STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It cannot have escaped your notice that Paramount has financing partners on the nuTrek films. Do you know what their investments are, what the structure of their deals are, and what they actually intend to accomplish with their investments?

Too much unknown to speculate here.

Exactly.

That's the only statement that matters.

This is why with the exception of extreme cases - obvious failures or unexpected successes (see The Purge, this week) online debates about whether this or that big budget movie is "more profitable" are flat-out bullshit.

You don't have the basic information you'd have to have to determine whether Paramount is making, or stands to make, more or less profit on STID than on ST '09. You simply don't. You only know the reported production budgets and the reported gross box office for the two films. Any conclusions you're drawing at this point might as well be divined by casting sticks or reading goat entrails.

You can follow what you consider to be logical inferences as far as you like, but in the absence of real information the most logical of conclusions is meaningless.

Here, let me make this clearer:

1. Paramount would like to have made more money on this movie than they have;
2. Paramount predicted that they'd make more money on this movie than they have;
3. This movie is making less of a profit for Paramount than the last Star Trek movie.

Even if one grants both of the first two statements as likely true, the third statement does not necessarily follow from them. Do you understand?

 

[mos6507]

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.

People decide what they want to 'support' and put on rose-colored-glasses accordingly. That goes for purists and JJ fans alike.

 

[throwback]

Quantum of Solace is generally regarded as a weaker film than its predecessor, Casino Royale, and some felt the plot was incomprehensible. Skyfall is a far better written film that the general audience embraced, and became the first Bond film to make over $1 billion at the box office.

The formula and its elements for the Bond franchise was established with the first film, and, as is the case with all the very good and best films of this franchise, Skyfall succeeded because everything clicked.

An example of a franchise where they had to change direction because they were running into the proverbial ceiling, like Star Trek, was Fast and Furious. Previous films in this franchise had focused largely on the car racing. With the last two films, the focus has been less on the racing, which is now considered an aspect of the story. The latest film has grossed over $500 million worldwide.

Admiral Buzzkill

There is a fourth criteria which you failed to mention. Paramount was hoping to increase the percentage of international audience members who bought tickets to see this movie. Both the domestic market and the purchase of post-release copies of a film are shrinking. (I have read about both being cited as the reason that corporations are pushing harder for their films to succeed overseas.)

There are general rules of thumb. One such rule states that a film has to make twice its budget to be successful. ST:ID will meet this benchmark.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

So, after Star Trek ran into its ceiling and faltered early in the 21st century, Paramount changed the direction of the franchise and is now going from success to success by letting Bad Robot do it their way.

 

[MacLeod]

Studios will always want to make more money at the box office, this is true of a film that only takes US$50m, or one that takes US$3bn.

 

[Belz...]

Any conclusions you're drawing at this point might as well be divined by casting sticks or reading goat entrails.

I wish you'd have made that clear three days ago before I sold my goat herd !

 

[BillJ]

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.

People decide what they want to 'support' and put on rose-colored-glasses accordingly. That goes for purists and JJ fans alike.

Please.

People here have been more than honest about the flaws in the last two Trek movies, myself included.

What's tiresome is the "this isn't Star Trek!!!" and the "Star Trek never did that!!!" brigade.

 

[thumbtack]

even if it does a little better overseas

It's not doing a little better overseas, and you know it.

Youre figures are incorrect, ST09 is first with an inflation adjusted number of $274 million.

You can always tell what their agenda is when they try to sneak TMP into first place.



.

 

[throwback]

Fast and Furious changed its direction, by focusing less on car racing.

The question becomes, what has Star Trek to change for it to succeed? I think some people are thinking the change was too much, that it lost something of its quality when it was adapted to international markets.

For me, the quality that changed the most was the character of James Kirk. I once wrote a thread where I used a line from ST V and AB responded:

You mean, anything comparably adolescent, overblown, simpleminded and self-dramatizing?

To me, that is the definition of this new Kirk. I wouldn't follow this Kirk for a single day, let alone five years.

I can tell you something about the story arc of characters in IM3 or F6, but I can't tell you anything about those arcs for the characters in this new film. I don't feel the familiarity that some have expressed - that Kirk has gone through this arc before. I don't know what I feel for these characters.

 

[BillJ]

To me, that is the definition of this new Kirk. I wouldn't follow this Kirk for a single day, let alone five years.

This is a fair criticism of the character. I like Pine and I like this version of Kirk but they've simply moved him along much too quickly in these films.

 

[JarodRussell]

The question becomes, what has Star Trek to change for it to succeed?

Is Star Trek Into Darkness really not succeeding? Really?

 

[CorporalClegg]

For me, the quality that changed the most was the character of James Kirk.

In both films nuKirk has been shown to be:

*Better than everyone else.
*A man of action (act first, ask later).
*Prone to mistake due to lapses in judgment caused by ego and hubris.

All three of those define ShatKirk.

The only difference is nuKirk's immaturity. He's younger and never had a father figure. He was also thrust from Hicksville townie to Starship commander rather rapidly.

The reason why this part of both films' themes is because it's an on-going character arc.

What's the problem?

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Weekend actuals: $11,425,755 (-32%) for $199,866,194 to date. Very good fourth weekend hold.

 

[JarodRussell]

That inherent insecurity of the franchise, from the biggest top executive down to the tiniest fan, is funny at times.

That's how you get mediocre films. Star Trek Into Darkness was a clear in your face attempt to cash in on the Dark Knight vibe, just as Star Trek Begins was an attempt to cash in on the Star Wars prequels and Batman Begins. Everyone of the involved told you that this was what they were aiming at. It didn't came to them organically, it wasn't an idea they genuinely liked, it was an idea that they thought was dictated by the market.

They forget that the original films they were "inspired by" didn't do that. The Dark Knight is a genuine film through and through, and you notice that in every aspect of its execution (with The Dark Knight Rises on the other hand, you already notice that a lot of that got lost and they did try to make a second TDK).

And that's also why they are disappointed, studios and fans alike, with the box office that is actually okay. So this film didn't became their Dark Knight or their Skyfall? Well, too bad. Don't expect your films to perform better than average just because you imitate the extremely successful ones.

 

[BillJ]

The only difference is nuKirk's immaturity. He's younger and never had a father figure. He was also thrust from Hicksville townie to Starship commander rather rapidly.

The reason why this part of both films' themes is because it's an on-going character arc.

What's the problem?

I don't think the arc itself is the problem, it's how rapid everything happens in Into Darkness. Kirk went from starship captain to cadet to first officer and back to starship captain in what seems like a twenty-four hour window.

I know that we don't want to waste time showing inconsequential events between two important events. But we can denote a passage of time without bogging the film down. A simple snarky line about Kirk spending time as the Delta-Vega outpost commander would've shown that some time had past and that he was actually punished for something.

But hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I thought the now-you're-captain-now-you're-XO-whoops-now-you're-captain-again was an...unnecessary detour and distraction in this one.

 

[Robert_T_April]

The Undiscovered Country was pretty close to being perfect IMHO.

Really? With Kirk suddenly hating Klingons with an intensity we never saw in STs III, IV nor V? With Chekov seemingly not knowing that a hand phaser sets off ship alarms? With Uhura not knowing any Klingon sentences? With McCoy not knowing anything about Klingon anatomy? With Kirk and McCoy being imprisoned in their Starfleet uniforms, complete with tracking device?

Nah, not perfect to me.

Every episode, and especially every movie can be nitpicked to death, however, yours are extremely minor.
The Klingons killed Kirk's son in Star Trek III. What is so unbelievable about his feelings towards Klingons? These feelings haven't been explored as they didn't fit into IV or V, and honestly, I really don't take The Final Frontier seriously as it was just a poorly written, and poorly directed movie. Not to mention, the f/x were cheap.

As for the tracking device, a transponder could have been injected into Kirk but, it wouldn't have been as dramatic.

Your issues with Uhura and Chekov aren't even worth mentioning as it had zero impact on the story. The bit in Klingon space added a little humour which didn't hurt.

And as for McCoy saying he didn't even know his anatomy was not a big deal to me because, it was somewhat exaggerated under the circumstances, and he's a medical doctor...not a veterinarian.

When I said perfect, I didn't mean nitpick free. I meant it was epic, touching, the humour was not forced, the f/x were awesome, the acting was awesome, and it was the best directed Trek to date! Hats off to Nick Meyer!

The timing was perfect for this movie. It really was an EPIC sendoff for this crew. It couldn't have been done any better.

 

[BillJ]

I always thought the patch was composed of a rare element that the Klingons simply didn't know to look for.

But then I love The Undiscovered Country.

 

[Noname Given]

The only thing I can say to that is that anyone who claims to have been a fan of TOS and says that J.J. "Michael Bay" Abrams' films "feel like TOS" are lying, and they either have not seen TOS or they have not seen Abrams' films (or they have not seen either).

I've been a Trek fan since 1966.
I've seen every TOS episode many, many times.
I've seen Abrams's Trek films multiple times.
STID in particular captures a good deal about TOS that previous TOS-based movies never did.
I'm not lying.

Therefore, your statement is flat-out 100% wrong. That's not an opinion. It's a fact.

^^^
Change 1966 to 1969 (I was 6 when I first caught the original Star Trek on NBC and loved it) -- and I echo the above to a Tee.

 

[Belz...]

Fast and Furious changed its direction, by focusing less on car racing.

The question becomes, what has Star Trek to change for it to succeed? I think some people are thinking the change was too much, that it lost something of its quality when it was adapted to international markets.

Humm... well I think there's a way to adapt it and make it a blockbuster franchise without losing the "core values" of Trek. Damned if I know how, mind you. It shouldn't be impossible. We just need someone with the right idea.