Unfortunately, Black Hole was a Star Wars knockoff, no need for Disney to screw around with it now that it can make billions with actual Star Wars.
The Domestic Box Office run is ending, International is kicking in.
- Thread starter KGator
- Start date
- Status
Also Burton Apes and I Am Legend.. how soon before a Solyent Green remake?
Not before they remake "Airport '75".
All three of those movies are adaptations of preexisting properties (and the first two listed had already been remade/sequalized to death before.) Yet those versions are the point where things started getting 'unnecessary?'
I'm not defending their quality or anything, but the placement of the 'necessity' line seems a wee-bit arbitrary.
I'm not defending their quality or anything, but the placement of the 'necessity' line seems a wee-bit arbitrary.
Great article and I agree with everything it says.
The 1959 Ben-Hur wasn't a remake of a 1925 film?
Last edited:
That remake added color and sound and a widescreen picture to the movie. This new movie adds a more realistic style of acting and presentation.
But perhaps time and effort could have been put into something new and original, or material that hasn't been adapted successfully before.
It added 3d too!
It added 3d too!
Instant classic!
There's a lot of trouble at Paramount right now and the failure of Star Trek Beyond is adding to the troubles of some people in higher places over there.
I wouldn't be surprised if the troubles at Paramount will last for a long time to come and no new Star Trek movie will be greenlit until then with perhaps a whole new production team...
Interesting times ahead!
I wouldn't be surprised if the troubles at Paramount will last for a long time to come and no new Star Trek movie will be greenlit until then with perhaps a whole new production team...
Interesting times ahead!
Yeah, I would have liked that too. Tron 3 was likely a casualty of simply being able to make more profitable SW/Marvel movies as well.
It's spot on, the marketing was piss poor and you could argue a symptom of the troubles at Paramount. I'm still talking to people who tell me they haven't seen the one and were not even aware of it. I think the shitty first trailer did unbelievable damage to the marketing, the first talking point of the movie was Pegg and Lin saying the trailer was shit!
Great article. It really pisses me off that clearly the best of the 3 Kelvin movies by far will be unprofitable. This, combined with Paramount's other troubles will jeopardize ST cinematic future once again. And if they do greenlight a fourth film they'll try to make it more like the abysmal STID because it was the most profitable of the three.
Oh, the irony…
I read the article at TrekMovie. Interesting read. I noted the author did not address in the article the financial woes of Paramount. I do not share the author's optimism about the film franchise. This franchise is showing signs that it can not compete in an increasingly crowded and competitive market. It may be time to reclassify Star Trek from a tentpole film to something else and slot it in a time frame where it can succeed.
It would be nice if some other studio got a shot at making a Trek film. Paramount can't seem to find its way out of a paper bag these days.
Why do you say that?
Just because 13 Hours, Zoolander 2, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Everybody Wants Some, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2, Star Trek Beyond, Florence Foster Jenkins and Ben Hur underperformed or bombed? And that's just in 2016! I'm sure with xXx 3 and Baywatch coming in 2017 Paramount will recover! 
I disagree that the franchise is in significant trouble. Beyond's box office is largely a disappointment because it is a casualty of over budgeting. If they had made the move even at $150 million we'd be in more comfortable territory. If you look at Star Trek box office history taking into account inflation, Beyond is performing on par with the Trek movies of the 90s. So there's clearly a significant fan base audience still there.
The issue is like you said Paramount needs to come to terms with the fact that Star Trek just isn't the tentpole big blockbuster franchise they want it to be. The 09 reboot did bring a brief almost mainstream crossover which really was never sustainable and now that Star Wars is back, most general audiences will chose Wars as the sci-fi movie epic of choice.
Beyond hasn't performed well enough to justify another big budget blockbuster but it hasn't done poorly enough for Paramount to through in the towel on Trek or even the Kelvin timeline movies yet. I think they'll approach the next movie with caution - similarly to what the did between Star Trek V and VI - a lower budget bring back JJ Abrams and get marketing the movie as early as possible.
Why do you say that?
According to articles Paramount is already bracing for a bad 2017. Sad though because movies like Whiskey Tango Foxtrot and Florence Foster Jenkins were actually pretty good.
I'm sorry but I don't think so. The 4 TNG movies cost almost $198 million altogether and brought back $443 million worldwide. That's 2.237 times their budget. For Beyond to be on par with them (with a $185 million budget) it needs a worldwide box office of $414 million. Not gonna happen. And that's not taking into account the supposedly $120 million of marketing.
That's what I was afraid. Why watch JJ's Star (Wars Light) Trek when the real Star Wars is back.
That's what I was afraid. Abrams (and Orci and Kurtzman) back and be told to make a movie more like STID which was "successful".
Transformers 5 and Mission: Impossible 6 can't come soon enough for Paramount... if it (M:I-6) happens at all!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme...e-brakes-on-tom-cruises-mission-impossible-6/
- Status
