Star Trek Crosses $350 Million Worldwide

[FemurBone]

I hate to rain on the parade...well who am i kidding I love it!

But 231 million domestic is not that much money in 2009. This film is a moderate hit at best. Don't kid yourselves. Trek is still on life support.

No doubt the annoying shakey camera technique cost the film at least 100 million in ticket sales.

Don't worry. Your post wasn't quite up to the task of bringing rain on the parade.

Well I suppose rain drops aren't visible through rose colored lenses.

 

[Tom Servo]

I hate to rain on the parade...well who am i kidding I love it!

But 231 million domestic is not that much money in 2009. This film is a moderate hit at best. Don't kid yourselves. Trek is still on life support.

No doubt the annoying shakey camera technique cost the film at least 100 million in ticket sales.

Don't worry. Your post wasn't quite up to the task of bringing rain on the parade.

Well I suppose rain drops aren't visible through rose colored lenses.

I see no rain drops, just all the spit spuddered from people like you who are eating their words now the movie has been a hit. Everyone knew that this film was not going to pull in The Dark Knight numbers, but the fact that it is pulling in numbers that other reboots such as Casino Royale and Batman Begins, and even Iron Man made, indicates that yes this movie was a hit, and more will be made.

Let that sink in for a while.

 

[SalvorHardin]

I hate to rain on the parade...well who am i kidding I love it!

But 231 million domestic is not that much money in 2009. This film is a moderate hit at best. Don't kid yourselves. Trek is still on life support.

No doubt the annoying shakey camera technique cost the film at least 100 million in ticket sales.

Don't worry. Your post wasn't quite up to the task of bringing rain on the parade.

Well I suppose rain drops aren't visible through rose colored lenses.

Nah...you just can't bring rain by writing uninformed, biased crap, that's all.

 

[Tom Servo]

Don't worry. Your post wasn't quite up to the task of bringing rain on the parade.

Well I suppose rain drops aren't visible through rose colored lenses.

Nah...you just can't bring rain by writing uninformed biased crap, that's all.

Please, what else would you expect from him?

 

[FemurBone]

but the fact that it is pulling in numbers that other reboots such as Casino Royale and Batman Begins, and even Iron Man made, indicates that yes this movie was a hit, and more will be made.

Let that sink in for a while.

Iron Man made a lot more money than that. And we all know what kind of box office power house the rebooted James Bond franchise became .

Star Trek offered nothing to build a franchise on. You can't build a franchise on explosions and shakey camera tricks.

There's some sinking going on here alright.

 

[SalvorHardin]

There's some sinking going on here alright.

Oh, but of course.
I hope you enjoy the sequel as much as you enjoyed this one.

 

[Lumen]

It'll be one of the top 5 or 6 movies of this year when all is said and done, and Paramount is happy enough with that to have already greenlit a sequel. Paramount has also said they're already into profitable territory, if I'm not mistaken. All you do is embarrass yourself with your self-important pronouncements.

It's okay to dislike the film; you don't need to have your opinion reaffirmed by its commercial performance, and trying to spin said performance to support your opinion is more damaging to your credibility than Star Trek's box office take.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No doubt the annoying shakey camera technique cost the film at least 100 million in ticket sales.

No.



Please...you know nothing about this, and you can't find anyone of substance in the film business who would agree with you about the movie's success or Trek's future prospects.

There's a reason for that, of course: you don't know what you're talking about. Fantasizing about the film's failure because you dislike it is not analysis - not even bad analysis.

But then, everybody's always out of step but Johnny.

 

[Jax]

There's some sinking going on here alright.

Yes that would be you and your...

Oh no they've already sunk

 

[MvRojo]

but the fact that it is pulling in numbers that other reboots such as Casino Royale and Batman Begins, and even Iron Man made, indicates that yes this movie was a hit, and more will be made.

Let that sink in for a while.

Iron Man made a lot more money than that. And we all know what kind of box office power house the rebooted James Bond franchise became .

Star Trek offered nothing to build a franchise on. You can't build a franchise on explosions and shakey camera tricks.

There's some sinking going on here alright.

I think around $600 million worldwide for each Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace is pretty damn good.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

But 231 million domestic is not that much money in 2009.

Yeah, it is actually, for all but a rarefied few franchises of which greater grosses are expected. Only three films in the summer of 2008 grossed more than $230 million domestic. Hancock, WALL-E, and Kung Fu Panda came in below that level, grossing in the $215-227 million range, and all three were big hits. Five films grossed over $230 million in the summer of 2007, with The Bourne Ultimatum coming in just below that. In the summer of 2006 it was three films and in the summer of 2005 it was only two films.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think around $600 million worldwide for each Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace is pretty damn good.

And so do the people who finance and distribute those films, of course.

Just as Paramount and its partners are very, very happy with Trek and its prospects.

Folks who don't like Abrams's version of Star Trek and are hoping to see it go away soon should certainly not stand on one foot while they wait for it to happen. They're never going to get what they really want...

 

[Jax]

But 231 million domestic is not that much money in 2009.

Well since most films released over the course of an entire year get nowhere near $200 million and many fail to break $100 million domestically, I will have to disagree.

 

[FemurBone]

Please...you know nothing about this, and you can't find anyone of substance in the film business who would agree with you about the movie's success or Trek's future prospects.

You can't find anyone of substance in the film buisness who doesn't agree about Trek's success or Trek's future prospects so what's your point?

 

[Tom Servo]

but the fact that it is pulling in numbers that other reboots such as Casino Royale and Batman Begins, and even Iron Man made, indicates that yes this movie was a hit, and more will be made.

Let that sink in for a while.

Iron Man made a lot more money than that. And we all know what kind of box office power house the rebooted James Bond franchise became .

Star Trek offered nothing to build a franchise on. You can't build a franchise on explosions and shakey camera tricks.

There's some sinking going on here alright.

While I will admit to the fact that I in fact DID underestimate the final domestic earnings of Iron Man, the fact still remains that this film was a hit, no matter whether you like it or not. Look at Batman Begins, which in total drew less then Star Trek has already made, and what did that do, it only spawned one of the most successful movies of all time in TDK.

I don't know why I'm even arguing with you. You are a poster who has repeatedly shown that you come here just to incite and rile, and your opinios are usually totally baseless, as it is here. You have repeatedly shown you have no clue how the film industry works, and all you can do is constantly spew out the little mantras that exist only in your head.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But 231 million domestic is not that much money in 2009.

Well since most films released over the course of an entire year get nowhere near $200 million and many fail to break $100 million domestically, I will have to disagree.

Passing familiarity of any kind with what constitutes success in the commercial movie industry requires one to disagree.

 

[FemurBone]

But 231 million domestic is not that much money in 2009.

Well since most films released over the course of an entire year get nowhere near $200 million and many fail to break $100 million domestically, I will have to disagree.

And most films don't have a production budget of 150 million dollars. For 150 million you need to get more than just 231 million dollars worth of butts in the seats.

Shit, that's more than any of the Star Wars prequals cost, and they all cleared 300 million.

 

[Trilliam]

^
^^
I understand the criticisms of the Engineering section and the budgetary reasons for it... but, I really liked it compared to the 'lava lamps' of TNG era ships. I hope they tweak it, rather than replace it completely.

I liked Engineering - it had a "engine room" feel to it, not a Nightclub/discotech from the 70s look that TNG & Voy engine rooms

ETA: I used to half-expect The Solid Gold Dancers to start gyrating around the walkways around engineering.

 

[Tom Servo]

But 231 million domestic is not that much money in 2009.

Well since most films released over the course of an entire year get nowhere near $200 million and many fail to break $100 million domestically, I will have to disagree.

And most films don't have a production budget of 150 million dollars. For 150 million you need to get more than just 231 million dollars worth of butts in the seats.

Shit, that's more than any of the Star Wars prequals cost, and they all cleared 300 million.

Please explain the success of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight then?

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

And most films don't have a production budget of 150 million dollars.

Most summer blockbusters have budgets in that range these days.

For 150 million you need to get more than just 231 million dollars worth of butts in the seats.

No, you don't actually.

Shit, that's more than any of the Star Wars prequals cost, and they all cleared 300 million.

Making a comparison to one of the most successful franchises in history as alleged proof of box office underperformance is a feeble debating tactic.