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

[Admiral Buzzkill]

DarthPipes said:
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.

If they were thinking of it that way, they would not be making this movie at all.

 

[Valar]

DarthPipes said:
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.

100% totally agree with you on this post. But you must also acknowledge that if they pumped 140 million into the new movie they have greater confidence in it than the previous pictures. The move to the more crowded Summer season is in line with that greater confidence rather than your previous statement about wanting to bury the movie. Obviously they know something none of us here do, they have the experience in moviemaking and marketing and have access to the script and dailies to inform their judgement. I hope they're right.

 

[Zachary Smith]

I predict, based on this delay, that Shatner WILL be back as Kirk in the film.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Starship Polaris said:
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.

Or lawyers.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Samuel T. Cogley said:

Starship Polaris said:
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.

Or lawyers.

Unless they're very entertaining lawyers. Denny Crane.

Or unless they defend entertainers. Didn't O.J.'s team rack up a few billable hours?

 

[Photoman15]

Cary L. Brown said:
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!"

Not all us stockholders agree. Rushing out a product just because "it is ready" is a stupid business decision. The people who us "stockholders" pay to make these decisions have to take into account: 1, what else is being released at the same time; 2, what else do "we" have being released? Do we have enough product to release constantly or do we have to spread it out a little. Especially with these upcoming year or so. The strike has cancelled or postponed quite a few movies; 3, Would it serve the movie better to be released in May 09 than Dec 08? Where will we make MORE money and be seen by more people.

Please don't make statements for us "shareholders" that may not be true for many.

 

[richpit]

My opinion only, but I think we all need to realize that it doesn't mean squat what any of us think about when they should release the movie. And, generally, I would think that the "suits" at Paramount know more about the movie and the industry than we do, so maybe they are better "suit"ed to make the decision than anyone here.

Just sayin'.

 

[Rico]

May is better than July - by far. Not just because it is sooner. People are pumped to see movies by that point after winter. July wouldn't be as good or I would say as much money. Truthfully I would get it closer to Memorial Day weekend, 2009.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Stag said:
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).

Um..."Maid in Manhattan" was the Jennifer Lopez flick. Same weekend.

 

[archeryguy1701]

Captain Robert April said:

Stag said:
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).

Um..."Maid in Manhattan" was the Jennifer Lopez flick. Same weekend.

The sentence was put together a little oddly, but that's what he said.

 

[Guartho]

number6 said:
Except that there was no real scam...

Ok, so where's my $10 that was promised to be returned to me if we didn't get a season 5?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Photoman15 said:

Cary L. Brown said:
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!"

Not all us stockholders agree. Rushing out a product just because "it is ready" is a stupid business decision. The people who us "stockholders" pay to make these decisions have to take into account: 1, what else is being released at the same time; 2, what else do "we" have being released? Do we have enough product to release constantly or do we have to spread it out a little. Especially with these upcoming year or so. The strike has cancelled or postponed quite a few movies; 3, Would it serve the movie better to be released in May 09 than Dec 08? Where will we make MORE money and be seen by more people.

Please don't make statements for us "shareholders" that may not be true for many.

This is what happens when you "skim" rather than actually READING.

You evidently missed this part of my post:

...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...

So what are you disagreeing with again?

 

[VOODOOXI]

DarthPipes said:
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.

Yeah, let's look at the history of S.T. films with INFLATION included. These are domestic numbers only.

1/ TMP = $261,618,000
2/ TWOK = $180,123,000
3/ TSFS = $159,262,000
4/ TVH = $211,461,000
5/ TFF = $91,567,000
6/ TUC = $118,906,000
7/ GEN = $108,686,000
8/ FC = $125,320,000
9/ INS = $90,709,000
10/ NEM = 50,648,000
11/ ST = ?

Many people here don't remember it, but there was a time when a new Star Trek film was a big deal.

 

[Valar]

VOODOOXI said:
1/ TMP = $261,618,000
2/ TWOK = $180,123,000
3/ TSFS = $159,262,000
4/ TVH = $211,461,000
5/ TFF = $91,567,000
6/ TUC = $118,906,000
7/ FC = $125,320,000
8/ INS = $90,709,000
9/ NEM = 50,648,000

I think you skipped the one with Kirk and Picard in it-it should be number 7 on that list, and then the ones after it have been misnumbered.

 

[cardinal biggles]

^The inflation-adjusted total for GEN is $108,686,329.

 

[Valar]

Thanks, that was the main reason I posted- I wanted to see if the bo dipped after Trek 6 or if it went up. I was overseas when that movie came out and I never got a feeling on whether word of mouth was positive or neg on that flick.

 

[number6]

Guartho said:

number6 said:
Except that there was no real scam...

Ok, so where's my $10 that was promised to be returned to me if we didn't get a season 5?

I got my money back.

 

[thumbtack]

Photoman15 said:

Cary L. Brown said:
Well, looking at this from the standpoint of someone who has enough shares of PPC stock to make it a FINANCIAL concern of mine...

Not all us stockholders agree.

There is no such thing as Paramount Pictures Stock. As a teeny, tiny subsidiary of Viacom, any one Paramount movie would have to gross at least 7.5 billion worldwide to have any impact on Viacom's share price.

We need better liars on these boards.

 

[Tralah]

number6 said:

Guartho said:

number6 said:
Except that there was no real scam...

Ok, so where's my $10 that was promised to be returned to me if we didn't get a season 5?

I got my money back.

I did too.

 

[VOODOOXI]

Valar said:

VOODOOXI said:
1/ TMP = $261,618,000
2/ TWOK = $180,123,000
3/ TSFS = $159,262,000
4/ TVH = $211,461,000
5/ TFF = $91,567,000
6/ TUC = $118,906,000
7/ FC = $125,320,000
8/ INS = $90,709,000
9/ NEM = 50,648,000

I think you skipped the one with Kirk and Picard in it-it should be number 7 on that list, and then the ones after it have been misnumbered.

Thanks for noticing. Should be $108,686,000.

So out of 10 Star Trek films to date 7 of them have made over $100 million.

Plus, the fact that such a weak movie like TFF nearly made $100 million speaks volumes about ST's popularity.

Abrams + co. will have ST XI over $100 million without question.