• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

$35.5 Million more from overseas

Odo's_Bucket said:
Thrawn said:
Odo's_Bucket said:
I never said the opening weekend wasn't good start. I said that, like every other Star Trek movie before it, after a week or so, people are going to stop spending money on it.
Click to expand...

And all those Star Trek movies made about 1/3 of their total gross opening weekend; that is the mathematical reality of your vague "people are going to stop spending money on it." So if this one behaves exactly like the last few, it still makes $225 million domestically. In order to believe you, you have to explain why this movie would be different, not why it would be the same.
Click to expand...
Well, one difference is that the other Star Trek films had quality acting and the scripts weren't laughable. That's one difference. Some of the other Trek films didn't look like they were going to be good. That's part of the reason they didn't do as well in the theater as they could have. They were all at least watchable though. So they stood the test of time.

This movie is garbage. The acting is bad, the script laughable, and the quick flashy, lens flare style directing was a horrible mistake. The special effects were straight out of George Lucas' little bag of Star Wars tricks. The two main concepts (time travel and tos) which were already overused caused the movie to be boring and dull and it did not peak my interest in the slightest. If I hadn't been so disappointed in wasting my money, I would have fallen asleep.

This is by far the worst two hours of Star Trek happenings that has ever made it's way to film. It will not stand the test of time. After all the people on this board go broke from seeing 167 times each, it will fade into the background.
Click to expand...

Apparently you're missing the 96% positive critical reviews on Rottentomatoes and the fact that, on each consecutive day so far, the film has beaten the revised projections for that day. Meaning, on a day-to-day basis, more people are going to see the film than would be expected, not less.

Which means that the overwhelming grand majority of viewers disagree with you. Just because YOU think this movie is bad doesn't mean anyone ELSE does. All *actual data* would indicate that this movie has far more longevity than any of the others so far. ANY of the others.

Aside from your personal opinion, you still haven't found me any evidence this will be a flop, any evidence the trend is downward, or a single film with a comparable opening that failed to make at least $250 million.

You lose.
 
Odo's_Bucket said:
... it did not peak my interest in the slightest. If I hadn't been so disappointed in wasting my money, I would have fallen asleep.

This is by far the worst two hours of Star Trek happenings that has ever made it's way to film.
Click to expand...
Now we come to the real issue. YOU did not like this movie. Your OPINION is that it is a bad movie. Therefore, you are trying to justify YOUR OPINION with made up "facts".

[In sales, there is an old adage: "Figures don't lie, but liars do figures." Read into it what you will.]
 
J. Allen said:
USS Gettysburg said:
Odo's_Bucket said:
... and the quick flashy, lens flare style directing was a horrible mistake.
Click to expand...

I'll just go ahead and stick my neck out there and say that I loved the lense flares. They never bothered me and every time it reminded that this isn't our world, it is something brighter.
Click to expand...

I didn't even notice them. For me, at least, they blended into the background.

J.
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact now that you have pointed it out, were was all this lens flare people were decrying, i saw it on a imax screen and i was not consciously aware of any over the top lens flare that would have spoiled the enjoyment of the movie.

And i had not given it another thought until it was mentioned in this thread.
 
Odo's_Bucket said:
I said that, like every other Star Trek movie before it, after a week or so, people are going to stop spending money on it.
Click to expand...

ST:TMP, a December release, was branded a flop for a long time. Paramount gave up on expecting a profit, but city cinemas kept it running till after Easter (in the days when cinemas only showed one movie-run at a time), and suburban cinemas were still running it in the August of 1980. Suddenly Paramount announced that TMP had turned a profit, even though the costs of "ST Phase II" had been folded into TMP's massive (for the time) budget.

donners22 said:
There's still people here who will claim TMP as a masterpiece...
Click to expand...

* bows *

Favourite film of all time. This new one comes a close second.
 
Odo's_Bucket said:
Well, one difference is that the other Star Trek films had quality acting and the scripts weren't laughable.
Click to expand...

Well, Trek's previous stilted, very theatrical acting does have it's appeal but to call it 'quality acting' would take things a bit to far. There are some moments in some of the films but overall the acting was always pretty average.

Star Trek's script isn't anymore laughable than any of the others.

Odo's_Bucket said:
That's one difference. Some of the other Trek films didn't look like they were going to be good. That's part of the reason they didn't do as well in the theater as they could have. They were all at least watchable though. So they stood the test of time.
Click to expand...

I like them all (to a degree), but no, no they don't stand the test of time at all.

Odo's_Bucket said:
This movie is garbage. The acting is bad, the script laughable, and the quick flashy, lens flare style directing was a horrible mistake.
Click to expand...

The acting is realistic.
The scipt is at least on par with the other films (I think, above them).
The cinematography is really good, energetic.

Odo's_Bucket said:
The special effects were straight out of George Lucas' little bag of Star Wars tricks.
Click to expand...

Yes, ILM being the main-vendor of VFX for that film (and TWOK, TSFS, TVH, TUC, Gen and FC).

Odo's_Bucket said:
The two main concepts (time travel and tos) which were already overused caused the movie to be boring and dull and it did not peak my interest in the slightest. If I hadn't been so disappointed in wasting my money, I would have fallen asleep.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.

Odo's_Bucket said:
This is by far the worst two hours of Star Trek happenings that has ever made it's way to film. It will not stand the test of time.
Click to expand...

I can beat your two hours:

'Spock's Brain'
'Threshold'
'These Are The Voyages'
'The Final Frontier'

Odo's_Bucket said:
After all the people on this board go broke from seeing 167 times each, it will fade into the background.
Click to expand...

Only 162 time to go for me then.
 
Who would have guessed this? That a thread about how much money the film was making would turn into a platform for some bitter and disappointed sad person to prove that it's a mammoth, demonstrable failure, with charts to prove it.
 
USS Gettysburg said:
^ Yea, not to mention the HUGE curve that Star Trek was given because of Nemisis. Even tepid good news for Paramount would have been a win. All of this is like CAKE to them now because they know the franchise can be saved. People have talked about how much it cost. Come on, imagine all Paramount gets out of this. Not just the movie, not just the DVD/Bluray, not just the I-Tunes, but also alllllllllllll the merchandise. This is all new Trek. All new phasers, all new communicators, all new ships, all new everything. They are going to make a bloody fortune. It is absolutely genius on the part of Paramount and JJ.
Click to expand...


100 percent correct. This is the best move Paramount has made with this franchise in a long long time. There was simply no other way to go to reinvigorate Star Trek..especially coming off 2 movies that would have been bad tv episodes. Nemesis and the one before it were just terrible movies. JJ and his team did a fantastic job as did the actors and especially Mr Nimoy.
 
It came $2 million behind Wolverine's first weekend here, and will have an uphill battle to overtake Wolverine and Fast & Furious.

The commentary in yesterday's Herald Sun suggested it was either caution from viewers at the reboot of the "corny" franchise or the lack of a big-name actor.
 
Odo's_Bucket said:
Dennis said:
Odo's_Bucket said:
The math is correct.
Click to expand...

The math is in error because your numbers and assumptions (and you make several doozies) are wrong.

Now, if you're just posting to provoke people you're doing a fine job - otherwise, you've lost this argument. ;)
Click to expand...

My numbers are in no way assumptions. Those numbers are all over the internet. 160 million in production costs and an estimated 100 million in advertising. Use your search engine.
Click to expand...

Don't look now, but Paramount just recovered $24 million of the supposed $100 million promo budget by selling the movie to FX in 2011. :lol:

PS Almost $150 million in 7 days....looks like you are on the losing end ofthe bet so far.

RAMA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top