Well, Flake didn't like Indy 4.Oh, now the idea is that Spielberg might not be worthy to direct Trek?
star trek 3 without jjabrams
- Thread starter tmosler
- Start date
Plus, you don't really believe this new movie is going to flop...do you?
After the success of First Contact, people said the same thing before Insurrection's release, but...
Star Trek made 2.8 times as much money as First Contact, so there is a comfortable margin of error.
Star Trek 09 didn't make twice it's budget money back in domestic gross (going by the estimated $150 million budget figures - if it was lower, then never mind), and compared to other recent franchise pictures, even the worldwide gross was pretty small to average. It's made more actual box office dollars than any previous Trek film, but The Wrath of Khan was actually more profitable by making it's budget cost back 11 times over.
In order for ST: Into Darkness to be an actual success, it has to make a shitload of money. I have no doubt that it will do extremely well, the trailers look incredible. Just remember that generally a film's success lies more in how much of its cost it makes back rather than strict B.O. bucks. 11 times vs less than twice? Considering the price of IMAX tickets and the general increase in price of the average admission, the number of people seeing Star Trek 09 in the theater was actually a lot less than than the number who paid to see Khan first run. For Star Trek, that's not that much repeat business, whether it had to do with the opinons of the film, or financial status of the audience (the days of my seeing a film multiple times in the theater are long gone).
Without judging the film itself at all, let's not let the $257,730,019 domestic box office go to our heads. For these types of films, that's not all that high. Into Darkness needs to bring in HUGE numbers, Dark Knight numbers, if it really wants to be one of the big boys.
Into Darkness will tell us if there really is an interest in Trek or if the 09 numbers were bourne out of curosity.
Also: I'm not worried about having different directors, but I am concerned about there being some sort of consistent vision for the concept. Motion pictures may be a director's playground, but these franchises need to be producer driven. So, even if Abrams doesn't direct the third film, he and his people need to be in place as producers - and not just "in name only" like Tim Burton on Batman Forever. It needs to be something like the Bond series, where the producers allow their directors a wide arena to play in, are willing to take risks, but still keep to a certain criteria to make sure the characters and situations are recognizable. You can do this without getting stale if you let your creative people do what they do.
In order for ST: Into Darkness to be an actual success, it has to make a shitload of money. I have no doubt that it will do extremely well, the trailers look incredible. Just remember that generally a film's success lies more in how much of its cost it makes back rather than strict B.O. bucks. 11 times vs less than twice? Considering the price of IMAX tickets and the general increase in price of the average admission, the number of people seeing Star Trek 09 in the theater was actually a lot less than than the number who paid to see Khan first run. For Star Trek, that's not that much repeat business, whether it had to do with the opinons of the film, or financial status of the audience (the days of my seeing a film multiple times in the theater are long gone).
Without judging the film itself at all, let's not let the $257,730,019 domestic box office go to our heads. For these types of films, that's not all that high. Into Darkness needs to bring in HUGE numbers, Dark Knight numbers, if it really wants to be one of the big boys.
Into Darkness will tell us if there really is an interest in Trek or if the 09 numbers were bourne out of curosity.
Also: I'm not worried about having different directors, but I am concerned about there being some sort of consistent vision for the concept. Motion pictures may be a director's playground, but these franchises need to be producer driven. So, even if Abrams doesn't direct the third film, he and his people need to be in place as producers - and not just "in name only" like Tim Burton on Batman Forever. It needs to be something like the Bond series, where the producers allow their directors a wide arena to play in, are willing to take risks, but still keep to a certain criteria to make sure the characters and situations are recognizable. You can do this without getting stale if you let your creative people do what they do.
Last edited:
385 million dollars is not "pretty small to average". Not only is it a lot of money, it makes Star Trek the most successful movie in the franchise domestically, internationally and adjusted for ticket sale inflation.
Looked at as money, yes, it's a lot (more than I'll ever see in my lifetime). Looked at as "how much profit," it isn't. The domestic box office gross was, again, not even double the cost to make the film (take out the huge publicity budget and it covered even less). That's what made TWOK a bigger success than TMP even though TMP made more actual money. For Star Trek, the 2009 box office was a fricking miracle. For other big budget action flicks, it's a drop in the bucket. Superman Returns made about $200 million, which is a lot of money. Except, that's what the film cost to make. So it was considered unsuccessful.
Considering what these established brand tentpole films haul in, $300 million domestic is just about average, but if you want to factor in worldwide (which you did), Star Trek came in far below. Trek never does as well overseas, not even JJ Abrams' version. When you consider Skyfall, The Dark Knight's, Transformers and some of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies made over a BILLION dollars in the international markets, Star Trek was a massive underperformer. With the good word of mouth from the last film and the successful previews, I'm sure Into Darkness will bring in more money than the last one, but Star Trek needs to make its most cash in the US.
I'm just going by the numbers. I'd love to see Star Trek in the winner's circle with Skyfall.
Plus, you don't really believe this new movie is going to flop...do you?
After the success of First Contact, people said the same thing before Insurrection's release, but...
That's a bit different. Before Insurrection came out, most fans already knew everything about the story, and realized early that the story sucked. Compare that to STID, a film whose story is still pretty much a mystery, and which trailers make it look like a complete winner, whether the film ends up with a lousy story or not.
I'd like Peter Bogdanovich to direct the next Trek movie and make enough money to buy the rights to the Orson Wells film The Other Side of the Wind and finally release it.
Last edited:
That's pretty much what it would take to get me to show up to ST:ID with a big smile on my face.
A picture or it didn't happen.
Check out the movie theater scene in The Blob--or any movie featuring a scene at a drive-in!
I sort of hope JJ won't be involved because with him the next movie probably won't be released until 2017.
Joss Whedon would be my choice
Joss Whedon would be my choice
If it were my money, after Alien: Resurrection, Titan: A.E and Serenity, I would not give Joss Whedon the control of a space opera franchise.
So, you'd rather wait until after 2017? Joss Whedon wouldn't be able to fit a Star Trek Film into his schedule any sooner than JJ Abrams
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
