg and Lucas allowed it to happen, especially with such a fine actress as Cate Blanchett at hand. If you'll recall, though, there was a huge controversy about the Crystal Skull script as it went forward. This was going back into the Nineties. Trek was being produced as Spielberg's last Jones film was being finished up and released to the public. I suspect that behind all the bonhommie, there had to be misgivings as to the legs of the Indy franchise.
Thus, Abrams was brought in as a solution to Paramount's problems, and revived a moribund franchise by looking at what was done with Bond and Batman. Looks like he knew what he was doing.
I simply cannot overestimate the importance of these reviews. Especially the one from Variety.
If we get a Time cover, that will be gravy, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
very perceptive analysis.
Well technically Superman Returns did fine in ticket sales, what killed it was its exceptionally high cost.
Its why with similar ticket sales Batman Begins was a success and it wasn't. One cost 150 million the other cost over 200 million. It couldn't succeed as a 200 million grosser, it needed to hit 250 or higher (which very few films do).
Well said.
Now, if Abrams gets on Charlie Rose's show, just alone with Charlie at that round table, or along with Pine and Quinto as guests, then that would be something, too.
I wonder if the fact that this is apparently quite a good movie will help to "cushion the blow" of getting a reboot for the detractors. I was never opposed to a reboot, but I have no doubt that, had this movie been bad, some people would have seized the opportunity to blame the reboot approach the filmmakers took.
not really.while your right that it had an exceptionally high production cost (270million)the execs over at warner brothers were expecting spiderman numbers domestically, not the dismal 200 million it made.for it to have broken even it would have had to make at least 500 million.batman begins cost around 160 million to make and grossed about 400 million. that was a success.superman returns it fell far short of that. if the powers that be over at warners brothers were happy with the ticket sales they would not have cancelled the proposed sequel. which btw had a budget closer to 150 million.they didnt think a sequel would even make that investment back.
This movie may be good and it most certianly is new...but they got alotta frikkin nerve saying improved. They better mean that by the special effects and special effects ONLY....
My point is if SR had teh budget of Batman Begins (or Trek since they ae all similar) then it would be a success. With both just passing 200 mill us, and getting final ww grosses of 372 (BB) and 391 (SR).
More people went to SR but again due to its huge, huge budget that isn't a successful performance.
I hardly think so, much of Trek is and always has been crap (its also produced great). But its films have never approached the best of the tv series (even Khan).
I imagine they think a sequel could have trucked in 150 mil easily. The problem for them is that Superman is such a marquee name that they don't just want something that makes money, they want Superman to haul in the dough like DK did. They don't trust Singerman to do that, so they'll try again.
If ST is successful on the level of Singerman, then I think a sequel is definitely in the cards. $400m would be pretty solid for a ST film. Obviously, I'd hope for $500, but that's what WB wanted for Superman anyways, and Superman had a considerably bigger budget.
Yeah, but there has probably been about 20 reviews posted here that are not on RT yet and they are all positive.
Nah...Many detractors will still find cause to hate this film. In fact, I've been saying that if this film rakes in money at the box office, many detractors will point to that "popularity among the masses" as another sign that this film is the death of "Star Trek as they knew it."
Detractors are already tearing apart the positive reviews that state the film is "breathlessly exciting" by claiming those kinds of reviews as proof Abrams ruined Star Trek by turning it into an action film.
Variety said:
Ewww. Didn't we get enough of that in the Sackett book?
Similar threads
