Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Star Trek movie

1678911

Comments

  • DragonSharkDragonShark Member UncommonPosts: 227

    Should add that the 10 year gap was arguably the most important period in Star Trek's history, simply because that was when the fan buildup began with the reruns. Without that period, there would have been no more Star Trek, period.

  • ktanner3ktanner3 Member UncommonPosts: 4,061
    Originally posted by AgtSmith


     
    And Wolverine has only been out for 1 more week than ST yet it is over 30 Mil ahead - how can you argue they are more similar than different?  Yes, it seems JJ ST has more legs than does Wolverine but it is also dramatically weak oversees (low 30% of WW verse most hits that are in mid to high 40s or 50s).  But forgetting that, and assuming it will eclipse Wolverine at some point - exactly how long a run will it need to get to the level of other true blockbusters like Ironman, Casino Royal, Transformers, and so on? It only pulled $12 Mil last weekend so likely will be well under even that this weekend and beyond - it will take quite a long time for JJ ST to reach past good summer flick to $500 or $700 million blockbuster like the previously mentioned recent blockbusters (not films from the 70s and 80s). 



     

    Now you're talking 700 million. The goal posts just keep moving farther away don't they? First, we started with whether or not this movie was good. Then we moved on to whether or not it had legs.Then we moved to it never reaching 300 million. Then we moved to 500 million and now you throw out 700 million. No one here cares about the box office take of this film or what you yourself consider to be a blockbuster(which so far you are the only one to bring up.) We're now going in circles because once again you forget the recent history of X-Men films compared to Star Trek films. Wolverine rode the coatails of a succesful franchise while Star Trek had a horrible history that it has to wipe away and start fresh with. That is why Wolverine is considered a failure and Star Trek isn't. Without the recent successes of the X-men films, Wolverine wouldn't be doing squat.Moist people who have seen it agree that it is not very good while the most people who see Star Trek say it is excellent. Same thing happened when Batman was rebooted. Batman Begins did well, but it had to erase the awful memories of the previous films and wasn't a AgtSmith type blockbuster. Of course neither was the X-men series nor most other popular movies. Again, this is an unrealistic expectation that only you seem to care about.

    Currently Playing: World of Warcraft

  • ktanner3ktanner3 Member UncommonPosts: 4,061

    Do you want to see a sequel to the new 'Star Trek?'

    86.6% Yes.

    8.6% I don't care.

    4.8% No.

    2,873 users polled. (This poll is now closed.)

     

    Do you want to see a sequel to 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine?'

    43.3% Yes.

    32.9% No.

    23.9% I don't care.

    2,637 users polled. (This poll is now closed.)

     

    Polls done at Box Office Mojo.If you don't like those results we can try rottentomatoes....

    Star Trek rating:95 %

    Wolverine rating:36%

    Those numbers mean a whole lot more than whether or not a movie hits 700 million. The future of a Wolverine series looks bleak while the future of the Star Trek series looks very promising.

    Currently Playing: World of Warcraft

  • ktanner3ktanner3 Member UncommonPosts: 4,061

     

    Since adjusted for inflation means so much....

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_domestic_box_office_gross_for_Star_Trek_The_Motion_Picture_1979_adjusted_for_inflation_2009

     

    Based on numbers from Boxoffice.com, Star Trek: The Motion Picture is king of the hill for the ST movies, generating $239,115,674 in inflation-adjusted dollars as of 2009, beating Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (the save-the-whales movie), which holds the number two position. (Voyage Home still holds the record when not adjusted for inflation, logging in with $109,713,132 in 1986 dollars.)

    Star Trek: Nemesis, the final film to feature The Next Generation cast, is by and away the least successful film in the series, only grossing $43,254,409 in 2002, nearly killing the ST movie series after twenty-three years.

    A new Star Trek movie featuring the original characters was officially released 5/8/09 and grossed $72.5 million its opening weekend (and $76.5 million its first four days), setting a new opening weekend record for Star Trek, inflation adjusted or not. It is on pace to eclipse Star Trek IV's gross record and based on strong reviews has an excellent chance of eclipsing ST: TMP's inflation-adjusted domestic and international ST records.

    Domestic -- Inflation Adjusted

    Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979): $239,115,674

    Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986): $212,328,919

    Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982): $192,290,437

    Star Trek III: The Search For Spock (1984): $163,237,856

    Star Trek: First Contact (1996): $149,493,266

    Star Trek: Generations (1994): $129,980,545

    Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991): $127,720,425

    Star Trek: Insurrection (1998): $107,451,468

    Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989): $93,951,918

    Star Trek: Nemesis (2002): $53,387,173

     

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As of June 2,2009

    Star Trek (2009) : $211,908,809

    That puts it third all time for the franchise after only four weeks. In a few weeks it will be number one in the history of the franchise no matter which measuring stick is used.

    Currently Playing: World of Warcraft

  • AgtSmithAgtSmith Member Posts: 1,498

    Oh, a poll at some website says that - gee, my bad.  Of course the fact that Wolverine cost a tad less and has made more than ST is irrelevant if a website poll says something different.  What was I thinking.



     

    As for 500 Mil or 700 Mil, whatever the number you want to say makes a blockbuster is pretty clear that JJ ST, while a success and a good summer movie, is anything but a big time blockbuster as a comparison shows it has far more in common with an average summer success than any blockbuster of recent years.  You might want to ignore this reality but it is reality nonetheless.  Wolverine has more in common with JJ ST than does any legitimate blockbuster of recent summers and the numbers make that very, very clear.



     

    And Ktanner3, your info makes my point.  Your numbers, presuming they are correct (and I have no reason to doubt you cited them correctly) show exactly what I am saying.  Go adjust the cost of those other movies for inflation and you can see the big difference I am talking about.  I recall The Voyage Home had an ROI of like 7:1 meaning that it made $7 dollars for ever $1 it cost to produce - JJ ST is around 1:1 now and I doubt in the end it will get much better than maybe 1:1.5 if even that.  So how healthy is rebooted ST if it is now in a genre where it takes $160 or $200 Mil per film to top the last one and is so close to only returning $1 for each $1 spent.  The franchise was much better off in its niche where a good product would return far more than was invested making the risk of making each film far less than big summer series films cost (i.e. hundreds of mil).  So for all the talk of hits and reboots all they did was take a historically VERY profitable franchise and reduce it to ordinary summer action film status where you spend hundreds of mil to hopefully get back a 1:1 or maybe a little better.  It can work, we will get a sequel, but as soon as the short attention span of summer audiences wanes the studio will not be so willing to fork over $200 Mil to try again.  All it takes is one flick, like you see with Wolverine, barely making more than that 1:1 to end the franchise.

     

    Look, all this back and forth is silly.  I am not saying JJ ST is not a profitable summer movie, but it is nowhere near the runaway blockbuster you get from summer to summer.  Also, if you look at prior ST movies and consider their adjusted gross verse their cost to make and compare than to JJ STs gross verse its cost to make you can see this movie is barely middle of the pack in terms of what it made for what it cost.  And as far as long terms franchise health goes little matters more than ROI, what it costs and waht you make from that cost.  Yes, TNG movies where getting bad - of this there is no doubt.  ST needed something fresh for sure as, I think, the TNG crew was just wrong for the big screen (except Stewert).  But they could have refreshed things without turning ST in to a typical formula summer action movie as summer action franchises have a very limited shelf life typically being only as healthy as their last gross verse cost (i.e. look at x-men now in trouble with one movie in the series barely bringing in 1:1 ROI and that is all JJ ST is doing).

    --------------------------------
    Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
    Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD

  • ktanner3ktanner3 Member UncommonPosts: 4,061
    Originally posted by AgtSmith


     
     
    Oh, a poll at some website says that - gee, my bad.  Of course the fact that Wolverine cost a tad less and has made more than ST is irrelevant if a website poll says something different.  What was I thinking.
    Another dodge. I guess reviews mean absolutely nothing when evaluating a movie. Only the box office matters 

    As for 500 Mil or 700 Mil, whatever the number you want to say makes a blockbuster ....
    Correction, whatever number YOU say wants to make a blockbuster. You're the only one in this thread that has a hang up with this.


     

    And Ktanner3, your info makes my point.  Your numbers, presuming they are correct (and I have no reason to doubt you cited them correctly) show exactly what I am saying.  Go adjust the cost of those other movies for inflation and you can see the big difference I am talking about.  I recall The Voyage Home had an ROI of like 7:1 meaning that it made $7 dollars for ever $1 it cost to produce - JJ ST is around 1:1 now and I doubt in the end it will get much better than maybe 1:1.5 if even that.  So how healthy is rebooted ST if it is now in a genre where it takes $160 or $200 Mil per film to top the last one and is so close to only returning $1 for each $1 spent.  The franchise was much better off in its niche where a good product would return far more than was invested making the risk of making each film far less than big summer series films cost (i.e. hundreds of mil).  So for all the talk of hits and reboots all they did was take a historically VERY profitable franchise and reduce it to ordinary summer action film status where you spend hundreds of mil to hopefully get back a 1:1 or maybe a little better.  It can work, we will get a sequel, but as soon as the short attention span of summer audiences wanes the studio will not be so willing to fork over $200 Mil to try again.  All it takes is one flick, like you see with Wolverine, barely making more than that 1:1 to end the franchise.
    That bolded part almost made me fall out of my chair. The original star wars trilogy alone made more than the entire history of the Star Trek movie franchise. The budgets for the original cast were kept low on purpose because the studio knew that the movies only returned so much. Once the studio saw the diminishing returns they retired the old cast which by the way, happened over 15 years ago. And this hang up you have with ROI is silly.
     I guess  the Blair Witch Project is a great movie because it cost $60,000 to make and made over 140 million dollars. I guess all those people who called it crap weren't paying enough attention to the ROI. Puh-leez.  
     

     
     
    Look, all this back and forth is silly.  I am not saying JJ ST is not a profitable summer movie, but it is nowhere near the runaway blockbuster you get from summer to summer. 
    That sentence makes no sense and no one cares about your definition of a blockbuster. Here is the real definition of a blockbuster:
    "Something, such as a film or book, that sustains widespread popularity and achieves enormous sales."
    http://www.answers.com/topic/blockbuster
    Based on the fact that Star Trek(2009) has achieved enormous sales and has reached wider popularity than it has had in decades, that makes this movie a blockbuster.



     

     

    Currently Playing: World of Warcraft

  • DragonSharkDragonShark Member UncommonPosts: 227
    Originally posted by spankybus


    I hate to rain on the nerd parade, but this flick was more like the original series then anything Ive seen thus far. period.
     
    I grew up watching reruns of TOS on channel 6 after school. It didn't take itself too seriously that it couldn't screw off. teh dynamics between bones, spock and Kirk made the show. This show has earned some of that back.
     
    I loved TNG, voyager was ok, and i never got into DS9. I didn't mind enterprise so much, though i didn't watch it regularly. Personally, i lok forward to more of these movies. It was a great time, which is what a movie is supposed to be....

    This movie wasn't that much like the original series, sorry. Maybe the next one, but this one didn't have it.

     

  • AgtSmithAgtSmith Member Posts: 1,498

    Of course dollars is what matters in defining a blockbuster, reviews are irrelevant to blockbuster status and even success as movies are commercial ventures.  But it isn't about whether or not people and/or critics think JJ ST sucks, clearly they don't and even I don't say that it does, it is about where it rates compared to other films of its genre or type (the action flick or summer movie).  I am just saying that it is hardly a blockbuster when you compare it to other such films.  It far more closely compares with Wolverine than anything else you you declare JJ ST a mega hit and Wolverine a failure.  How can a movie that cost a tad less that JJ ST and has to date made more than $35 Mil more be a flop while JJ ST is a major blockbuster?  And how can JJ ST be a blockbuster when other similar big time action movies do from $400 to $700 Mil and more all the time? 

     

    ROI matters, it matters a lot.  Wolverine is a disappointment because Hollywood doesn't invest $150 Mil to get back $150 Mil they want to get well more back than they put in.  Look at the previous X-Men movies and you can see the decline in ROI from the ones though to be hits verse this one called a disappointment.  All I am saying is that ST, while certainly higher profile now than before, cannot be a blockbuster reinvented and rebooted amazing smash hit if it is struggling to out do Wolverine which is a disappointing example of a summer action franchise fizzling out.  Wolverine is now at $342 Mil, JJ ST is at $314 Mil, both very similar and both far from blockbusters. 

     

    Heck, Just look at the unadjusted gross all time list and tell me this anything but what I said - another summer or action flick, good enough but nothing to write home about.  Look at some of the movies around where ST is (and keep in mind the list is NOT adjusted for inflation so those movies more than a few years old would rank up higher in real dollars).  It just passed that massive blockbuster Chicken Little and who can forget 2005's smash sensation about a animated chicken or something or whatever.  It still has a ways to go to catch up to Batman Forever, you know the old Batman so bad it needed to be rebooted.  But fear not our winged friends it did finally overtake that massive smash Ocean's Thirteen a few days ago, by a little bit anyways.  It is limping to catch up to another franchise movie so bad that it also needed to be rebooted, The World is not Enough parked well in front of JJ ST at an unadjusted $361 Mil.  How does JJ ST stack up against Superman Returns, a reboot of a franchise that was so bad as to have the next movie reboot the reboot (in 2011 I think it is due) - well it trails by around $70 Mil unadjusted.  So it is not so hard to see why it is fair to say this is not a bigtime blockbuster, in the end (especially if talking in real dollars) it is just another summer flick, in terms of dollars certainly not bad but nowhere near what is expected of big budget marquee summer/action flicks (a.k.a. the comparisons to Bond, Wolverine, Batman, etc preceding).  But now ST is in the summer/action venue and with that comes the bigger budgets and necessarily bigger expectations.

     

    Oh wait, forget all I said - I just noticed that JJ ST is getting close to overtaking The Devil Wears Prada ($326 Mil).  Now I am impressed.  How could I have ever said this was just another big budget Hollywood flick and not a smashing hit blockbuster.  Wow, about to surpass The Devil Wears Prada - I suppose if the action flick genre tapers off for JJ's ST maybe it can get something with Spock and Uhuru going in the romantic comedy or chick flick genres.

    --------------------------------
    Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
    Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD

  • ktanner3ktanner3 Member UncommonPosts: 4,061
    Originally posted by AgtSmith


    Of course dollars is what matters in defining a blockbuster, reviews are irrelevant to blockbuster status and even success as movies are commercial ventures........ 
     ROI matters, it matters a lot.......
    Heck, Just look at the unadjusted gross all time list ......



     

    Number one movie domestically for 2009. That's what matters right now. No one cares about where it ranks all time or ROI because it hasn't ended it's run yet.

    Currently Playing: World of Warcraft

  • AgtSmithAgtSmith Member Posts: 1,498

    And who is dodging now?  First it is a major blockbuster then I show how it is not even beating a film you call a fail and now you change to domestic 2009 as if half way through the year that is serisouly a legitimate determinite of true blockbuster status.  If JJ ST cannot even out gross a fail (your words) like Wolverine then enough with the proclimations of it as the greatest thing since sliced bread - heck, beat The Devil Wears Prada even before you make that claim.  I suppose we will just keep going round and round until Transformers 2 comes out in a couple weeks and trounces JJ ST like Sulu with a foldy swordsaber.  Face it, JJ ST did well but is in know way a notworthy smash - it is just a good summer flick in terms of its box office draw.  All fine and dandy for typical summer or action movies but hardly the reboot claimed especially given how X-Men is likely being killed from Wolverine's poor performance which happens to be better than JJ STs performance.

    --------------------------------
    Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
    Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD

  • ktanner3ktanner3 Member UncommonPosts: 4,061

     

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2594&p=.htm

    "Among nationwide holdovers, Star Trek saw the smallest slide, down 33 percent to an estimated $8.4 million. Logging $222.8 million in 31 days, it flew past Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan to become the second-biggest movie of the Star Trek franchise adjusted for ticket price inflation, and it has set a course for the top spot currently held by the first movie, Star Trek: The Motion Picture. "

    This will happen in about another week.I can't wait to see the cult's reaction when that happens.

     

    Currently Playing: World of Warcraft

  • BrenelaelBrenelael Member UncommonPosts: 3,821

    I'm just wondering when you all are going to figure out that Smith will keep this going as long as all of you do. It's his MO on here and he'll NEVER agree with you no matter how hard you try or how many facts you post that prove him wrong. Please just give it up now as it's a lost cause you're fighting. You all need to ask yourselves one thing before you continue this... Do any of you really give two shits what AgtSmith thinks of Star Trek anyways? I know I don't.

     

    Bren

    while(horse==dead)
    {
    beat();
    }

  • ktanner3ktanner3 Member UncommonPosts: 4,061
    Originally posted by themilton

    Originally posted by ktanner3


    ...
    The Bad: I've already stated my opinion on re-boots so I won't rehash them here. But taking that into consideration, there was still some parts that didn't feel right.

    ...
    The love affair between Spock and Uhura also makes no sense. Spock just never struck me as the type of character who would carry on  a relationship with a cadet because that wouldn't be logical. Vulcans take wives only because it is logical for the survival of the species. That is what seperates them from humans.
    ...



     

    Putting on the pointed ears again:

    Um, what about the Pon-farr (sp?)? Well, I guess that's still survival of the species. That whole have sex or die problem.

    In TOS, Spock and Uhura seemed to have a connection beyond that of fellow officers. Uhura got Spock more than Nurse Chapel ever did. I think their mutual appreciation and musical ability allowed them a different bond than what they had with the other officers. But I agree with the cadet issue. Even this Spock would not have gone so far as to have an inappropriate relationship with a cadet.



     

    Sorry I missed this one. The only hint of a relationship I saw Uhura have was with Scotty in Star Trek V.It was very quickly forgotten, probably because most people wanted to pretend that movie never happened.

    Currently Playing: World of Warcraft

  • ktanner3ktanner3 Member UncommonPosts: 4,061
    Originally posted by ktanner3

    Originally posted by spankybus


    I hate to rain on the nerd parade, but this flick was more like the original series then anything Ive seen thus far. period.
     
    I grew up watching reruns of TOS on channel 6 after school. It didn't take itself too seriously that it couldn't screw off. teh dynamics between bones, spock and Kirk made the show. This show has earned some of that back.
     
    I loved TNG, voyager was ok, and i never got into DS9. I didn't mind enterprise so much, though i didn't watch it regularly. Personally, i lok forward to more of these movies. It was a great time, which is what a movie is supposed to be....



     

    Well said. I can easily go back and pick out numerous inaccuracies in the past movies that conflicted with what the T.V show had established. Interesting how the naysayers convienently forget that fact. Star Trek broke its own canon on numerous occasions so I fail to see how this movie is any more blasphemous than the others. Let's consider and nitpick..

    The Motion Picture: The Klingons we are introduced to look completely different than what we saw in the show. They go from looking like humans with go-tees to animals with ridges.

    The Wrath of Khan:

    -Khan recognizes Chekov even though Chekov wasn’t on the enterprise during that period 15 years before.

    -Khan had opportunities to kill Kirk that he seemed to miss. Such as when he was able to beam up the Genesis device but for some reason couldn’t beam up Kirk. What about that superior intellect?

    -A person that has a genetically enhanced brain isn't going to think two dimensionlly.

    -Why follow the enterprise into the nebula when you can just wait for them to come out?

    -Where was the rest of Starfleet during all this? Two federation ships are fighting each other in Federation territory and NO ONE notices?

    The Search for Spock

    -The whole concept of how they brought Spock back was completely absurd. From the torpedo soft landing to Spock’s body reanimating as a child that conveniently grows to the appropriate age and then stops.

    The Voyage Home

    -So if I wanted to go back in time all I would have to do is fly a ship around the sun? Amazing.

    The Final Frontier

    -Sulu and Chekov getting lost. Please, they are navigators on a ship.

    -Ditto to Scotty hitting his head

    -The half brother thing between Spock and Sybok was pretty lame. Never mentioned in the show before and all of sudden there he is.

    -It makes no sense for the enterprise crew that had been loyal to Kirk all those years to just all of a sudden abandon him because of one “experience with their pain.”

    The Undiscovered Country

    -Klingon blood appears to be purple but on TNG it is red. Which one is it?

    -No Klingon death chant for the chancellor of the high council?

    -Uhura has been a communications officer and linguistics expert for 20+ years and she never learned to speak Klingon?

    -How can two officers from the enterprise beam over to a ship, execute people and then beam back without anyone noticing? We know Valeris was involved but she was on the bridge during all this. Who was in the transporter room to beam the assassins back? How come there wasn’t an alert to the bridge that the transporter was being used?

     

    Generations

    -Why not stop Soren by going back in time further? Why not go back to when he is on your ship?

    -How did Soren transport over to the observatory when the captain said he wasn’t allowing anyone there until the investigation was complete?

    -Scotty’s appearance conflicts with the episode he did in season six where he thinks Jim Kirk brought the ship of out of mothballs to rescue him. Surely if he witnesses Kirks death on the Enterprise B he would remember this death when he materializes 75 years later.

    -The captain of the enterprise B is too incompetent to be a believable starship captain.

    First Contact

    -Zeprham Cochrane is completely different from the character we saw in TOS.

    -The Borg Queen completely changes the Borg from a collective mind to a dictator like society.



     

    Guess none of those movies are any good either. Interestingly enough I can spot more innaccuracies with the TOS movies than I can the TNG ones and those are held up by the die hards as the best ones. Curious...



     

    Interesting that the few who were bashing this movie because of supposed plot holes didn't want to touch this post....

    Currently Playing: World of Warcraft

  • ktanner3ktanner3 Member UncommonPosts: 4,061
    Originally posted by Brenelael


    I'm just wondering when you all are going to figure out that Smith will keep this going as long as all of you do. It's his MO on here and he'll NEVER agree with you no matter how hard you try or how many facts you post that prove him wrong. Please just give it up now as it's a lost cause you're fighting. You all need to ask yourselves one thing before you continue this... Do any of you really give two shits what AgtSmith thinks of Star Trek anyways? I know I don't.
     
    Bren



     

    No, but I've always enjoyed playing with the hardcore Trekkies. They are like a cult and it's fun to see the reaction you get when you expose their illusions.

    Currently Playing: World of Warcraft

  • AgtSmithAgtSmith Member Posts: 1,498

    I am no hard core Trekkie, I have just enjoyed the franchise over the years - I liked all the series save DS9 and most of the movies except past the first or second TNG movie.  I just find it silly that on the one hand ST is a big smashing hit while Wolverine is a tanked failure when wolverine cost a tad less and is still beating ST in gross (currently at ST 324 Mil and Wolv 344 Mil).  My point in the comparison is that we all can hear how Wolverine's performance is possibly going o end the X-Men series so how is a worse/similar performance by JJ ST going to relaunch ST to new heights?  Those two things do not make sense.

     

    I will say again what I have said all through this thread, JJ ST was a decent to good summer action flick but not the kind of rousing blockbuster many are calling it.  Yes, it will probably get a sequel but the success fo this movie is not enough to sustain it beyond the success of that sequel, in other words this is not the kind of blockbuster that will setup the franchise for years to come.  If you are fine with ST now being just another summer action franchise then more power to you, if you are like me and have allways enjoyed ST for being different than most Hollywood crap and even unique in the SciFi genre then too bad.

     

    Originally posted by ktanner3 


    Interesting that the few who were bashing this movie because of supposed plot holes didn't want to touch this post....

    I addressed what he said in other posts.  All movies have plot issues especially SciFi.  My issue was that this movie had no counter depth or substance it was just all a series of plot holes and convenient o plot elements to advance from action sequence to action sequence.  Coupled with the poor character development, save maybe Spock which was later undone with the Uhuru making out, it was just a shallow action flick even if visually interesting and superficially fun.

     

    Think about Batman Begins, that movie was not particuarly great in terms of the movie itself but what it did really well was lay the groundwork for the new Batman, the dark Batman who struggles with his duality and all that.  Because of the groundwork they could do Batman: The Dark Knight and that was a great movie.  But with JJ ST they just glossed over any depth and so where do they have to go - nowhere.  No need to develop Kirk into a great leader let's just have him go from drunken bar brawler to cadet to first officer in the span of a few mimnutes of screen time, then to Captain in less than an hour.  That just isn't the basis for anything but more midless, albeit it entertaining, action stuff down the road.

    --------------------------------
    Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
    Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD

  • ktanner3ktanner3 Member UncommonPosts: 4,061
    Originally posted by Wyluli
     Gene Roddenberry is rolling in his grave. (Or rather, spinning with agitation in his little tube in orbit)



     

    Gene Rodenberry hated every one of the movies with the exception of the "Motion Picture", which is the only one he had full control over. After the horrible reviews it got(many criticized it for  it's boring pace), he was stripped of all future control and relegated to "consultant."  He criticized every movie afterward from 2-6 saying they were too violent and too militaristic.The movie franchise would never have lasted if he had stayed on, because he always kept pitching that stupid idea of the Enterprise going back in time and stopping the Kennedy Assasination.So his opinion of this movie would be irrelevent even if he were still alive.

    Currently Playing: World of Warcraft

  • AgtSmithAgtSmith Member Posts: 1,498
    Originally posted by ktanner3

    Originally posted by Wyluli
     Gene Roddenberry is rolling in his grave. (Or rather, spinning with agitation in his little tube in orbit)

     

    Gene Rodenberry hated every one of the movies with the exception of the "Motion Picture", which is the only one he had full control over. After the horrible reviews it got(many criticized it for  it's boring pace), he was stripped of all future control and relegated to "consultant."  He criticized every movie afterward from 2-6 saying they were too violent and too militaristic.The movie franchise would never have lasted if he had stayed on, because he always kept pitching that stupid idea of the Enterprise going back in time and stopping the Kennedy Assasination.So his opinion of this movie would be irrelevent even if he were still alive.

     

    I actually will agree with you on some of what you say - Roddenberry was perhaps too idealistic with ST and Berman (SP?) and the others did modernize it and make it work in a way that led to the other movies and new series.  However, I think it is foolish to suggest that Roddenberry had no influence on the franchise back in the 80s and even the early nineties as it was very clear when he died and Berman didn't have him around to deal with that the series went much further from its roots.  Ultimately, I think that is what got ST in trouble, it isn't that it didn't stay perfectly true to ST1 or TOS it is that it got way to far away with each new incarnation (even though I enjoyed all the series and all but the later TNG movies).  In addition, what really did in ST at the big screen was the TNG cast, first of all ensembles casts don't work well on film as you really need a good guy verse bad guy for a concise 90 -120 minute flick and aside from that Stewart was the only actor really strong enough for the big screen.

     

    But that being said, come on - this movie really is pretty disconnected from Star Trek.  Seriously, forget the character names and the imagery stuff and just go through the plot and dialogue and there is really nothing in this movie that is a ST theme.  And what really just irks me about it is that for a reboot, which is supposed to be a new start, there is just no real character groundwork to go from next (I am thinking in contrast of how well Batman Begins setup the awesome sequel Dark Knight even though Begins was itself only OK).  These characters are all existing in a universe we know next to nothing about other than Pike having a couple loose comments about Starfleet as something bigger than one's self or whatever.  We know little about them (save the above ok Spock duality thing but undid with the bridge tantrum and Uhuru making out) and the drunken punk troublemaker Kirk stuff.  They basically tell us that these guys (Kirk, Spock, Bones, etc) are NOT the same characters we knew before this movie (Vulcan gone, Kirk no Dad, so on and so on) and then it simultaneously asks us to believe they ascend to these great positions without experience with no reason other than because we think we know the characters from the very ST universe the plot erases.  In short - we get an origin movie where the sum total of the origin is that one day they where students at Starfleet Academy and not even half a day later they where the bridge crew of Starfleet's flagship - some 'origin' story.  I just don't see anywhere to go from there unless the next movie is just as shallow and relies on action and effects to just entertain your eyes past everything else.

     

    Do you get what I am saying here - JJ ST was not a crap movie, it was a fun action SciFi flick.  But as an origin movie (and especially one that erased the ST universe as we knew it) it left a very lot unsaid and undone and I think that does not bode well for where JJ ST goes now.  Just go back to Batman, the way that first movie took the time to setup the backstory of Bruce Wayne and what drives him and all that was essential for the awesome sequel with not only great action and all that kind of summer movie fun but incredible depth.  Same with Casino Royale and how they setup Bond as not trusting people because of how he was hurt by that chick, how he was reckless and it cost it dearly but he learned from it.  To me that is what an original movie does - it sets the tone, defines the characters, it lays the groundwork.  But JJ ST didn't do much of any of that - it just made ST in to a fun action and effect based summer movie with not much of anywhere else to go other than another action and effect based summer flick.

     

    --------------------------------
    Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
    Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD

  • ktanner3ktanner3 Member UncommonPosts: 4,061

     

    "Up eased 31 percent and its tally climbed to $187.2 million in 17 days, the third-highest total of the year behind Star Trek and Monsters Vs. Aliens. "

    "Meanwhile, Star Trek had another solid hold, retreating 33 percent to an estimated $5.6 million for a $232 million tally in 38 days, and Terminator Salvation and Angels & Demons remained the weakest of their franchises but held better than their predecessors"

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2596&p=l.htm

    Domestic: $232,028,000 67.5%

    + Foreign: $111,960,224 32.5%

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    = Worldwide: $343,988,224

     

     

    2009 DOMESTIC GROSSES

    Rank

    • 1 Star Trek                                                                       $232,028,000
    • 2 Monsters Vs. Aliens                                                                               $195,210,000
    • 3 Up                                                                                                              $187,179,000
    • 4 X-Men Origins: Wolverine                                                                      $176,132,000
    • 5 Fast and Furious                                                                                     $154,628,000
    • 6 Paul Blart: Mall Cop                                                                                 $146,336,178 
    • 7 Taken                                                                                                         $144,941,054
    • 8 Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian                               $143,447,000 
    • 9 Angels & Demons                                                                                   $123,300,000

       

    Currently Playing: World of Warcraft

  • ElGuappoElGuappo Member Posts: 94

    When it comes to Star Trek there's been so many films, series, tie-ins, spin-offs, cross-overs and reinventions that it had long ago disappeared up it's own self-important arse. I think a 're-imagining' where the emphasis is on fun, action, vaguely amusing alien sidekicks and glaringly obvious plotholes was a very good thing indeed.

    Most trekkies always wanted it to be more like Star Wars anyway, even though most would never admit to it.

    And if nothing else, at least it didn't turn out to be as big a pile of shit as XMen Wolverine.

    The ruptured capillaries in your nose belie the clarity of your wisdom.

  • ktanner3ktanner3 Member UncommonPosts: 4,061
    Originally posted by ElGuappo


    When it comes to Star Trek there's been so many films, series, tie-ins, spin-offs, cross-overs and reinventions that it had long ago disappeared up it's own self-important arse. I think a 're-imagining' where the emphasis is on fun, action, vaguely amusing alien sidekicks and glaringly obvious plotholes was a very good thing indeed.
    Most trekkies always wanted it to be more like Star Wars anyway, even though most would never admit to it.
    And if nothing else, at least it didn't turn out to be as big a pile of shit as XMen Wolverine.



     

    Shoot, at least it didn't turn out to be a big pile of shit like most of the movies were.  Wrath of Khan,Voyage Home,Undiscovered Country, and First Contact were the best .As for the rest, TMP was just two hours of boredom,TSFS was okay,TFF was pure shit,Generations was average,Insurection was average and Nemesis was pure shit.  That's 4 excellent movies out of 10. Not a track record worth preserving if you ask me.

    Currently Playing: World of Warcraft

  • AgtSmithAgtSmith Member Posts: 1,498
    Originally posted by ktanner3 

    1 Star Trek                                                                       $232,028,000

     

    And Wolverine still sits over $10 Mil ($20 Mil ahead in profit since it cost less) ahead only out one more week - pretty even if you ask me.  But go ahead, say Wolverine is a flop and ST is a massive hit in the same breath again.  You seem so focused on a number without the context.  JJ ST did good, but to say that a $160 Mil budget flick is a smash when it is just clearing an ROI of 1:1 is not accurate - movies like Casinoe Royale, Iron Man, and Transformers that take those big budgets and earn them back 3 to 5 times over are the smash hits you are making JJ ST out to be.  

    --------------------------------
    Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
    Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD

  • ktanner3ktanner3 Member UncommonPosts: 4,061
    Originally posted by Scalebane


    Hey Ktanner its useless, he hates it no matter what, he'll find some way to bash it.
    This is the future of ST and i'm gonna keep on going with it, and it seems like finally ST is getting new fans, which it needs.  The old dinosaurs that can't let go of the past can stay there, i'm gonna enjoy this revival woot!
    Inflation whatever this movie made a crap load of money and the company considers it a success thats why they are working on another and hopefully another after that too and more and more lol.
    and hopefully this spawns some new T.V. shows!
     
    So yeah no use trying to change peoples minds, those who can't handle this will be replaced with new FANS!



     

    The old dinasours will always have the ten movies and 5 series. That's quite a collection for them to go back and reminist. Of course, they've spent the last 20 years griping about every new movie and series so I doubt they were ever going to be happy unless you threw the old crew back on the screen.(which is impossible now since two of them are dead) Sort of like how old school bond fans will never be happy unless Sean Connery is playing the lead role of 007. Some people just can't let go of the past.. Thankfully, this movie was able to broaden the audiennce, who will in turn be looking forward to the next one with great anticipation.

    And you're right, this movie was a success based on:

    • the fact that it is STILL the number one movie of the year during a heavily competetive summer. It's had to deal with Wolverine,Angels and Demons, Up, Terminator, Night at the Smithonian and Land of the Lost. All heavily marketed movies that were supposed to be the top dogs and haven't caught Star Trek yet.The streak will probably end with Transormers and Harry Potter, but the fact it has been number  1 for so long is impressive when you consider that no other Star Trek movie has done that.
    • The fact it is doing so well after  the previous two entires failed so badly. The last movie was in 2002(wich couldn't even break $45 million) and the last series was cancelled in 2005 due to bad ratings. Star Trek had a negative image that is had to change and this movie did that.
    • It is averaging over 90 percent approval on reviews, which speaks well for future interest in the franchise. If the movie averages less than 60 percent, then the studio isn't going to go forward because they know that there will be no demand for another.
    • It cost $150 million and has already made twice that amount. By the time it is finished it will probably have grossed around $400 million worldwide, which is a VERY good showing for a reboot of a dying franchise. DVD and Blu-Ray sales will add even more profit.
    • Even adjusted for inflation, it has made more money than any other Star Trek movie ever has. The low returns of the last ten years is why the studio didn't make one for so long. 

    So really, with all these facts and knowing that the future of the franchise is more secure than it has been in probably 15 years,do you really think I care what the agtsmith's of the world think?

    Currently Playing: World of Warcraft

  • AgtSmithAgtSmith Member Posts: 1,498
    Originally posted by ktanner3



    the fact that it is STILL the number one movie of the year during a heavily competetive summer. It's had to deal with Wolverine,Angels and Demons, Up, Terminator, Night at the Smithonian and Land of the Lost. All heavily marketed movies that were supposed to be the top dogs and haven't caught Star Trek yet.The streak will probably end with Transormers and Harry Potter, but the fact it has been number  1 for so long is impressive when you consider that no other Star Trek movie has done that.

     

    Uhm, not true - Wolverine is still ahead of JJ ST (unless you simply discount half of a modern movies revenue stream from non US markets).

     

    Originally posted by ktanner3

    The fact it is doing so well after  the previous two entires failed so badly. The last movie was in 2002(wich couldn't even break $45 million) and the last series was cancelled in 2005 due to bad ratings. Star Trek had a negative image that is had to change and this movie did that.

     

    Yes, JJ ST turned around a bad streak of movies.  Nobody argues this, the later TNG movies sucked.  AS for the negative image stuff, I think that is arguable - ST is one of the most fruitful franchises in all of TV and film, a couple bad TNG movies does not erase that it just means they need to get better, and they could have gotten better without turning the franchise on its ear and making it a mindless summer action flick with no depth and no real future save a another mindless summer action sequel.

     

    Originally posted by ktanner3
     
    And you're right, this movie was a success based on:

    It is averaging over 90 percent approval on reviews, which speaks well for future interest in the franchise. If the movie averages less than 60 percent, then the studio isn't going to go forward because they know that there will be no demand for another.

     

    Reviews amount to crap in terms of a movies success or failure.  reviews are just part of the Hollywood marketing machine but mean nothing in terms of a franchises success or failure.  Your entire statement there is utter BS, most all of ST prior to this one got bad reviews yet it persisted and thrived for 40 years.  You seem incapable of separating Hollywood marketing from the business reality of these films.

     

     

    Originally posted by ktanner3
     

    It cost $150 million and has already made twice that amount. By the time it is finished it will probably have grossed around $400 million worldwide, which is a VERY good showing for a reboot of a dying franchise. DVD and Blu-Ray sales will add even more profit.

     

    It cost $160 Mil (est) and it is extremely unlikely to get much past $250 Mil as its weekly take has dwindled to the couple million mark already.  Funny how you cite WW gross when you want to show it is profitable; nevertheless, ROI of 1:1 or slightly better is not bad but in terms of ROI JJ ST is barely in the middle of the pack of ST movies with the top ST movies returning well over 5 to 7 times their cost.

     

    Originally posted by ktanner3
     

    Even adjusted for inflation, it has made more money than any other Star Trek movie ever has. The low returns of the last ten years is why the studio didn't make one for so long. 

     

    Again, not true - adjusted for inflation it is middle of the pack at best and if you consider the ROI in comparing to other films it is barely average.  Making money is not just about the higher gross, don't be so myopic.  Making money in business, and Hollywood is all business believe it or not, is about how much profit you make against how much investment you spent.  Yes, JJ ST compared to Nemesis is great of that there is no doubt.  Bit is far from blockbuster status when you spend $160 Mil to make back around that same amount.  Blockbusters these days return well over 3 to 5 times their cost in gross, JJ ST is absolutely average in comparison.  IN fact, as I have said (and you have conveniently ignored since it proves my point) JJ ST has far more in common with a movie like Wolverine that is widely considered to be a disappointment in so far as they both cost around the same and both are about the same gross (though Wolverine cost about $10 Mil less and to date is $10 Mil or so ahead having only one more week).  So, factually, JJ ST is not even as profitable, as seen, as successful by any measure other than 'reviews' than Wolverine yet you want to make it out to be some $600 Mil Casino Royale blockbuster.  Give me a break, JJ ST is an average to better than average summer flick at best.

     

    Let's compare JJ ST to recent blockbusters (2006-09):

     

    Dead Man's Chest (2006): Domestic: $423,315,812 + Foreign: $642,863,913 = Worldwide: $1,066,179,725

    Transformers (2007): Domestic: $319,246,193 + Foreign: $389,026,399 = Worldwide: $708,272,592

    The Dark Knight (2008): Domestic: $533,345,358 + Foreign: $468,576,467 = Worldwide: $1,001,921,825

    JJ Star Trek (2009):  Domestic: $231,882,965 + Foreign: $111,960,224 = Worldwide: $343,843,189

     

    Clearly Dead Man's Chest, The Dark Knight and Transformers are blockbusters and a massive success.  Hrm, JJ ST is likely to do half what 2007's blockbuster did and not even a third of what last years blockbuster did, seems pretty unremarkable if you ask me.  And where are the Batman TV and Transformer TV series, I mean if JJ ST is a smashing reboot that guarantees us years of new ST series then certainly movies doing 3 to 4 times as good as ST would get the same.  What gives??? 

     

    Now, again, compare JJ ST to Wolverine (considered a franchise ending disappointment):

     

    JJ Star Trek:  Domestic: $231,882,965 + Foreign: $111,960,224 = Worldwide: $343,843,189

    Wolverine: Domestic: $176,150,506 + Foreign: $176,320,687 = Worldwide: $352,471,193

     

    It seems to me only a fool would say that JJ ST has more in common with blockbusters than it does something like Wolverine.  It is a marginal success - OK to good but nowhere near a smash or blockbuster.  Now, so it is not a blockbuster, big deal - that is not necessary but for the fact that JJ ST destroyed what ST had built previously and the summer action movie nature of JJ ST leaves so little foundation to rebuild what ST was again.  Yeah, lets see another 40 years of movies and TV series in a universe where you go from student to flagship bridge officer in a matter if minutes and non emotional bridge officers are making out with other bridge officers all over the ship.  There is just nowhere to go but for more flash summer action stuff and that is good for only a short time.

     

     

    --------------------------------
    Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
    Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD

  • ktanner3ktanner3 Member UncommonPosts: 4,061
    Originally posted by veritas_X

    Originally posted by admriker4

    dozens of teens including shockingly girls (in groups, not just some guy's date) poured in.


     

    Lmao. 

    Yes and I'm sure all the hot girls in the theater were closet sci-fi geeks and not there to see Pine and Quinto.

    In any event, fun movie, hopefully the mmo will ride its coat-tails a bit.



     

    It has just been announced that the events of the movie will have an affect on the MMORPG.

    Currently Playing: World of Warcraft

Sign In or Register to comment.