The Star Trek Franchise in Year 2013

[SPCTRE]

One of the articles xavier mentioned to support his claim even quotes Rob Moore (emphasis mine).

In an interview, Rob Moore, vice chairman of Paramount Pictures, emphasized the film’s international prospects, and said he expects the movie to hold up well domestically against the coming releases “The Hangover Part III,” from Time Warner Inc. (TWX)’s Warner Bros., and Universal Pictures’ “Fast & Furious 6,” which he said skew to older audiences. He acknowledged the “much more competitive environment this week.”

“I think we’re poised for a great run through the summer,” Moore said. “This franchise is now in great shape going forward.”

 

[johnjm22]

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"?

http://www.blastr.com/2013-11-12/what-disappointing-darkness-box-office-means-star-trek-3

 

[BillJ]

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"?

http://www.blastr.com/2013-11-12/what-disappointing-darkness-box-office-means-star-trek-3

Ah! The nameless studio source. Always a solid source of information.

 

[Mudd]

Could a little belt-tightening help the makers of Star Trek 3 focus less on spectacle and more on a great story?

No.

 

[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"?

http://www.blastr.com/2013-11-12/what-disappointing-darkness-box-office-means-star-trek-3

blastr.com cites the very same Hollywood Reporter piece cited in the last-linked story from Post #16 upthread.

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/

[This one. - M']--> 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.

(emphasis mine)​

 

[Alex1939]

Star Trek is dead. It is pretty much Transformers at this point and I only see it for the brief nostalgia I feel while watching. Just another sucker giving up my money. Luckily for me dropping 10-20 isn't a big decision.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Star Trek is dead. It is pretty much Transformers at this point and I only see it for the brief nostalgia I feel while watching. Just another sucker giving up my money. Luckily for me dropping 10-20 isn't a big decision.

If you're gonna continue paying for it, it's not dead. It's just not what it used to be - just like when the classic movies came along in 1979, or TNG in 1987, or... (etc)

 

[CorporalClegg]

Star Trek is dead.

Man, I hope I wind up just as dead.

 

[BillJ]

Star Trek is dead.

Man, I hope I wind up just as dead.

+1

 

[austen_pierce]

Star Trek is dead.

Man, I hope I wind up just as dead.

+1

+2 We're between big budget feature films. For whatever reason PHV just gave us the long-salivated-for comprehensive NuTrek bluray editions. Dead? SMH

'Dead' was where we were when Nemesis ended TNG-Trek and ENT got cancelled. That was dead.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I don't understand the poll. Is it a truth or false question or is it actually asking for our opinion on whether it was actually good or bad, as in "did I like this year or not"? There seems to be a lot of confusion over that because some are posting their opinions while others are insisting that it couldn't have been a bad year because Trek made a lot of money and such.

 

[austen_pierce]

I don't understand the poll. Is it a truth or false question or is it actually asking for our opinion on whether it was actually good or bad, as in "did I like this year or not"? There seems to be a lot of confusion over that because some are posting their opinions while others are insisting that it couldn't have been a bad year because Trek made a lot of money and such.

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

Personally, I've used the latter of the answers you've cited, but the OP does ask '..do you think..', so it's an opinion poll. Cheers!

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Of course it was a good year, there was Star Trek. Versus years with no Star Trek.

 

[SPCTRE]

Of course it was a good year, there was Star Trek. Versus years with no Star Trek.

An excellent point.

 

[austen_pierce]

It also depends greatly on your definition of 'Trek'. If you are an original continuity purist, your best days are behind you.

 

[BillJ]

It also depends greatly on your definition of 'Trek'. If you are an original continuity purist, your best days are behind you.

Not really. The whole point of the direction they went was to keep a connection to the original universe.

If this series goes beyond three films, I wholly expect we'll revisit the original universe (though the characters they use will be recast).

 

[Cyke101]

To me, 2013 is just another year in the franchise, no different than 1989 or 1995 or 2001. Trek is in my life, but not so momentous that I have to judge it like wine ("I'll take the '92 TNG, please. Slightly chilled.") The good stuff and the bad stuff alike take years to develop with a franchise this big.

At the very least, however, we're not in a drought like 2005-2009. And that's quite good enough for me.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Well then, I suppose I'll put in "no", because I really didn't enjoy what 2013 offered with STID.

 

[austen_pierce]

It also depends greatly on your definition of 'Trek'. If you are an original continuity purist, your best days are behind you.

Not really. The whole point of the direction they went was to keep a connection to the original universe.

If this series goes beyond three films, I wholly expect we'll revisit the original universe (though the characters they use will be recast).

Interesting.... do you expect that we'll cross back over in the same (TOS) time, revisit events in the Prime Universe after Nemesis, or treat us to something else?

 

[Greg Cox]

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.

And the books are regularly hitting the bestseller lists again.