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

[Belz...]

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

Dark Knight was made BEFORE Trek '09, Jarod.

just as Star Trek Begins was an attempt to cash in on the Star Wars prequels and Batman Begins.

The prequels started in '99, Jarod.

They forget that the original films they were "inspired by" didn't do that. The Dark Knight is a genuine film through and through

Well I find it entertaining and gripping but also pretentious, overrated, convoluted and full of plot holes.

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.

True. There's enough material in that movie for a miniseries.

 

[Phily B]

TMP was an attempt to cash in on Star Wars. Star Wars was supposedly named Star Wars cause of Trek being fairly popular.

Just sayin'

 

[Flake]

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.

I think they are getting the action and explosions and trek ratio just right in the Abrams movies. Imagine a Star Trek movie in 1967 with a $20m dollar budget (in 1967 $) and I wonder what they would have come up with? My guess? Lots of action and adventure and more explosions & fighting than an Abrams movie will ever have!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

TMP was an attempt to cash in on Star Wars.

Not really.

 

[Belz...]

I think they are getting the action and explosions and trek ratio just right in the Abrams movies. Imagine a Star Trek movie in 1967 with a $20m dollar budget (in 1967 $) and I wonder what they would have come up with? My guess? Lots of action and adventure and more explosions & fighting than an Abrams movie will ever have!

Oh, absolutely. But I meant, some posters here seem to think that Trek should do a billion a movie, and of course I'd like that. My comment was that, in order for that to happen, I have no clue what they'd have to change.

 

[Harvey]

TMP was an attempt to cash in on Star Wars.

Not really.

I'm not sure what you're link is supposed to prove. Yes, a Star Trek revival (both as a television series and a modestly-budgeted motion picture) was conceived prior to Star Wars. But, when Star Wars was such a major success (quickly followed by another big-budget sf movie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind) Paramount tried to cash in on that success by turning the series into a major motion picture.

If Star Wars wasn't a big success, I doubt Paramount would have spent $44 million to bring their space franchise to the big screen.

 

[newtontomato539]

"You like Abrams Trek! You are not a Trek fan!"

I'm a fan since 1972.

"Into Darkness is making alot of money!"

Yes it is!

"Into Darkness is not making alot of money! It's a Failure!"

. . . .



. . . .



Try again.

 

[M'Sharak]

"You like Abrams Trek! You are not a Trek fan!"

I'm a fan since 1972.

"Into Darkness is making alot of money!"

Yes it is!

"Into Darkness is not making alot of money! It's a Failure!"

. . . .



. . . .



Try again.

Okay, newtontomato - more substance, please, and less, um... less of whatever emoticon-laden type of spammy thing that was.

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.

Your opinion is incorrect in thinking Hugh Mann's observation is "100% wrong" based only on your opinion--which completely ignores the reality that there are other TOS fans (40+ years and running) who just might fit his assessment.

No. Buzzkill's opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Hugh Mann is wrong, and I can only suppose that you've misread his post.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

TMP was an attempt to cash in on Star Wars.

Not really.

I'm not sure what you're link is supposed to prove. Yes, a Star Trek revival (both as a television series and a modestly-budgeted motion picture) was conceived prior to Star Wars. But, when Star Wars was such a major success (quickly followed by another big-budget sf movie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind) Paramount tried to cash in on that success by turning the series into a major motion picture.

If Star Wars wasn't a big success, I doubt Paramount would have spent $44 million to bring their space franchise to the big screen.

It's supposed to prove that it's not like the producers saw the success of Star Wars and said, hey "let's make a film to ride that wave." TMP was an end product of concrete attempts to revive Star Trek, which date back at least to 1975, and follows from an attempt, Phase II, in the form of TV series that began concurrently with the release of Star Wars.

Your last sentence, which I agree with, is not synonymous with "cashing in on" Star Wars. If Star Wars had not been a big success, then it's entirely possible that we would have gotten Star Trek in the form of a TV series whose first episode had a plot similar to TMP, called "In Thy Image".

If you want an example of cashing in on Star Wars, see Starcrash: The Adventures of Stella Star.

If cashing in on Star Wars was really the motive behind TMP, they wouldn't have spent all that money on it before deciding to make a movie.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

If cashing in on Star Wars was really the motive behind TMP, they wouldn't have spent all that money on it before deciding to make a movie.

Nor would they have made what is, admittedly, an action-deficient film. Aside from being set in space and using spaceships, there isn't a whole lot in common between A New Hope and The Motion Picture.

 

[BillJ]

People who say Star Trek Into Darkness is the worst movie ever obviously haven't seen Battlefield Earth. I'm watching it on Cinemax right now.

 

[Phily B]

Not really.

I'm not sure what you're link is supposed to prove. Yes, a Star Trek revival (both as a television series and a modestly-budgeted motion picture) was conceived prior to Star Wars. But, when Star Wars was such a major success (quickly followed by another big-budget sf movie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind) Paramount tried to cash in on that success by turning the series into a major motion picture.

If Star Wars wasn't a big success, I doubt Paramount would have spent $44 million to bring their space franchise to the big screen.

It's supposed to prove that it's not like the producers saw the success of Star Wars and said, hey "let's make a film to ride that wave." TMP was an end product of concrete attempts to revive Star Trek, which date back at least to 1975, and follows from an attempt, Phase II, in the form of TV series that began concurrently with the release of Star Wars.

Your last sentence, which I agree with, is not synonymous with "cashing in on" Star Wars. If Star Wars had not been a big success, then it's entirely possible that we would have gotten Star Trek in the form of a TV series whose first episode had a plot similar to TMP, called "In Thy Image".

If you want an example of cashing in on Star Wars, see Starcrash: The Adventures of Stella Star.

If cashing in on Star Wars was really the motive behind TMP, they wouldn't have spent all that money on it before deciding to make a movie.

It was a sci-fi movie, they moved Trek to a movie format because Close Encounters and Star Wars proved that science fiction movies could do mega business.

 

[CorporalClegg]

People who say Star Trek Into Darkness is the worst movie ever obviously haven't seen Battlefield Earth. I'm watching it on Cinemax right now.

And that's not even the worst movie ever made. Though, once you dive that far into the cesspool, it's kind of hard to pick.

 

[sonak]

People who say Star Trek Into Darkness is the worst movie ever obviously haven't seen Battlefield Earth. I'm watching it on Cinemax right now.

that's almost a "so bad it's good" movie. And Travolta's performance is hilarious.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

TMP was an attempt to cash in on Star Wars.

It was a sci-fi movie, they moved Trek to a movie format because Close Encounters and Star Wars proved that science fiction movies could do mega business.

Actually, your second statement is one I can agree with. But not the first. They aren't the same thing, for several reasons.

 

[Harvey]

If you want an example of cashing in on Star Wars, see Starcrash: The Adventures of Stella Star.

I think we're pretty much agreed, only stating things differently. So I'll only say this: I have seen Starcrash. It's certainly...unforgettable.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Every episode, and especially every movie can be nitpicked to death, however, yours are extremely minor.

To you.

To me they were the difference to being immersed blissfully in a movie (TMP, ST 2009, STiD) and feeling annoyed at the missed opportunities.

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.

I was really underwhelmed by ST V, but you can't just dismiss the whole film and say, "Oh yeah, we forgot to mention that Kirk and all the bridge crew hate Klingons and have done ever since David was killed."

I enjoyed watching ST VI. But I felt a bit like a bystander. Nothing seemed quite right. They were up to Saavik #3 (this time with a new name). She wasn't even wearing matching uniform pieces.

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

But it's sensible to assume that prisoners will be allowed to keep their (opposition military) uniforms to do hard labor?

Your issues with Uhura and Chekov aren't even worth mentioning as it had zero impact on the story.

They are worth mentioning. Because they had me squirming with impatience in my seat. Yes, they were funny scenes, but Chekov has been the ship's Chief of Security (ST:TMP) and he doesn't know that a hand phaser will set off an alarm and has to have it explained by Valeris? Dumb.

The bit in Klingon space added a little humour which didn't hurt.

It was hilarious. But it caused me to squirm with impatience in my seat. At least the novelization explained that the computer's translator was down (IIRC), but that was JM Dillard trying to make the scene make sense.

When I said perfect, I didn't mean nitpick free.

How else do I explain why it was not perfect to me without "nitpicking"? ST VI felt like a very rushed and poorly thought-out (and sometimes over-thought, tying it in to glasnost, Gorbachev and TNG's "Unification") entry in a tired franchise.

All ST films have nits we can pick. It's part of the fun. But ST VI's nitpicks annoyed me. A lot. Missed opportunities.

 

[Belz...]

People who say Star Trek Into Darkness is the worst movie ever obviously haven't seen Battlefield Earth. I'm watching it on Cinemax right now.

Ah, that is one glorious movie. So bad, it's awesome.

And that's not even the worst movie ever made.

No, I believe that honour should be reserved to Manos the Hands of Fate or Monster a Go-Go.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I thought STVI treated the characters horribly. Kirk's a racist, Spock's a rapist*, McCoy and Uhura are incompetent, the entire plotline directly contradicts "Yesterday's Enterprise" etc. etc.




*and yes I'm aware Spock mind melds all the time, sometimes against people's will. But in VI the violation aspect was deliberatey played up. Add to that, the bridge crew just sit around and watch Valaris screaming in agony.

 

[throwback]

How many of you have seen the film "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters"? I just did. Man, this was a wretched, preposterous film. The music was annoying and loud, and the technology was anachronistic to the period. Established as being in the early 18th century, this film had characters using steampunk machine guns and tasers.

To illustrate the power of the international market, if this film was relying on the domestic box office, it would be a rated a critically-panned bomb with a budget of $50 million and a gross of $55.7 million. However, the international market gross was $170 million, making this film a financial success. Paramount has agreed to a sequel.

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/hansel-and-gretel-witch-hunters

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hanselandgretelwitchhunters.htm

http://www.joblo.com/horror-movies/news/hansel-gretel-witch-hunters-producer-promises-insane-sequel

The lessons I learned from this film was that one shouldn't be overly reverential to the source material, have over-the-board action, have likeable characters, have some comedy, have the women as objects of sexual desire and arousal but are able to hold their own in a battle, especially against other women, and have the characters speak enough to advance the plot and to give brief exposition to the audience. Another film that meets this mold and is succeeding is Furious 6.