Orci talks about Star Trek 3
- Thread starter Enterprise is Great
- Start date
57% on Rotten Tomatoes.
If you'd like to lob a personal attack against all those besides myself who trash Phantom Menace you'll be very busy indeed.
Would we like a list of things that critics have said about TPM? I mean, it isn't just fan boys on the Internet who tear this film to pieces (or the prequels in general). I could not find a rating on metacritic for TPM, but ATOC (Attack of the Clones) had a 38 percent. Metacritic is an aggregate scoring similar to RT.
I also found this time article which I found interesting: http://entertainment.time.com/2012/...about-the-phantom-menace/slide/wooden-acting/
Personally, I don't hate it, but I can remember walking out of the theater at 13 years old and thinking "What did that have to do with Star Wars?"
Also, Simon Pegg hates it too
The notion that pointing out errors of fact and logic constitutes a "personal attack" is itself an error. The assertion that only children liked TPM is simply demonstrably false. It certainly is an inadequate basis for criticizing an entirely unrelated film.
Doctorwhovian
Fleet Captain
Never got the hate toward AOTC was it N'sync? They even made a SNL skit about that. Talk about oops!
AOTC is certainly disliked for its bad writing, dialogue, acting, effects, ect. It's also got one of the most unconvincing romance stories on film, worse since it was supposed to be a major point of the prequel trilogy.
If you subtract the foreign receipts and the revenue generated by 3D and IMAX ticket sales, Star Trek Into Darkness is a definite financial failure.
Between disc sales and box office, the two JJ movies made over $1.1 BILLION...with a "b". This person knows not of what he speaks.
It's not a bomb but it's short of Paramount's high expectations. That's why there's talk of decreasing the budget for Trek 3 (or maybe not even making it, if the script isn't up to par). Because of higher ticket prices and global sales, it's not as hard to reach 1BN as it used to be, especially if you are pushing some popcorn movie based on a franchise that has had decades to percolate itself into pop-culture.
Um, there were two films that eclipsed $1 billion in 2013. That's two out of ~160.
I thought this had been repeatedly debunked on all counts.
It has. Doesn't stop people from repeating it as gospel.
It's just non-sense that helps some people sleep at night. I'd ask this question, since it fell short of Paramount's expectations: what were Paramount's expectations?
Surely someone that can state confidently that it fell short should be able to tell everyone exactly what those expectations were...
Have you a source substantiating that?
Going by everything I've read thus far, said "high expectations" (not to mention some ridiculously optimistic projections of box-office numbers for opening weekend, &c.) seem to have been almost exclusively on the part of people who had nothing whatsoever to do with either the production or Paramount Pictures - mostly writers in the genre entertainment media, plus a few other self-appointed pundits, all making their calls from the bleachers. I've yet to see any comment from anyone who's directly involved in either the production or the studio decision-making process.
I have no sources beyond people who work in the film industry and despite the heavy criticism of ID, it was not a "failure" at least by studio standards. Numbers can be disappointing, but every business has that-that is a part of business.
Paramount may have had larger expectations because of how Trek 09 did but that doesn't mean that ID was a failure. When asked, my friend said that no one at Paramount would lose their job over the finances of ID.
And a reduced budget? TWOK had a much smaller budget, as did UC, partially due to the over-budgeting of the previous films. A smaller budget is not always a bad thing.
Couldn't at least a portion of the lower budget be due to so many existing sets and materials that can be reused after two movies? I mean I'm out of my depth, here, but that can save some considerable money, right? Even paying a first-time director like Orci less than Abrams made would go towards savings, wouldn't it?
Why do so many talk as if a lower budget is punishment?
Why do so many talk as if a lower budget is punishment?
Exactly my thoughts.
They are supposedly going from $190 to $170 million. Main costumes are designed and made, main CGI models built, main sets are likely in storage plus you have a first time director and two writers who aren't going to be making big money.
They aren't exactly starting from scratch.
BS. I just read the interview with Orci that says Trek 3 may not even go forward if the script's no good. That's probably true of the green-lighting process behind all films, in which case they just keep it in development-hell until they have a script they can green-light, but that's what I'm going on and it's not a myth. They're not just going to knee-jerk green-light the first submitted script.
They had all these things for Into Darkness (other than the savings of no JJ) also, so why did they need the extra $20 mil then and not now?
Well, you're probably saving half of that $20 million on Abrams salary alone. But, the other piece of the puzzle (I believe) was Abrams insistence on shooting Into Darkness in Los Angeles.
If I remember the article correctly, Paramount said they could get the same bang for their buck at $170 million shooting outside of LA, as they could shooting in LA at $190 million.
No. You actually said that STID not living up to high expectations was why there was talk of maybe not even making Trek 3. My comment was aimed at what you actually said.
Similar threads
