Has anyone else noticed this? Im new here, so it is possible. In 1989, the following movies came out: Star Trek V, Batman, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and Licence to Kill. Fast forward to 2008, when the following movies are coming out: Star Trek, The Dark Knight, Indiana Jones and the City of Ghosts (I think thats what its called), and James Bond 22. Isnt that something? 2008 is gonna be sweet!
1989 vs. 2008
- Thread starter Jeffe63
- Start date
The only difference being that they aren't all going to be released in the same three-month span. While The Dark Knight and Indy 4 are summer films, Trek and Bond 22 will be released during the winter holidays (Bond around Thanksgiving, Trek on Christmas Day).
But yeah, that is a pretty funny coincidence.
But yeah, that is a pretty funny coincidence.
Didn't they stop doing that after TFF failed to make any box office impression against the likes of Indiana Jones, Batman and Ghostbusters II?
Yes but in 1989 that kind of competition nearly finished both the Star Trek and James Bond franchises. Star Trek was fortunate enough to have the goodwill of the studio for it's anniversary year a mere 18 months later. Proposals of recasting TOS characters were quickly rejected too. While in the wake of Licence to Kill's disappointing box office, a legal battle was launched about who actually owned Bond.
Those were the days. Back when a Trek film could tank and still carry some faith from Studio Execs, instead of banishing the series completely for years on end. We could've had two films by now, a 5th TNG movie (with Frakes directing) followed by somekind of Justice League of Trek (helmed by Bryan Singer). Considering the time it took them to settle on J J Abrams' fangasm, this had better be good...
Those were the days. Back when a Trek film could tank and still carry some faith from Studio Execs, instead of banishing the series completely for years on end. We could've had two films by now, a 5th TNG movie (with Frakes directing) followed by somekind of Justice League of Trek (helmed by Bryan Singer). Considering the time it took them to settle on J J Abrams' fangasm, this had better be good...
Well, Eddie, I don't think it's a coincidence that both James Bond and Trek switched to only November/December release dates after the way their films performed in the summer of '89. It was an incredibly crowded summer, and it makes sense to think one or two action/adventure or sci-fi films would fare better during the winter holidays, the other time of year when you have lots of people going to the movies.
As for Nemesis, Jeffe, I've long since given up on the theory that its failure is all because of Bond and Frodo. Die Another Day was in its fourth weekend when Nemesis opened, and finished fourth that week -- behind Maid in Manhattan, Nemesis, and Drumline. Two Towers didn't open until the following week. If Nemesis hadn't sucked, there's no reason why it shouldn't have been #1 its opening weekend. But it wasn't. Even TFF opened at #1 in the middle of that crowded 1989 summer. So that should tell you something about the kind of word-of-mouth Nemesis had going.
If I recall, the word on the street when Nemesis was about to come was not very promising. There's wasn't the vibe about 'a generation's final journey' that there was when TUC came out.
I went to see it with my folks shortly after it came out. Was fairly underwhelmed by it, and lost interest.
Even the actors have since slammed that movie.
The 'vibe' was only bad because it was honestly a BAD film. It was another 'Trek by numbers' and oerall the story as presented just made no sense. You could tell it was just a bunch of scenes done by two guys talking over a telephone saying - 'Yeah, that'd be cool..let's do it.' John Logan was never a good script writer; and the only reason his name appears on what MOGHT be considered a decent script is becaause of WGA rules, which state the guy that did the first draft is ALWAYS credited, no matter how many re-writes a script goes through.
That's been the problem with the latter Star trek films; they don't worry about making a good film first and foremost - they come up with an idea; and the studio or one of the actors (who's sick of playing the same character for 14+ years, but won't pass up the FAT paycheck) says, "Let's do this because it's a 'fresh/new' take, etc."; or someone goes, "Hey, thesre's no Klingons anywhere, we gotta add them in of course..."
In the end, the fact that Star Trek: Nemesis was just a bad movie from the execution of the overall story, to the ridiculous and glaring plotholes is what killed it; not James Bond, LoTR or the fact that it was Thanksgiving weeked.
Please don't mistake my answer for me jumping on you or anything. You're right, if it had been a good film it would have held its own.
If you look back to the competition the second and third films were up against, you'll see what I mean. TWOK was released shortly before E.T., and TSFS was released in between Temple of Doom and Ghostbusters, but those films still did good business. They certainly didn't gross as much as E.T. or Indiana Jones, but they didn't go swirling down the toilet, either.
Cardinal Biggles, I understand why you thought I took offense to your statement. I forgot to review my reply before I submitted it, and there was an extra word in there which changed the tone of the sentence. Anyway, Im glad you brought up the point regarding the other movies that came out around II and III. I'll use that point everytime I hear that tired ol' excuse of why Nemesis failed.
Similar threads
- Poll
