Sequel/Transformers 2: we're in trouble

[Lumen]

Star Trek isn't halfway through its run, although it has made nearly all of the money it is going to make in the domestic box office. Your statement is 50% correct, which is a marked improvement over your usual.

I'm not sure what point you hope to make in setting the goalpost as high as the top movie of the year. "Minor hit" might sound like nice spin to you, but that still leaves Star Trek likely to be one the top 5 films in the US by year's end. "Minor hit" are heights the franchise hasn't seen before.

 

[Blue_Trek]

And this proves what exactly?

That Star Trek is a minor hit

Sorry, a movie that does approximately $100 million domestic and approximately $100 million international and places in the top thirty for it's year is a minor hit, doing a fifty/fifty split.
Here is an example
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ghostrider.htm

Generally any movie that places in the top 10 for it's year can be considered at least a medium/major hit, as that is a good gauge as too how much people are going to the movies that year. Star Trek will be in the top 10 this year, it may even make top 5, and top 5 is truly a major hit.

Sometimes people forget how many people are watching this bootlegged pushing the sales down these days. A co-worker I asked if he had seen the movie said yes online. [No. Sentence deleted. - M']
But it does not do the movie justice, that's for sure.

 

[Aragorn]

FemurBone seems pretty intent on continuously moving the goalposts back.

 

[pookha]

The real problem is that Starfleet didn't take the destruction of the Kelvin more seriously.

Based on TOS, ships disappearing didn't seem to be that unusual.

One thing I like about ST's vision of space exploration. They send lone ships out, they disappear, they just keep sending more.

Which is how the oceans were explored on Earth, sea-faring vessels went out and were just never heard from again.

yes, several tos episodes where built around starfleet finally getting around to finding out what happened with ships they had lost decades ago .
the archon was about 100 years and the horizon about the same time period.

 

[Jeri]

yes, several tos episodes where built around starfleet finally getting around to finding out what happened with ships they had lost decades ago .
the archon was about 100 years and the horizon about the same time period.

There's the Exeter in Omega Glory; it hadn't been lost for decades at that point, but it could easily have been without Kirk & Co. finding it and Captain Tracy.

Captain Merik's merchant ship, the SS Beagle, was what Kirk & Co. went to find in Bread and Circuses. It had been missing 6 years.

Something I don't understand: why does Memory Alpha spell Oxmyx with a K ("Okmyx"), when all of them clearly pronounced Bela's name Oxmyx. I think I saw it spelled with an X on a poster on the wall, didn't I?

 

[M'Sharak]

...

Something I don't understand: why does Memory Alpha spell Oxmyx with a K ("Okmyx"), when all of them clearly pronounced Bela's name Oxmyx. I think I saw it spelled with an X on a poster on the wall, didn't I?

It's "Okmyx" on the poster, too, and in the script, but pronouncing it as written may have proved difficult or at least awkward for one or more of the cast, and it appears that it was changed during shooting of the episode. Starting here is a discussion of that in the same thread I linked above, and it seems that Memory Alpha may have changed that page recently because, as of March 28, they still had it as being "Oxmyx" in script, pronunciation guide and end credits, which is shown conclusively in the post following mine to be incorrect.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Minor hit? Puh-lease! If you don't like the movie... that's fine. But don't try to rewrite the rules of reality. Jeez. It undermines your opinion as it makes you look silly and not consistent with how the world realy works.

 

[FemurBone]

Minor hit? Puh-lease! If you don't like the movie... that's fine. But don't try to rewrite the rules of reality. Jeez. It undermines your opinion as it makes you look silly and not consistent with how the world realy works.

What's silly is thinking Star Trek is some big block buster smash.

 

[Therin of Andor]

They both catered to the same mindless crowd.

D'ah, u meen uz, den?

 

[Ovation]

Minor hit? Puh-lease! If you don't like the movie... that's fine. But don't try to rewrite the rules of reality. Jeez. It undermines your opinion as it makes you look silly and not consistent with how the world realy works.

What's silly is thinking Star Trek is some big block buster smash.

No. What's silly is thinking that because you did not like a movie, the standards for what constitutes success from a box office perspective are suddenly beholden to your personal, rather asinine reasoning.

No one has claimed Trek will be the biggest box office performer of all time. No one has claimed it will be remembered as the finest film ever made. But unless the rest of the year contains ten other films that are even anticipated to make more (two that were have already failed to do so), then it will finish in the top ten, at the very least, and that constitutes a "major hit" as commonly understood in the vernacular. "Major hit" and "top ten of all time" are NOT synonymous in the film industry (or any other pop culture area).

Of course, the level of cognitive dissonance on display suggests that even if Trek were to eclipse all other films ever made, you'd still find a way to call it a "minor hit". In the rest of the world, though, that's called denial.

 

[Jeri]

It's "Okmyx" on the poster, too, and in the script, but pronouncing it as written may have proved difficult or at least awkward for one or more of the cast, and it appears that it was changed during shooting of the episode. Starting here is a discussion of that in the same thread I linked above, and it seems that Memory Alpha may have changed that page recently because, as of March 28, they still had it as being "Oxmyx" in script, pronunciation guide and end credits, which is shown conclusively in the post following mine to be incorrect.

My goodness, you are so right! Thank you. And it's kind of a coincidence it occurred to me now, because I had not seen that thread or seen anybody talking about it elsewhere. I noticed the spelling at MA a couple weeks ago.

 

[Aragorn]

I made a small joke a while back that because there were some comparisons made between Star Trek and The Dark Knight, that Star Trek could be a big hit and the haters would point to it not making Dark Knight money as being a total failure. I guess it's not a joke anymore.

 

[MNM]

If that's Orci and Kurtzman's idea of a big blockbuster sequel....

We're in huge trouble.

Transfomers, Revenge of the Fallen. Worst 'big' film this past decade. Awful garbage. Boring, over-long, a giant mess, horrible editing, pathetic acting and script and terrible pacing. That's two and a half hours of my life I'd like back.

Trek 2 could be in trouble. Hopefully it's mostly Bay's fault.

Having seen both Transformers 2 and Star Trek, I will say this: Transformers 2 is the better film.

 

[FemurBone]

No. What's silly is thinking that because you did not like a movie, the standards for what constitutes success from a box office perspective are suddenly beholden to your personal, rather asinine reasoning.

No one has claimed Trek will be the biggest box office performer of all time. No one has claimed it will be remembered as the finest film ever made. But unless the rest of the year contains ten other films that are even anticipated to make more (two that were have already failed to do so), then it will finish in the top ten, at the very least, and that constitutes a "major hit" as commonly understood in the vernacular. "Major hit" and "top ten of all time" are NOT synonymous in the film industry (or any other pop culture area).

Of course, the level of cognitive dissonance on display suggests that even if Trek were to eclipse all other films ever made, you'd still find a way to call it a "minor hit". In the rest of the world, though, that's called denial.

Star Trek is a minor hit. That's the way it is. No amount of spin is going to change that.

 

[Qonos]

No. What's silly is thinking that because you did not like a movie, the standards for what constitutes success from a box office perspective are suddenly beholden to your personal, rather asinine reasoning.

No one has claimed Trek will be the biggest box office performer of all time. No one has claimed it will be remembered as the finest film ever made. But unless the rest of the year contains ten other films that are even anticipated to make more (two that were have already failed to do so), then it will finish in the top ten, at the very least, and that constitutes a "major hit" as commonly understood in the vernacular. "Major hit" and "top ten of all time" are NOT synonymous in the film industry (or any other pop culture area).

Of course, the level of cognitive dissonance on display suggests that even if Trek were to eclipse all other films ever made, you'd still find a way to call it a "minor hit". In the rest of the world, though, that's called denial.

Star Trek is a minor hit. That's the way it is. No amount of spin is going to change that.

Number 1 domestic grossing movie of 2009 so far..... A minor hit... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


What every you are smoking pass it this way man cause it sure is giving you a major mind trip.

Stop now and just admit your wrong.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2009&p=.htm

 

[Ovation]

No. What's silly is thinking that because you did not like a movie, the standards for what constitutes success from a box office perspective are suddenly beholden to your personal, rather asinine reasoning.

No one has claimed Trek will be the biggest box office performer of all time. No one has claimed it will be remembered as the finest film ever made. But unless the rest of the year contains ten other films that are even anticipated to make more (two that were have already failed to do so), then it will finish in the top ten, at the very least, and that constitutes a "major hit" as commonly understood in the vernacular. "Major hit" and "top ten of all time" are NOT synonymous in the film industry (or any other pop culture area).

Of course, the level of cognitive dissonance on display suggests that even if Trek were to eclipse all other films ever made, you'd still find a way to call it a "minor hit". In the rest of the world, though, that's called denial.

Star Trek is a minor hit. That's the way it is. No amount of spin is going to change that.

A textbook example of cognitive dissonance on display.

 

[Bishbot]

1993: Jurrasic Park = 914 million worldwide
1994: Forrest Gump = 677 million worldwide
1996: Independence Day = 817 million worldwide
1997: Titanic = 1.8 billion worldwide
1999: The Phantom Menace = 924 million worldwide
2001: The Sorcerers Stone = 974 million worldwide
2002: Spider-Man = 821 million worldwide
2003: Return of the King = 1.1 billion worldwide
2004: Shrek 2 = 919 million worldwide
2005: Revenge of the Sith = 848 million worldwide
2006: Dead Man's Chest = 1 billion worldwide
2007: Spider-Man 3 = 890 million worldwide
2008: The Dark Knight = 1 billion worldwide

2009: Star Trek = $358 million worldwide

This is a list of 13 of the highest grossing films of all time. What has it got to do with Star Trek? I remember people being pleased that it's a clear hit, but I don't remember anyone trying to claim it belongs up there with "The Dark Knight". The box office so far has been fantastic by the standards of most films, and from a Star Trek perspective it's been a revelation. It hasn't left theaters yet (although I concede that its already made the vast bulk of its ticket sales) and will obviously perform very well on DVD. Clearly everyone involved has been very pleased with its performance and it guarantees a sequel, which is the main thing.

 

[Borgminister]

There will definitely be a sequel.

There will likely be another after that.

WHERE DID WE GO WRONG?

 

[Aragorn]

Hell, Star Trek could've become the highest-grossing film of all-time, but it'll still be a failure because Paramount spent a billion dollars to promote it. And look, I can point to THREE web site sources to prove it -- femurbone.blogspot.com, femurbone.net, myspace.com/femurbonerulez

 

[Jon1701]

Just got back from Transformers.

Man, my ass is numb. I have no problem with a two hour thirty movie, but you have to fill it with plot. There simply wasn't enough for two and a half hours.

Plot:

There is this thing that the Decepticons want, and the Transformers have to stop them. Throw in Megatron coming back to life and all the Prime stuff and thats it. Everything else is just annoying fluff. The robot fighting stuff was good - but the rest? Zzzzzzz...

I've never agreed with Kpnuts before, but he's spot on for this one.

That said, I blame Bay - not Orci and Kurtzman. And, as an aside, the couple if front of me brought their THREE YEAR OLD CHILD to the theatre!

The movie must have lasted about 10 years for him ( I know this because he complained throught the movie )