Variety: 'Star Trek' moved from Christmas '08 to May '09
- Thread starter Lawrence B
- Start date
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
If it were the same Paramount as before, I MIGHT agree...but it isn't. This is the CBS version of Paramount. It doesn't have the benefit of the "brain trust" of the Trek office the old Paramount maintained for almost 20 years. No matter how enthused, JJ and crew are the newcomers, the outsiders. They don't have that deep understanding and connection to Trek that the old office did. Not saying they can't turn in a good movie, not at all...just pointing out just how handicapped they are by their circumstances.
Now the REAL question is: just HOW does changing who sits in what chair at the Paramount boardroom affect the production of the movie in any way? They claim to have a script they're happy with, production is on schedule, and "everyone is pleased"...BUT they push back release 5 months into the 09 "busy season", throwing a franchise film with a questionable recent track record against some of the most anticipated films of that year...
Something just doesn't add up here...
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Based on WHAT, Dennis? Trek is, was, and always will be a niche or franchise film. Do they really have THAT much faith in the JJ Adams brand name to pull it into the mainstream (where only IV ever went)?
EVERYTHING we know about the last 20 years of Trek argues AGAINST this move...what is it you think they are seeing that overcomes that?
NNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Oh well i suppose if it helps make the movie a hit money wise then i cant really complain.
Oh well i suppose if it helps make the movie a hit money wise then i cant really complain.
I'm 24 now. When I was 21, I went out with a guy who was 35. My current boyfriend is 22. Age is relative. So... I don't understand the mindset, either. Will being older impair your ability to enjoy Star Trek?
A
Amaris
Guest
This move really makes perfect sense only if you believe that the Paramount 'suits' have a lot of faith in this new Star Trek movie.
The writer's strike delayed production of movies that were to be released in 2009, thereby creating a relative dearth of new releases for that year. Paramount is delaying several movies previously scheduled for a late 2008 release in order to even out the releases over the next two years.
The fact that they chose Star Trek for their May release indicates that of all the films they will have available by then, they think Star Trek has the greatest chance to succeed in that time frame.
Simple.
---------------
Batman, Superman, Iron Man, Spiderman, and the X-Men aren't niches? Of course "Star Trek" is a niche. But like Spiderman or Batman, that doesn't mean the movie can't generate buzz that it's entertaining for a general audience. Like people who aren't football or soccer fans but watch the Super Bowl or the World Cup, it becomes an event.
The successful Trek movies all grossed the equivalent of $200 million or more domestically in 2007 dollars. That would make any one of them a top ten grossing movie of 2006 or 2007.
Maybe Trek fans tend to be cynical, skeptical, and a bit paranoid, but Paramout might think it has a good enough product on its hands here that with the right treatment, a huge gross ($250 million or more domestically) is possible.
Again, this is a simple business move. A way to potentially make them more money. And it's probably a good move overall. Most movies do well in the early spring and summer. Even the not so good ones. I do still think it will be tweaked and worked on more with the extra 5 months they have. It's not like it's going to sit on shelf all that time.
darkwing_duck1 said:
Sounds suspiciously like "We're very pleased..."
So very very true.
Only if one has a tin ear.
Actually, from Christmas on... we're talking a MAXIMUM of five months (that's if it's at the END of May). If it's at the BEGINNING of May (oh, say, May 8th), that's more like four months... right? (Actually, it's exactly 20 weeks, if ya wanna be completely accurate!)Dar70 said:Its only another 6 months, not year and a half.
Well, just because there are more big movies out it doesn't necessarily have to mean Trek will have a disappointing box office. Spider-Man and Attack of the Clones opened within two weeks of each other, and both those movies had huge box offices.
No more handicapped than Harve Bennett was back in 1982. And really, while Berman had a good run for the half of his tenure in the Trek office, do we really want the guy who brought you Voyager, Enterprise, Insurrection, and Nemesis there offering Abrams advice and running interference with the "suits" (all of whom have changed, so his long-running relationships with them aren't really so long-running)?
The last thing a new Trek production needs is "advice" from the producers and suits that oversaw the last decade of Trek movies.
MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY! I had this all planned...down to the minute! Once could make equal arguments about this being bad or good. I think there is something they want to rewrite or shoot...we know these days almost as much money is made selling movie crap, and they will miss the holiday season, at least the 2008 one. It's much more of a roll of the dice going in May, at Christmas, they were a big fish in a little pond. Now they will have a lot more competition...
If it was being moved to January or February 2009, I'd be thinking, "Aw jeez, this is gonna suck" But there's no chance in hell Paramount would be pushing the film to the summer unless they had a tremendous amount of confidence in the product.
Similar threads
