STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
I remember fondly when this thread was about the box office numbers of Star Trek Into Darkness.
And I remember fondly the days when people cared about the content of a film and if they personally liked it, and not if that content appealed to a majority of other people.
I personally don't give a flying fuck about the box office of a film. There are so many films that I didn't like that make a gazillion of dollars, and just as many films that I love that totally bombed.
It's more than "a few". CBS expected interest in the 2009 movies to increase sales of TOS boxed sets of DVDs in stores. They reported a huge spike in sales for all the spin-off series.
It's phenomenal, no question. But that and $28M will get your sci-fi, action-adventure franchise mothballed for a decade or so at least.
For someone that doesn't care, you've posted in this thread eight times and have likely read a bunch of it.
What thread would be the right one to state that I don't care about box office then, if not a thread about box office? Point me to it, please. Or shall I randomly state it in random threads?
But it would give me one phenomenal film instead of 10 mediocre ones, wouldn't it? Are you sad that Shawshank Redemption didn't get a sequel, or a prequel, or a reboot?
So you need other people to know that you don't care about the box office totals?
Not one bit. But it's not a franchise, either. I'm not curious about the further adventures of Andy Dufresne and Red - or other stories at Shawshank prison. I am, however, curious to see the friendship of Spock and Kirk continue. I'm curious about other adventures of the Starship Enterprise and how the Federation struggles to maintain its ideals in an imperfect, dangerous galaxy. And I'm not alone in that curiosity.
So you'd prefer one last glorious incarnation of Trek - one that you, personally love more than any other film, but no others for anyone else ... in perpetuity?
If so, it would seem a rather self-centered position.
Huh? I'm part of the audience, why should I care what other people like? Of course it's a self centered position. I want what I like. Doesn't the very same apply for you as well, or anyone else? Do you want them to make Trek films that you don't like so others can like it? That would be quite... generous.
And yes, I'd indeed prefer one really good Trek film over a couple mediocre ones.
Same goes for the next Star Wars films. They want to bombard us with three more episodes AND with additional films centered on the characters. Just give me one really good film I like, that's enough.
I want them to make Star Trek films. Some of them I like very much (Into Darkness), others not so much (Nemesis, The Final Frontier). But, and here's the thing, I'm grateful for each one. One can apply personal taste to Star Trek without the wholly and myopically unrealistic comparison between it (as a sci-fi, action-adventure franchise) and a one-off prison-based, historical fiction, character drama.
Do you really want new Treks to play in poky little "art house" cinemas?
It's still kinda disappointing to me that the one ST film that "spoke" to the inner Trekkie within me, in December 1979, was ST:TMP - and yet when I tried to discuss it with diehard Trek fans, friends, work colleagues or family members, they dismissed as being slow and boring or "not real Star Trek". I wanted to chat Trek and had to live with naysayers telling me I didn't know quality.
I "personally liked" TMP, but it seemed like its content had NOT "appealed to a majority of other people". Devastating! And TMP was a huge financial success? It seemed to me, at the time, that the only reason 60s TOS fans even went to see TMP (often over and over!) was because TOS wasn't running on TV.
Later, as much as "ST IV: The Voyage Home" would often be touted as the "crowd pleaser" Trek movie - another huge money spinner for the franchise, I well remember longstanding members of our club walking away from all of Star Trek fandom grumbling about "the dumbing down of the franchise". And then came TNG, to spook off even more. Luckily, their absence was quickly overwhelmed by brand new, often younger, fans racing to take their place.
Our club would have died a fast death without waves of new, entusiastic people discovering the next new Trek, then investigating previous Treks from their unique perspectives.
But without commercial appeal you get... ST V. Or "Nemesis".
Last edited:
Although action isn't my preference, I don't mind STID being an action film. I just want it to be a good film. Is that too much to ask? Just because it's an action movie doesn't mean there has to be huge plot holes, terrible dialog ect.
Action or not, STID was terrible.
Some reviewers are now calling it "Star Trek Into Dumbness." A fitting title.
Action or not, STID was terrible.
Some reviewers are now calling it "Star Trek Into Dumbness." A fitting title.
And most reviewers have loved it. It's rating on "Rotten Tomatoes" is still very respectable. I've seen it four times now and have new things to like about it each time. Is it perfect? No. What ST movie is?
I thought Shatner's ST V was pretty dumb most of the time; others say it's their favourite ST movie.
IDIC = Infinite diversity, infinite combinations.
Which reviewers are those? Rotton Tomatoes has it at 87% based on critics reviews and 92% base customer ratings.
Well, they still air reruns of that. Have at it.
A quick Google uncovers several bloggers sharing that satirical title:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
But even the first such infamous review, on Io9, starts off the piece by saying:
"The new Star Trek movie isn't a terrible film."