New Rumor re: Release Date: Even *Further* Delays?

[Valar]

DarthPipes said:
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.

That doesn't make much sense. Why would they increase the budget to over 4 times what the last one was? Why would they hire a hotshot director rather than get another Trek actor/producer to direct it?

Trek was dead already, it was buried and gone. They want this movie to start a new franchise so they can make money.

I personally think it would've done better in the Christmas season, when all the niche films usually come out, but these higher ups have read the script and think it has enough action and the budget to land the Summer teen crowds who traditionally want big budget action flicks in the summer. I don't know if that strategy will succeed because I haven't seen the script, my only experience is the leaden TNG movies that come out in Christmas, make a few bucks and then leave quietly. Judging by the Sulu pics, the huge outdoor set, the positive buzz by former cast and detractors, I think this thing might just be able to do well during next summer.

Regardless, they want to make at least 2 more of these, so they obviously want to get this first one off to a good start.

 

[Tralah]

Not only have the higher ups seen the script, they've probably seen the dailies too, so they're in an infinitely better position to judge this movie's potential than we are. So many things are different this time around; I don't think we can predict what will happened based on the past Trek movies. I'm still a bit nervous about the change, but I'm hoping their faith in the film's box office potential isn't misplaced.

 

[Procutus]

Tralah said:

I'm still a bit nervous about the change, but I'm hoping their faith in the film's box office potential isn't misplaced.

I hope you're right. I'd be less than honest if I said that I was thrilled about this move, but I'll hope for the best. If Paramount allows Abrams and his team to use some of this extra time to make improvements on what they've already done, then I'll all for it.

That said, I'm still disappointed that I'm not going to be watching this in ten months instead of nearly 17.

 

[S'kai]

Well, I'm not delaying my retirement, which coincided with the May release date. I just hope it doesn't happen when I am out of the country on my dream Tour de France bike ride.

That would majorly suck.

 

[Mr J]

jon1701 said:
Hmmm, doesn't that website have a reputation for reporting....*cough*...bollocks?

Yup. Complete and utter. I wouldn't trust any of their so-called 'sources' any more than I would a random hobo on the street who claims to have slept under J.J's car one night.

 

[ALF]

If it's true, we could see this movie in the same year that Starfleet forms - for real! Perfect.

 

[Devon]

Valar said:

DarthPipes said:
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.

That doesn't make much sense. Why would they increase the budget to over 4 times what the last one was?

Not to detract from the point of your post, of which I agree with.. but the last budget was $60-$80 Million (depending on who you hear it from) and the current one, as TrekMovie is reporting, is about $130-$140 Million, so it would be more along the lines of "twice the last budget." Which even then validates what you and a few others who responded to the post said.

 

[Valar]

^Seriously? Nemesis cost that much? I wonder where all the money went.

I was going by the usual 30-40 million past treks have cost- been a while since I've avidly followed those but IIRC movies 2-6 were in that range.

I kind of relate to how that guy I responded to feels. I too am hugely disappointed by the movie being pushed back. A lot of issues for me personally and professionally are coming to a head this year and I took Trek's resurrection as a sign that things would turn out alright. Sort of saying to me that the good times were about to return. To have it pushed back seemed initially a grevious blow to me. But that's my personal crap- nothing to do with the movie itself.

 

[Mr J]

Valar said:
^Seriously? Nemesis cost that much? I wonder where all the money went.

In fairness to Nemesis, the film was pretty damn effects heavy compared to any of the other TNG films, and the quality of the effects was noticably higher. If that film did anything right it certainly looked the most like a movie of all of the TNG films.

 

[ViveLaFrance]

Mr J said:

Valar said:
^Seriously? Nemesis cost that much? I wonder where all the money went.

In fairness to Nemesis, the film was pretty damn effects heavy compared to any of the other TNG films, and the quality of the effects was noticably higher. If that film did anything right it certainly looked the most like a movie of all of the TNG films.

And don't forget Stewart asked 15 million... So all the money went to the effects and to the actors.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

ViveLaFrance said:

Mr J said:

Valar said:
^Seriously? Nemesis cost that much? I wonder where all the money went.

In fairness to Nemesis, the film was pretty damn effects heavy compared to any of the other TNG films, and the quality of the effects was noticably higher. If that film did anything right it certainly looked the most like a movie of all of the TNG films.

And don't forget Stewart asked 15 million... So all the money went to the effects and to the actors.

Yep, Stewart's work on that film was DEFINITELY worth more than everything I've ever done in my entire freakin' life... (sigh).

Sorta makes me wanna return to the good old days of actors being under contract to a studio and working for scale...

The idea that someone can EVER get paid that much for "playing make-believe" is just nauseating. It's one of the LEAST PRODUCTIVE things you can do in society, after all.

 

[number6]

Mr J said:

jon1701 said:
Hmmm, doesn't that website have a reputation for reporting....*cough*...bollocks?

Yup. Complete and utter. I wouldn't trust any of their so-called 'sources' any more than I would a random hobo on the street who claims to have slept under J.J's car one night.

Hey!! That random hobo just happens to run that site!!

 

[The Doctor]

Mr J said:

jon1701 said:
Hmmm, doesn't that website have a reputation for reporting....*cough*...bollocks?

Yup. Complete and utter. I wouldn't trust any of their so-called 'sources' any more than I would a random hobo on the street who claims to have slept under J.J's car one night.

Oh, I dunno.

They had the TrekUnited scam artists pegged pretty damn accurately.

 

[number6]

Except that there was no real scam, just a witchunt that took fandom to an all time sickening low.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

number6 said:
Except that there was no real scam, just a witchunt that took fandom to an all time sickening low.

True.

 

[johnconner]

Cary L. Brown said:Sorta makes me wanna return to the good old days of actors being under contract to a studio and working for scale...

The idea that someone can EVER get paid that much for "playing make-believe" is just nauseating. It's one of the LEAST PRODUCTIVE things you can do in society, after all.

So, if an actor is recognizable and trustworthy enough to generate a huge profit on name recognition alone, that actor should be satisfied with NOT being paid a fair amount based on his own success?

Sorry, but I'm not with you on that one. The suits already rake in the majority of the profits. No need to reward them more for underpaying deserving actors.

 

[Kegek]

Cary L. Brown said:
The idea that someone can EVER get paid that much for "playing make-believe" is just nauseating. It's one of the LEAST PRODUCTIVE things you can do in society, after all.

The products of their work can generate insane amounts of lot of money. The reason actors are highly paid is because we, the moviegoing public; put great stock on their work by paying money for their films. It's true art serves no functional value, but if it's popular enough that demand for it results in a huge amount of money... I think it's fair that the actors in a way get a slice of that pie like everyone else involved.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Kegek said:

Cary L. Brown said:
The idea that someone can EVER get paid that much for "playing make-believe" is just nauseating. It's one of the LEAST PRODUCTIVE things you can do in society, after all.

The products of their work can generate insane amounts of lot of money. The reason actors are highly paid is because we, the moviegoing public; put great stock on their work by paying money for their films. It's true art serves no functional value, but if it's popular enough that demand for it results in a huge amount of money... I think it's fair that the actors in a way get a slice of that pie like everyone else involved.

I'd much rather pay $1 for a movie ticket, personally.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The "good old days" of underpaying actors by locking them into contracts were destroyed by the market.

People don't go to movies - with rare exceptions - because of who produced the flick, what studio distributed it, who put up the money, who wrote it etc. The most influential single element of commercial filmmaking is: who is in it?

Greedy actors haven't created that situation. The paying public has.

The modern American population has created the only definition of "productive" that matters in the marketplace, and we as a people reward entertainers and other creators of novelty far more richly that we're willing to compensate politicians or soldiers or engineers or teachers.

 

[DarthPipes]

Let's look at the history of the Star Trek films. With the exception of The Voyage Home, no Star Trek movie has made over $100 million dollars domestically. Star Trek is extremely popular but it has shown nine times out of ten that it's not a franchise that will not do over $100 million. It hasn't come closer to grossing what other franchies such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, and even the recent Bond films have. Maybe that'll change with this reimagining but I can't see new fans coming in droves to see it, even starting from the beginning. So I think the logicial thing to do is to release it this in the upcoming Christmas season where there doesn't appear to be much competition. Instead, they're planning to release it right at the start of a busy, competative summer movie season in 2009. Which is almost as bad (though not quite) as when they decided to release Nemesis FIVE DAYS before The Two Towers.

Paramount has high hopes for this reimagining and I hope it succeeds. But they have to be mindful of Trek's limitations (its consistent inability to crack $100 million at the box office) and passing up a less crowded Christmas season for a competative summer movie season is a very foolish move to make.