Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by RAMA, Apr 26, 2013.
You need to read what he said more carefully.
Ladies and gentlemen, I've seen to Leonard Part 6, Showgirls, and Battlefield Earth, and I can say without hyperbole that this is a million times worse than all of them put together.
What's worse ? Nemesis ?
If you adjust all the older TNG & TOS movies for inflation, this is where STID stands domestically right now:
The Motion Picture...............260M
Star Trek 2009....................257M (140M Budget)
The Voyage Home................235M
The Wrath Of Khan..............216M
Into Darkness...................200M (190M Budget)
The Search For Spock..........180M
The Undiscovered Country....141M
The Final Frontier................104M
Factoring in world wide numbers, and the film's budget, it doesn't look like STID is going to be any more profitable than ST2009 (maybe slightly less).
I think that's a bit of a disappointment for Paramount.
Hopefully they'll cut the budget for the next film which will force the writers to focus more on story and less on FX/action. Sometimes limitations are the best thing for creativity.
It was more of an opportunity to pull out one of my favorite Simpson's quotes than a true commentary on the relative quality of any particular movie. I'm just making fun of the occasional extremism shown on this board.
Any series of only 79 shows that ran the gambit of quality from strong dramatic episodes like "Balance of Terror", "Journey to Babel", and "The Immunity Syndrome" to fun stories like "The Trouble with Tribbles", "A Piece of the Action", and "I Mudd", to pure schlock like "Spock's Brain", "For the World is Hollow, and I Have Touched the Sky", and "And the Children Shall Lead" is going to attract a variety of fans for a variety of reasons.
Does "The Squire of Gothos" feel more like "Star Trek" than "The Doomsday Machine"? How does one know?
What about "The Gamesters of Triskelion" compared to "Shore Leave"?
What about TMP compared to TVH?
Where the hell is the TOS archetype so many seem to use as the measure of something's "Trekness?" (Ususally to say why something isn't Trek.)
So, after four weeks STID is already only 9 million shy of ST's total worldwide lifetime gross.
It already made 50 million more in non US-markets after those four weeks than ST made in its entire run.
ST went on to make another 50 million after four weeks in distribution in the US.
Yeah, STID surely is a "disappointment".
Reading this thread has made me realise just how American-centric some people are.
I feel like people saying "it's not Star Trek" have an idealised version, instead of an actual version that the rest of us watched.
The action and destruction in this movie helped it to do much better overseas. I think the action will be the same in the next one as it was in STID, perhaps more. I thought the action was fine in this movie as it was not gratuitous, it simply helped to move on the story.
Yes, it's a financial disappointment for Paramount. You're looking at revenues, not profits.
It's not going to be anymore profitable then the last Trek film.
I think Paramount was hoping to turn Star Trek into one of those big time summer mega hits. That's why they spent nearly 200M on it's production.
That's the kind of budget that gets spent on movies like Iron Man, Transformers ect. But STID isn't going to be anywhere near as profitable as those types films.
You know, it's quite funny. Some people are so intent on seeing this movie labelled as a 'dissapointment', so eager to kill the JJ-verse dead, that they will claim that lower than expected box-office figures in the domestic market are the big story here. But if you're standing on the other side of the Pacific or the Atlantic, it's pretty clear that this isn't the big story at all. For that, you have to look at the film's global baseline.
That's what I was getting at.
It's not that so much as trying to keep your attention away from the foreign grosses.
Are you referring to my post?
Did you read all of it? I was factoring in the world wide box office numbers.
It's not pulling in the type of money worldwide that you want from a film with a 200M budget and a summer time release. I think Paramount was hoping for more.
There will be a third Bad Robot Trek - the haters will simply have to deal with it.
I wasn't referring to any post in particular. I've read nearly two hundred pages of this stuff so everything has blurred into two or three meta-narratives.
This film has cracked the overseas market in a way that no previous Star Trek film, including ST09, ever has. What's more, it's shown strong legs in important markets like China.
Yep. Paramount is disappointed with the domestic gross but happy that their strategy for building Trek up in the international market is working so well.
The bottom line is this: another Trek movie in three years, written and produced by Bad Robot in the successful style of their last two Trek movies. Will the budget come down a bit? Maybe so.
Separate names with a comma.