Cloverfield's TREK

[RobertScorpio]

So, did CLOVERFIELD live up to its hype? For me, yes it did. I thought that movie was great. But, how did it do overall? No one even talks about it anymore. Is this a bad OMEN for TREK??? Is JJ over his head in terms of really making this work and fitting proper hype to it???

MISSION 3 and Cloverfield are all we really have to go on...

Rob
Scorpio

 

[Michael]

So, did CLOVERFIELD live up to its hype?

Yes.

But, how did it do overall?

Good.

No one even talks about it anymore. Is this a bad OMEN for TREK???

No.

Is JJ over his head in terms of really making this work and fitting proper hype to it???

Yes.

 

[Woulfe]

As far as I know, it made it's money back + a huge profit.

Granted, it was cheap to make it.... $25 million vs $100 million for your average block buster summertime film.

The point is it made enough money to grant the sequel option.

 

[Vektor]

We might have a better idea of how enduring Cloverfield's popularity is when it hits DVD in a few more days.

Either way, Cloverfield was such a unique animal that I don't think it can be used to reliably predict much of anything about Star Trek.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

...other than that Abrams does pretty well with unique animals.

 

[Woulfe]

Might do better on DVD, a lot of people avoided it at theaters due to "motion sickness" reports early on.

Not a problem at home unless you have a wall sized TV

 

[Tiberius Jim]

I just want to clarify that Abrams did not direct Cloverfield, he was the executive producer. So, while I enjoyed the movie, I don't know if it is a very good example of the caliber of work we'll see in Trek XI. Just sayin'.

 

[Kegek]

So, did CLOVERFIELD live up to its hype? For me, yes it did. I thought that movie was great. But, how did it do overall? No one even talks about it anymore. Is this a bad OMEN for TREK???

Movies aren't post-hyped. There's hype, the movie, and that's it. At some point later on down the line people might revisit a film and hash out some arguments about it, but that's about it.

Is Cloverfield's lack of instant pop-culture immortality a bad sign for Trek? I don't know. I didn't see it. But I might be interested in seeing this Star Trek movie. And that's the difference. In marketing terms, Star Trek is more than a J.J. Abrams project. It's a Star Trek project.

 

[Patrickivan]

We might have a better idea of how enduring Cloverfield's popularity is when it hits DVD in a few more days.

Either way, Cloverfield was such a unique animal that I don't think it can be used to reliably predict much of anything about Star Trek.

That's really going to be the determining factor. DVD rentals will say a lot. Like Woulfe said, the low cost of making it, will also be a huge factor for determining success...

I don't think cloverfield will have any effect on Star Trek. Cloverfield isn't on anyone's radar (except for the fans)... That being said, unfortunately, none of my non-trek fans cared when I beamed about a new Star Trek movie. The JJ fans didn't even care when I said he's making the movie.

We'll see soon enough.

 

[Baldus885]

I just want to clarify that Abrams did not direct Cloverfield, he was the executive producer. So, while I enjoyed the movie, I don't know if it is a very good example of the caliber of work we'll see in Trek XI. Just sayin'.

Each time Cloverfield is held up as in any way indicating the potential quality of Trek XI, someone points this out and it's STILL not sinking in. Can we make it a sticky?

 

[Michael]

I just want to clarify that Abrams did not direct Cloverfield, he was the executive producer. So, while I enjoyed the movie, I don't know if it is a very good example of the caliber of work we'll see in Trek XI. Just sayin'.

Each time Cloverfield is held up as in any way indicating the potential quality of Trek XI, someone points this out and it's STILL not sinking in. Can we make it a sticky?

Maybe we should make it the new forum motto:

"From the director who didn't make Cloverfield"

 

[M'Sharak]

I just want to clarify that Abrams did not direct Cloverfield, he was the executive producer. So, while I enjoyed the movie, I don't know if it is a very good example of the caliber of work we'll see in Trek XI. Just sayin'.

Each time Cloverfield is held up as in any way indicating the potential quality of Trek XI, someone points this out and it's STILL not sinking in. Can we make it a sticky?

Face it, with some folks you could tattoo something on their foreheads with a pile driver and it still wouldn't sink in, so I'm not sure stickying a "J.J. didn't direct Cloverfield" message is going to be any more effective. The sooner we all adopt a filter which allows us to screen the whole "Cloverfield = Trek?" issue out and just get on with the discussion, the better, I'm thinking.

 

[Steven Of Nine]

Boxofficemojo reports a combined gross of $165,000,000 US.

That is almost the definition of living up to hype.

DVD sales and rentals yet to come...

 

[CaptJimboJones]

Certainly in a financial sense, Cloverfield was a huge success. If Trek XI racks up the same kind of profit margin, the studios will be very, very happy indeed, and we can expect a quick greenlight of a sequel.

 

[EyalM]

Cloverfield may not be a good gauge for Abrams' abilities as a director, but it does show us a few things about Abrams (and his team's) ability to create hype. And frankly, Trek will need a lot of hype in order to over come its current public image.

 

[Warp Coil]

So, did CLOVERFIELD live up to its hype? For me, yes it did. I thought that movie was great. But, how did it do overall? No one even talks about it anymore. Is this a bad OMEN for TREK??? Is JJ over his head in terms of really making this work and fitting proper hype to it???

MISSION 3 and Cloverfield are all we really have to go on...

Rob
Scorpio

Cloverfield was quite the success, in that it is considered to be a relatively "low budget" film and did very well at the box office and caused a fair amount of hype leading up to its premiere.

It's already been pointed out that JJ didn't direct this. He was executive producer, which means something, but the film wasn't entirely his vision and the film's success can't be based on his involvement. However, the guy has done other work - check out "Lost", "Alias" or even "Felicity".

 

[Nowhere Man]

So, did CLOVERFIELD live up to its hype? For me, yes it did. I thought that movie was great. But, how did it do overall? No one even talks about it anymore. Is this a bad OMEN for TREK??? Is JJ over his head in terms of really making this work and fitting proper hype to it???

MISSION 3 and Cloverfield are all we really have to go on...

Rob
Scorpio

don't forget lost

 

[OneBuckFilms]

I think that Lost, and the approach he took on M:I:III bode well for his instincts when it comes to interesting storytelling and respect for genre work.

Whether M:I:III was a success or not is not really what concerns me, but more the fact that he knew what Mission: Impossible was about, and captured something of the spirit and style of the original series more than the previous two entries, but kept it up-to-date and contemporary.

His choice of Michael Giacchino for the score has proved that his instincts re: music are good as well.

Michael Giacchino's score for the new Trek movie could be very interesting indeed, especially if the approach is similar to M:I:III re: themes and feel.

Looking at Lost, JJ definately has a way with character development and plot twists.

In short, based on what I've seen and heard, we should be in good hands here.

 

[I am not Spock]

I don't think Trek will ever reach the level of mainstream popularity of Voyage Home, First Contact, or TNG ever again. So J.J really has his work cut out for him with this new movie. In fact, I am not sure Trek can ever recover from its current, perceived 'geeky' stigma.

The trailers will probably say something like 'From the producer of Cloverfield and the director of MI:III' or maybe 'From the creator of Alias and Lost'.

The problem is: the average Joe Blow on the street neither knows nor cares who J.J Abrams is, and the fact that his name is attached to this project won't mean squat to him. Joe Blow will just say 'They're making yet another Star Trek? Isn't that the one with Luke Skywalker?' and shrug, and go and see 'Dude, Where's My Car? V: The Revenge' instead.

I really want Trek to succeed again. But I'm also being realistic. Does Paramount really think, in the eyes of the general public, that Trek is a viable commodity at the moment, on the same level as Indy IV or Harry Potter, etc?

 

[Therin of Andor]

I am not sure Trek can ever recover from its current, perceived 'geeky' stigma.

You pal around with the wrong people. People I hang around with, while not SF media fans per se, don't treat me as a geek, but they do realise that at the moment Star Wars is "cool" with most kids, whereby the same kids haven't been attuned to Star Trek because DS9, VOY and ENT weren't really ever screened in first-run prime time.

That old "geeky fans" stigma chestnut hasn't been valid since the early 80s, esp. not in Australia.

The trailers will probably say something like 'From the producer of Cloverfield and the director of MI:III' or maybe 'From the creator of Alias and Lost'.

So? Didn't "Three Men and a Baby" remind people of Nimoy's previous directing success with ST III? You're only as good as your last big movie.

The problem is: the average Joe Blow on the street neither knows nor cares who J.J Abrams is

Why is that a problem?

They didn't know Harve Bennett either. Or Nicholas Meyer.

Joe Blow will just say 'They're making yet another Star Trek? Isn't that the one with Luke Skywalker?' and shrug, and go and see 'Dude, Where's My Car? V: The Revenge' instead.

As is his choice.

I thought the first "Dude..." film was hilarious, and it made me seek out "That 70s Show" and the "American Pie" movies.

Does Paramount really think, in the eyes of the general public, that Trek is a viable commodity at the moment, on the same level as Indy IV or Harry Potter, etc?

Yep. They've invested real money on it.