The Star Trek Franchise in Year 2013

[xavier]

Based on the video game and the film(star trek into darkness) do you think 2013 was a good year for trek?

Personal opinion, I would say no. I liked the tie in video game. I did not get the hate for it. However,Star Trek Into Darkness was not a film that I liked.

Some people declared star trek to be broken in year 2013. I would not say the franchise is broken, I would say the franchise showed some cracks but it is not entirely broken.

http://trekmovie.com/2013/09/01/star-trek-is-broken-here-are-ideas-on-how-to-fix-it/

Orci can fix that in 2016 if he makes a superior film to into darkness but what are the chances of that?

 

[iguana_tonante]

Personal opinion, I would say no. I liked the tie in video game. I did not get the hate for it. However,Star Trek Into Darkness was not a film that I liked.

This is completely fair. I liked STID, but I understand why some people disliked it.

Most people declared star trek to be broken in year 2013.

This, however, isn't fair at all. Except if by "most people" you mean a tiny fraction of loudmouths who keep bleating about it, but are more or less irrelevant to the general appreciation of the movie.

But I have the feeling some of us already had this conversation a couple of times.

 

[BillJ]

Into Darkness made roughly $85 million more than Star Trek (2009). I wish my financial situation would show such "cracks".

 

[iguana_tonante]

Yeah but those are foreign dollars. Only real American dollars counts.

But to restate it, because I don't want to get detoured as usual with the same debate we had last time: numbers have nothing to do with the quality of the movie, or make someone "wrong" for not liking it. Crappy movies earn a shitload of money sometimes, and personal preferences and tastes are not to disputed. We all agree on that.

Critical and popular ratings, as well as box office numbers, on the other hand, have everything to do with dispelling the often-repeated myth that STID was somehow a "flop", a "bomb", or a "failure".

People can still hate it, tho.

 

[BillJ]

Based on the video game and the film(star trek into darkness) do you think 2013 was a good year for trek?

But to restate it, because I don't want to get detoured as usual with the same debate we had last time: numbers have nothing to do with the quality of the movie...

I didn't read the basic question as one of quality. Quality is, of course, highly subjective. It's hard to argue that Star Trek had a bad year when the movie made $85 million more than the previous entry.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Meh, the question was vague enough. "Good year" could mean anything, from "it made a stellar amount of money, enjoyed wide success and recognition, and reignited the franchise to an unthinkable degree" to "I liked it".

And the OP answered his own question with "personal opinion", so I guess he can be both interested in personal appreciation of the movie and the results it achieved.

(To be honest, I know nothing about the game.)

Edited to add: since the OP liked to the infamous Las Vegas "poll", let me link to this one as well.

Grade the movie
A : 54%
B : 23%
C : 14%
D : 4%
F : 5%

So, no: most people, at least here, don't think the franchise is broken, or that STID sucks.

 

[xavier]

Into Darkness made roughly $85 million more than Star Trek (2009). I wish my financial situation would show such "cracks".

Yes but that is not so great when you consider the budget, 3d and imax 3d and adjusted for inflation.

Into Darkness should have doubled the intake of the first film or at least made 600m Worldwide or even 500m Worldwide.

A perfect example is the x-men franchise. Days of Future Past has been a massive success and by tomorrow will become the highest grossing film of the year. Its so funny with the X-Men franchise because people always said it was like star trek. Both franchise just can't have a film earn half a billion worldwide despite their huge fanbase but DOFP has surprised everyone.

DOFP has grossed over 702m world wide and counting and it has just been released over a month. The first film made 356 million worldwide. the second film will probably earn over 720m-730m after its done. This should have been the outcome of Star Trek Into Darkness as well. The film should have surpassed its predecessor at the box office and not by a little.

I also enjoyed the film greatly (DOFP). it is my favorite superhero sequel. I find it much better than the Dark Knight and Winter Solider.

Into darkness was a moderate success but it was no secret that paramount is disappointed with the box office.

 

[BillJ]

Into Darkness should have doubled the intake of the first film or at least made 600m Worldwide or even 500m Worldwide.

Says who exactly? The film got dropped between Iron Man 3 and Fast and the Furious 6. There are only so many theater dollars to go around and Trek has never been a big-screen mega franchise. Though we all know the film did very, very well on Blu-ray and streaming.

Into darkness was a moderate success but it was no secret that paramount is disappointed with the box office.

So you work for Paramount? I don't think any of us actually know what they thought of the films performance.

 

[BillJ]

Edited to add: since the OP liked to the infamous Las Vegas "poll", let me link to this one as well.

Grade the movie
A : 54%
B : 23%
C : 14%
D : 4%
F : 5%

So, no: most people, at least here, don't think the franchise is broken, or that STID sucks.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/

90% of 300,000+ people who voted liked the film. Average rating of 4.3/5.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Yeah but let's talk about objective quality of the film.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Based on the video game and the film(star trek into darkness) do you think 2013 was a good year for trek?

Wait, what about the novels? And the comics? There were a dozen of each in 2013 - that's a hell of a lot of Star Trek.

Personal opinion, I would say no. I liked the tie in video game. I did not get the hate for it. However,Star Trek Into Darkness was not a film that I liked.

I picked up the game cheaply months ago, but haven't gotten to playing it yet.

The movie, I loved to bits.

Some people declared star trek to be broken in year 2013. I would not say the franchise is broken, I would say the franchise showed some cracks but it is not entirely broken.

http://trekmovie.com/2013/09/01/star-trek-is-broken-here-are-ideas-on-how-to-fix-it/

Reminds me of "Indiana Skywalker Meets the Son of Star Trek", an article from Best of Trek telling us how Wrath of Khan completely ruined Trek by turning it into a shallow Star Wars style shoot-em-up.

Orci can fix that in 2016 if he makes a superior film to into darkness but what are the chances of that?

Since I loved the last two, and Orci had a huge hand in making them what they were, shaping the characters and universe, I would say he has a good chance he'll make a hugely enjoyable movie.

Of course if you didn't like the last two movies, it's extremely unlikely you will enjoy ST3. It will essentially be more of the same.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Based on the video game and the film(star trek into darkness) do you think 2013 was a good year for trek?

Personal opinion, I would say no. I liked the tie in video game. I did not get the hate for it. However,Star Trek Into Darkness was not a film that I liked...

I'm confused. I thought this was a thread about the Star Trek Franchise? I didn't realize this was a thread about "Star Trek's edification of xavier's personal tastes."

I voted "yes" because 2013 was a great year for the franchise. The movie came out, along with a couple of new JJ verse novels, some big expansions to STO, the 2013 videogame and the IDW comic series made some inroads. But since none of that pleased you personally, I think I should change my vote to "No."

 

[BillJ]

I'm confused. I thought this was a thread about the Star Trek Franchise? I didn't realize this was a thread about "Star Trek's edification of xavier's personal tastes."

This is just another "I don't like Into Darkness" thread. Which is fine. I wish the OP hadn't tried to hide in under an "objective" sounding thread title. Because by every measurable metric, 2013 was a very good year for the franchise.

 

[Enterprise is Great]

It was horrible...everything bombed. Ok, just not in this universe but in all the trillions of them I'm sure it all went horribly wrong in one of them.

 

[M'Sharak]

Into darkness was a moderate success but it was no secret that paramount is disappointed with the box office.

I've seen that claim made before (about Paramount being disappointed) but has there ever been verifiable evidence of the truth of the claim, or does it remain still in the realm of "it was no secret" or "we all know" or some equivalent state of "common knowledge lacking concrete and identifiable source"?

 

[xavier]

Into darkness was a moderate success but it was no secret that paramount is disappointed with the box office.

I've seen that claim made before (about Paramount being disappointed) but has there ever been verifiable evidence of the truth of the claim, or does it remain still in the realm of "it was no secret" or "we all know" or some equivalent state of "common knowledge lacking concrete and identifiable source"?

Sorry,Thanks for the advice.

I hope this are good sources.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=79933

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/...lms-that-barely-made-a-profit.html/?a=viewall

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...-debut-falls-short-in-crowded-box-office.html

Paramount also plans to cut the budget of the next film. they made this decision based on the box office results of Into Darkness.

Source:

http://screencrush.com/star-trek-3-budget/

http://screencrush.com/star-trek-3-budget/

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CD4QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftrekmovie.com%2F2013%2F11%2F11%2Fsummer-box-office-budget-reduction-trek-3-tidbits%2F&ei=00-vU4y1C4asOOPTgMgE&usg=AFQjCNFzhBOjSEoGop6kKIXkQ9d4SBwQkQ

 

[austen_pierce]

IMO Any year in which we get a theatrical release is a good year for the franchise.

The fact that there WILL be a ST3, to me, demonstrates the success of Into Darkness.

 

[The Doctor]

Some people declared star trek to be broken in year 2013.

It's not.

http://trekmovie.com/2013/09/13/editorial-star-trek-is-not-broken/

2013 was a excellent year for Trek, propelling it to new levels of popularity all round the world.

 

[M'Sharak]

Into darkness was a moderate success but it was no secret that paramount is disappointed with the box office.

I've seen that claim made before (about Paramount being disappointed) but has there ever been verifiable evidence of the truth of the claim, or does it remain still in the realm of "it was no secret" or "we all know" or some equivalent state of "common knowledge lacking concrete and identifiable source"?

Sorry,Thanks for the advice.

I hope this are good sources.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=79933

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/...lms-that-barely-made-a-profit.html/?a=viewall

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...-debut-falls-short-in-crowded-box-office.html

Paramount also plans to cut the budget of the next film. they made this decision based on the box office results of Into Darkness.

Source:

http://screencrush.com/star-trek-3-budget/

http://screencrush.com/star-trek-3-budget/

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CD4QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftrekmovie.com%2F2013%2F11%2F11%2Fsummer-box-office-budget-reduction-trek-3-tidbits%2F&ei=00-vU4y1C4asOOPTgMgE&usg=AFQjCNFzhBOjSEoGop6kKIXkQ9d4SBwQkQ

Three of those are speculation by uninvolved parties, based on the failure of opening weekend receipts to equal some pretty ridiculous projected box-office figures by other uninvolved parties. One of your links re: the reduced budget (more uninvolved parties) is posted twice.

Only the last-linked piece cites "a studio source" (who remains unnamed and who appears not to have had any direct involvement with STID.) His quoted remark was to the effect that he thought STID's budget should have been $20 million lower and that filming should have been done outside Los Angeles - in other words: exactly the same as has been reported for the third installment.

So no, those links don't really support the assertion.

 

[dammitjim6400]

OTE=M'Sharak;9769789]

Into darkness was a moderate success but it was no secret that paramount is disappointed with the box office.

I've seen that claim made before (about Paramount being disappointed) but has there ever been verifiable evidence of the truth of the claim, or does it remain still in the realm of "it was no secret" or "we all know" or some equivalent state of "common knowledge lacking concrete and identifiable source"?

I can't send you a PM so I'll briefly say you offended me, my friend. You had NO right to close a thread (10 reasons why I hate Star trek into Darkness)that stated a persons views of a movie. Just because some don't like or appreciate JJ Abrams Trek dosen't make them a villian, as a moderator you should know better. And by twisting MY meaning of the word protuberant it only shows your bad intentions, I consider what you did as prejudice and Harassment.As a new member I thought posting here would be fun, it's not. I hope you're real proud, you're a sad individual.