I think two things hurt the film here in the States:
*Not using Khan in the marketing.
*Having such a widely varied release with the U.S. being later in the game.
But it is a very, very good movie.
STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
I think two things hurt the film here in the States:
*Not using Khan in the marketing.
*Having such a widely varied release with the U.S. being later in the game.
But it is a very, very good movie.
I agree with you on both.
Just got back from seeing it again with my daughters (10 and 13). There were about a dozen others in the theater (IMAX 3-D).
The plot seemed a little less convoluted this time, mainly because I had previously forgotten that Khan says he was found out before he could smuggle his crew out in the missiles, so being reminded of that helped straighten some things out.
The actors are just marvelous as their characters. The feeling is as comfortable as TOS.
Does anyone think Cumberbatch can really naturally curl his lips into the shapes he did while talking (especially in the brig), or was it slightly CGI enhanced? I mean, he made some very contorted expressions.
I actually feel more sorry for Khan after seeing it again.
Loved how gung-ho Peter Weller made Marcus. If they still smoked cigars in the 23rd century, Marcus would be chewing on one, son.
I'll agree to disagree with some folks, but Kirk's death scene was better than Spock's in TWOK. Very poignant, especially with Spock knowing what Kirk is going through and not being able to console him.
And, just to make things interesting, my phone started vibrating during the last twenty minutes but I didn't check it. A few seconds later, my oldest hands me her phone. It's a text from her mom at work in DC, "Tornado warning, sited near home, you still at movie?" The theater is about 15 miles away from home. Is it sad to say that message didn't keep me from staying engrossed in the last scenes? Fortunately, everything was where we left it when we got home. (Didn't even rain a drop at the theater.)
Seeing it once with the entire family and once again with my daughters marks my contribution to the box office (seven IMAX 3-D tickets is enough).
The plot seemed a little less convoluted this time, mainly because I had previously forgotten that Khan says he was found out before he could smuggle his crew out in the missiles, so being reminded of that helped straighten some things out.
The actors are just marvelous as their characters. The feeling is as comfortable as TOS.
Does anyone think Cumberbatch can really naturally curl his lips into the shapes he did while talking (especially in the brig), or was it slightly CGI enhanced? I mean, he made some very contorted expressions.
I actually feel more sorry for Khan after seeing it again.
Loved how gung-ho Peter Weller made Marcus. If they still smoked cigars in the 23rd century, Marcus would be chewing on one, son.
I'll agree to disagree with some folks, but Kirk's death scene was better than Spock's in TWOK. Very poignant, especially with Spock knowing what Kirk is going through and not being able to console him.
And, just to make things interesting, my phone started vibrating during the last twenty minutes but I didn't check it. A few seconds later, my oldest hands me her phone. It's a text from her mom at work in DC, "Tornado warning, sited near home, you still at movie?" The theater is about 15 miles away from home. Is it sad to say that message didn't keep me from staying engrossed in the last scenes? Fortunately, everything was where we left it when we got home. (Didn't even rain a drop at the theater.)
Seeing it once with the entire family and once again with my daughters marks my contribution to the box office (seven IMAX 3-D tickets is enough).
I have no idea whether you're right or not, but IMO that could be a good thing. Starting from STID. I'd be happy to see 5-10 minutes of frenetic action replaced with character or plot development. YMMV.
He does it in Sherlock too - S02E02 being the one I noticed it in the most, so presumably he does it himself. (if you haven't done so, watch Sherlock - great TV).
Was that when (IIRC) ST09 went back into the IMAX theaters (when there was a opening)? I know I saw it a few more times in IMAX after it's run in the cheap theaters, but I couldn't remember if it was in the month of September.
Here's hoping that STiD does another run in IMAX!
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekly&id=startrek11.htm
Box Office: "Star Trek Into Darkness already higher than its predecessor".
With more than 88,000 spectators in a single day, the new film by JJ Abrams starts in France. Star Trek started with 28.500.
Source: MYFT1 News
With more than 88,000 spectators in a single day, the new film by JJ Abrams starts in France. Star Trek started with 28.500.
Source: MYFT1 News
Pretty much this. Superman Returns had a production budget of 260 million and made just under 400 million worldwide. While it's a good movie it's a poor superhero movie. Compared to Batman Begins which made less on a smaller budget. It inspired confidence to see a sequel. While Superman did not.
This is a quote from 2008 I found on IMDB by Warner Bros. Pictures Group President Jeff Robinov, "Superman Returns didn't quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to. It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned. Had Superman worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009. Now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman without regard to a Batman and Superman movie at all." This is after The Dark Knight blew up at the boxoffice.
Star Trek has nothing to worry about it will get a sequel. Most people just had higher expectations for it is all. Look at Fast and Furious 6. It's already made $500 million worldwide. Trek should be capable of that kind of business.
I'm not sure I agree. Non-fans don't care, and fans would see the movie anyway. Right ? What am I missing ?
Khan has permeated pop-culture and would present a hook to mainstream audiences. In my opinion.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3xopNvnyps[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iauuuhpSfRQ[/yt]
If I really knew what caused films to succeed wildly or fail to do so, I'd - well, I'd know something that the people who bankroll, market and distribute them don't.
There will be a third nuTrek film, but with the movie under performing Paramount's expectations, and the studio higher ups being irked by the Star Wars thing, there's still hope JJ won't be doing the next movie.
Really though, Abram's isn't as big of a problem as Orci. That's the guy that we really need to get away from Trek.
Really though, Abram's isn't as big of a problem as Orci. That's the guy that we really need to get away from Trek.
Why? So we can go back to the good old days of no one wanting to pay to see "Nemesis" or even watch Enterprise for free.
Sorry, Star Trek Into Darkness is the most fun I've had watching Trek since The Undiscovered Country was released in 1991. I will gladly welcome back Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof.
"We need...?"
No. You want.
Abrams will produce and oversee the next Star Trek movie.
Orci is not going anywhere.
Period, full stop.
Yes there will. Glad that is settled.
With the scale of the disappointment likely far less grand than some might wish, thankfully.
Do we have any evidence of this "being irked" or might this constitute further wishful thinking?
A rather tiny shred of hope, though, and held onto by a pretty small group of people, in light of the exceedingly strong evidence* that many, many more people have an opposite (and rather more likely) "hope" in this matter.
*evidence being the excellent critical review ratings in the high 80s at Rotten Tomato, along with the very, very positive word of mouth from people who've seen the movie. Lest anyone think I was making it up.
"We" don't "need" anything of the kind. "You" might. But you are hardly in a position to invoke the "royal We" in terms of accurately representing the "needs of the many".
In the 60s, 70s and 80s, enough French people loved ST that some comics, novelizations and novels were translated into French.
http://8of5archive.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/french-star-trek-comic-reprints.html
Actual CinemaScope is perhaps "mostly dead" but the use 'scope as shorthand for anamorphic prints and/or aspect ratios of 2.35-2.40:1 is so ubiquitous that to "correct" someone on that comes off somewhat pedantic (not to say I don't share the impulse to make such corrections--I was quite prone to doing so in my youth, but now I mainly leave that impulse for my classes).
