Only a rumor at this stage, but said rumor indicates there's a possibility the big wigs in the studio might opt for a 4th of July release.
Full story here.
Full story here.
New Rumor re: Release Date: Even *Further* Delays?
- Thread starter StarMan
- Start date
Hmmm, doesn't that website have a reputation for reporting....*cough*...bollocks?
I remember a few stories coming out of there that were complete nonsense. If it were really up in the air, I would have thought they would have just stuck "2009" on the trailers, not "May 2009". You keep moving the date around and Joe public is really gonna start to lose interest.
I don't mind being dicked around once, but twice?
I remember a few stories coming out of there that were complete nonsense. If it were really up in the air, I would have thought they would have just stuck "2009" on the trailers, not "May 2009". You keep moving the date around and Joe public is really gonna start to lose interest.
I don't mind being dicked around once, but twice?
This reminds me of the release delay for Spider-Man after 9/11. I think that one was from like November to May if I remember correctly.
Yeah, whut year? Why not just release it on April 4, 2063.
I meant the length of time feels the same i.e. a long wait.
Well, it's an intriguing proposition, but the fact that the writer states that the box-office returns for "The Wrath of Khan" were "mixed" (ie, not very impressive) puts the entire article into the territory of "factually dubious."
I think they should just bypass all this debate and go ahead and make the release date April 1st... that way nobody can complain!klingongoat said:Yeah, whut year? Why not just release it on April 4, 2063.
Well, looking at this from the standpoint of someone who has enough shares of PPC stock to make it a FINANCIAL concern of mine...
I want the movie to come out as soon as its COMPLETE, so that I can see the return on my investment as soon as possible. I think that all of the stockholders would agree with that, too.
The board works for the stockholders.
Now, if they can support to me (and all the rest of us) that we'll see more revenue by pushing the flick back a few months... fine, wonderful, hunkey-dorey. Nobody's made any such argument, though, and as far as I can tell, this is simply DELAYING MONEY BEING DELIVERED INTO MY POCKET. So from that standpoint, as a stockholder, I'm definitely unhappy about "unnecessary" delays.
On the other hand, I have no problem with "painting a rosy face" onto what might otherwise be viewed (incorrectly, but inevitably) as a NEGATIVE... by stating that we're giving the production team some extra "slack" in the schedule to get the movie finished.
If there's a delay, due to "some other reason," the film can be made on the existing schedule, but there's a pad in there... "just in case" the studio isn't entirely happy with what comes out and wants some changes, or if something doesn't work out, or whatever.
But you never wanna say that sort of thing to the press... they'll run with it and start reporting "Studio has no faith in new Trek!"
I want the movie to come out as soon as its COMPLETE, so that I can see the return on my investment as soon as possible. I think that all of the stockholders would agree with that, too.
The board works for the stockholders.
Now, if they can support to me (and all the rest of us) that we'll see more revenue by pushing the flick back a few months... fine, wonderful, hunkey-dorey. Nobody's made any such argument, though, and as far as I can tell, this is simply DELAYING MONEY BEING DELIVERED INTO MY POCKET. So from that standpoint, as a stockholder, I'm definitely unhappy about "unnecessary" delays.
On the other hand, I have no problem with "painting a rosy face" onto what might otherwise be viewed (incorrectly, but inevitably) as a NEGATIVE... by stating that we're giving the production team some extra "slack" in the schedule to get the movie finished.
If there's a delay, due to "some other reason," the film can be made on the existing schedule, but there's a pad in there... "just in case" the studio isn't entirely happy with what comes out and wants some changes, or if something doesn't work out, or whatever.
But you never wanna say that sort of thing to the press... they'll run with it and start reporting "Studio has no faith in new Trek!"
I got to believe that the suits are a little uneasy about the ticket buying public's reaction to new TREK in the theaters. As a result they are looking at what else is being released on the same day (Think Nemesis vs. Maid in Manhattan with, at the time, red hot Jennifer Lopez and Lord of the Rings ep 3 just a week after).
I also think they are somehow revisitng how they are going to market this movie. What movies coming out before TREK that they can put the trailer in front of to capture their target audience, viral campaign vs. traditional, flood the airwaves with actors doing interviews, maybe a TV special as a tribute to the TREK that has gone before and looking to the new TREK. All this takes time and maybe 12/2008 wasn't enough time to make the decisions and get it done.
To be honest, Paramount in the past treated TREK like a bastard child it inherited but didn't really want. Sure they made TV shows and films, but they knew they'd make money because the core TREK fan group would show up or would watch. It seems now they realize they have a diamond in the TREK property and they want to do their best to make it shine and pull in new fans or fans who have left the franchise.
I also think they are somehow revisitng how they are going to market this movie. What movies coming out before TREK that they can put the trailer in front of to capture their target audience, viral campaign vs. traditional, flood the airwaves with actors doing interviews, maybe a TV special as a tribute to the TREK that has gone before and looking to the new TREK. All this takes time and maybe 12/2008 wasn't enough time to make the decisions and get it done.
To be honest, Paramount in the past treated TREK like a bastard child it inherited but didn't really want. Sure they made TV shows and films, but they knew they'd make money because the core TREK fan group would show up or would watch. It seems now they realize they have a diamond in the TREK property and they want to do their best to make it shine and pull in new fans or fans who have left the franchise.
If this is true, it looks like Paramount is trying to find a way to bury the franchise. They have to accept the fact that this franchise doesn't rake in the money of a Star Wars, a LOTRs, or a Harry Potter. Christmas was a much better time for it.
Explain. Merely making statements (especially such "conclusive and powerful" ones) without supporting them with an iota of rationale really isn't worth very much.
As for PPC trying to "bury" the franchise... that's NONSENSE. The "franchise" was already dead, laying in a coffin, dirt being shoveled on top of it. They (and by that, I mean the board) had ZERO rationale for "bringing it back to life" just in order to bury it AGAIN.
Support your claim using logic, reason, and facts.
Again, from the standpoint of a PPC stockholder, I have a very simple perspective. I think that Star Trek is a potential moneymaker. For that reason, from a financial point of view, I WANT this movie made, and want it to be successful.
What possible reason would there be for wanting ANYTHING ELSE?
I'd love to hear your argument. Please, proceed.
If Paramount wanted to 'bury' Star Trek, it would release it in the 2009 winter schedule, where movies go to die a quick death. That they have moved it to May indicates a confidence in the material to bring in the big summer box-office dollars.
Hopefully they're right.
Hopefully they're right.
I know, why don't they release tomorrow?
Bullshit, sir. Why would they be doing anything Trek if they wanted to bury the franchise? Paramount isn't obliged to make the fucking movie, you know. They do it because they think people want to see it and thus it'll make them money.
They're right. You're not.
What do we know about the release schedule this year and next? What films are slated to be released around the time Trek XI was originally scheduled, vs when it is apparently scheduled now? It could be that the studio feels it will do better against certain competition. I'm sure that Paramount is at least somewhat concerned about Trek's drawing power, given the performance of the last couple of films and series. Consequently, perhaps if they want to see the franchise revived - it's been quite the successful cash cow in the past - then the box office performance in those first few weeks could be critical. Ergo, whatever else is released will be important just as the time of year of the release could be vital.
Similar threads
