quote:

Originally posted by Obi Wan Chrisobi:
Considering that only one of the first ten Trek films cracked $100M at the US box office, it would seem increasingly likely that the financial success of the Abrams 2009 reboot was an anomaly and not the start of some new mainstream breakthrough for the franchise.

I'd agree with that.

To me the new Star Trek movies, unlike Star Wars, are firmly rooted in the past. Star Wars is introducing new characters and gaining new fans, while Star Trek is hobbled with the same main characters and trying hard to maintain the same fans, who are also getting on quite a bit, while also hoping for younger audiences, even though they don't have the same nostalgic connection to the original series.

On a side note, is it just me or does Zachary Quinto's Spock hairdo look like a plastic helmet with fur steam rolled to his head?

Awful, I can't even look at him without laughing.

Well, Star Trek into Darkness, the last one, made $ 228 M at the U.S. box office, and so far the new one has only made 100

The 2009 Star Trek made 257 M in the U.S.

Paramount wants its Star Trek films to make 200 M plus, not 100 M

quote:

Originally posted by David R:
Paramount wants its Star Trek films to make 200 M plus, not 100 M

They have to earn well over 200M to get close to even.

Besides the enormous cost of making these effects laden movies, you can add another 100M after production for the advertising and promotion budgets. Ghostbusters, which cost around 140M to make, needs to reach around $400M to be profitable according to industry sources. They just keep on adding to the total cost somehow.

And with all this money spent, you would think that Producers could find good writers that might actually give them a workable script. BUT NO, the stories just have to get them from one action sequence to the next and the audience is supposed to be so thrilled that it doesn't care about dialog, motivation, logic or the fact that they have seen this all ten times over and done better.

I read in the article that they claim for the next Star Trek film, the intend to cut the budget by 40-50 M. The current one was too expensive

As for Ghostbusters, despite the fact that it's made only 150 M worldwide so far (and cost almost 150 to make), they claim that there WILL be a sequel.

Bill Pullman was great in "The Zero Effect" which came out two years later than ID4. If a sequel to that is as well-written, I'd like to see that movie.

Yeah, when I was sharing a house with my brother in the early 2000's, I came back from a long business trip and he had just bought one of those big rear-projection HD screens. It was like looking at Jay Leno and Nicole Kidman through a window. Now, we're all used to it, though I'm still impressed with my dad's Blu-ray player/TV set-up. Really clear picture.

quote:

Originally posted by chesspieceface:
When I saw they had Judd Hirsch return as well, that did put it on my DVD-to-see list. He's still very funny. I also like Pullman and Goldblum. Bill would probably like to see that "Spaceballs" sequel happen, and I know Jeff may yet pick up a nice paycheck from one of these upcoming Jurassic World followups.

Goldblum also did just produce a child at 67 last year, so he must be pretty healthy, haha. He still looks good.

As for ID4, one thing the original offered was spectacle. The early teasers and especially the sound of them at an actual theater was a big draw to see the movie in theatres as I recall. Remember that in 1996, most people didn't have the giant screen TVs and window-shattering sounds systems that are now fairly standard in homes today. Bang and clatter alone is not enough to bring people out to the movies these days. Most of us can make our own at home.

The 'story of the orphan/kid whisked away to fantasy land" description reminded me of "Time Bandits." It was a great movie - not a great movie all around like "Raiders of the Lost Ark" but visually great with an oddball sense of humor. I think that was a movie meant for children and adults and both groups enjoyed some the same and different parts of it.

I haven't seen "BFG" but it might pick up a following later when people see it at home. Sometimes, even a Spielberg movie can get lost in the shuffle of big summer movies when people have seen a couple already and looking forward to "Star Trek" and whatever else.

You're right though that kids are less into things that kids used to like especially once they are well into elementary school. It doesn't help that the minds behind the movie remakes think they all need "updating" which usually means lots of "updating." I don't know why anyone bothered remaking "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory." My youngest niece loves the old one - not the more recent one. If the story is already timeless, don't mess with it too much.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
Aside from Harry Potter, American kids have no interest in films of British characters (Paddington Bear, Matilda, BFG, etc)

Or maybe it's the story of the orphan/kid whisked away to fantasy land that they have lost interest in. See the recent Pan and the older Golden Compass.

Another less expensive, but somewhat similar and also English, movie coming out is A Monster Calls. That's more of a drama than a fairy tale, but it's hard to tell who these films are being made for, even though they are represented as children's stories.

I think that's more of the problem with these movies that don't do well. They don't want to just entertain younger audiences, they want to preach certain ideals that kids don't understand or enjoy and adults have long dismissed.

Just give me A Christmas Carol with Alistair Sims and I'm good.

"Star Trek" has been redone with different casts for TV shows and those shows were moderately successful though none of them ran on a major network since the original. I think the producers realize that backing a big Star Trek movie with a new set of characters would be way too much of a risk. Going back to the old characters but when they were young with the twist of the altered timeline made them new to today's audience while still appealing to the crowd that knew them in the 60's or saw them first in 70's and 80's reruns.

Of course, "Wrath of Khan" was light years ahead of the first movie (great opening scene though). It captured the essence of the show bringing back a very dangerous enemy along with a literate quality that the new movies have yet to consider even as it addressed the command crew's passage into middle age. "The Search for Spock" was worth a ticket just to see Christopher Lloyd as a Klingon. Star Trek 4 was a great movie. Star Trek 5 was the worst though it seemed like it had a piece of a good story. Star Trek 6 was a fine goodbye to the original cast.

I thought the best movie with the "Next Generation" cast was "First Contact," bringing back their most dangerous enemy with a time travel story that went back to a key point in the history within the Star Trek universe. Steppenwolf's "Magic Carpet Ride" was the perfect song for the rocket trip. The other movies were okay and had their good parts but nothing you would get excited to watch over and over (if it's on, I'll watch it until the news in on). I remember reading that the producer didn't want "Generations" to be a Kirk-Picard buddy picture. I thought, "What an idiot! That's exactly what everyone wants." He couldn't even come up with a good way to kill off one of entertainment's best known heroes. Kirk traded punches with all kinds of aliens and his Enterprise outgunned a variety of warships but his cause of death end up being falling off a bridge. Really? Captain Kirk couldn't go out better than that?

I thought the first Abrams movie was great. Many Trekkies cried that it deviated too sharply from the history of the show but it felt like old Star Trek and bringing in Leonard Nimoy was a great move (not only a original cast member but also someone who has directed a good Star Trek movie before). I thought the second movie was okay but reimagining Khan with parts of his story was just a reminder that it was not as good as "Wrath of Khan." It seemed impossible even in the Star Trek universe that the super-starship could have been designed and built incorporating future tech within a couple of years.

I liked the new movie but my brother is right: how many times are they going to destroy/nearly destroy the Enterprise? Also, I'm tired of the second or third entry in a remake series being partly about the hero's backslide into self-doubt. The franchise needs more of a wide open adventure perhaps facing off with either the Klingons or Romulans. I thought the second movie was going to be more like that.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

quote:

Originally posted by Obi Wan Chrisobi:
Considering that only one of the first ten Trek films cracked $100M at the US box office, it would seem increasingly likely that the financial success of the Abrams 2009 reboot was an anomaly and not the start of some new mainstream breakthrough for the franchise.

I'd agree with that.

To me the new Star Trek movies, unlike Star Wars, are firmly rooted in the past. Star Wars is introducing new characters and gaining new fans, while Star Trek is hobbled with the same main characters and trying hard to maintain the same fans, who are also getting on quite a bit, while also hoping for younger audiences, even though they don't have the same nostalgic connection to the original series.

On a side note, is it just me or does Zachary Quinto's Spock hairdo look like a plastic helmet with fur steam rolled to his head?

Awful, I can't even look at him without laughing.

Pretty terrific State of Trek Address, Catskill, some great points there that I was nodding my head in agreement to all of.

Trek is sort of in a bottle with Kirk and Spock leading the films, but I have high hopes the new TV series from Bryan Fuller ("Dead Like Me" and "Pushing Daisies") will push it forward.

From the new movie just out, there is the new female character who should be prominently featured in part 4, so that can mix it up a little. I liked her, and she'll fit right in on the bridge and ease, however slightly, not having this series' Chekov there anymore. I could not help but be very sad every time I saw him on screen.

When Kirk raised the glass and said "to absent friends" meaning Ambassador Spock but with Chekov standing right behind him as it happened, I got a little misty-eyed, and the memorials in the credits for Nimoy and Yelchin were also very touching. I miss them both.

As for the Star Trek movies predating the new films not making $100 million, it does bear pointing out that in 1986 and especially 1982, a film could be a pretty big success without passing that $100 million plateau, and additionally, in the 1980's, video rental and sales and TV rights added a sizable amount to a film's final "take". (The real proof of success is that they kept making them.) I mention that because the original Star Trek 2 and Star Trek 4 are successes in every sense of the word. I loved those ones, and they remain the only Star Trek movies prior to the current trilogy that I've actually seen at the movies. (Star Trek 4 seems to be the only one of the first 10 that DID make $100 <in 1986 dollars, no less>, as mentioned by Chrisobi above, so that one was just huge, rightfully so.).

Lamentably, the "ship-threatened-by-an-underestimated-villain" is basically Trek's version of Bond's
"villain having 007 dead-to-rights, but instead telling him the master plan and allowing him to escape" trope, and that is distracting at this point. The new Star Trek 4 is to return Chris Hemsworth to the film as Kirk's dad, so that could be fun. It certainly was when Kirk and Spock went back in time in the original Star Trek 4. (Hmm, new Trek 2 updated old Trek 2, so new Trek 4 might be updating old Trek 4. I'm starting to see a pattern!)

And all this from a "Star Wars" guy. Sorry!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: chesspieceface,

Trek profitability is again tied to the whole budget:gross ratio. Most of the first ten films had low budgets, in the 20 to 40 million dollar range and the usual gross was about 70-80 million in the US, making them profitable but not blockbusters (with the exception of the fourth film). The new Trek films have budgets in the neighborhood of 150-200 million and need to do a LOT more business to make up the difference. The 2009 reboot was the first Trek film to crack the 200M mark but I believe that was in large part due to people being curious about it moreso than a sudden acceptance by the mainstream audiences. Diminishing returns on the sequels are a good indicator of series heading back to it's usual level of performance. Treks future, no pun intended, is on the small screen as it always has been. TV series with the occasional movie. That is what made the franchise successful and that is where their efforts should be focused.

Good stuff. That's probably also why Doctor Who has been confined largely to the small screen despite being popular for so long. The show has worked great on a smaller budgets but might not be as successful at the feature level with the increased stakes due to the higher budget.
It's really a testament to the writing of both TV shows that they have been so well-received without the jaw dropping special effects.

Thanks Chesspiece. I was one of those kids who saw Star Trek for the first time as re-runs in the mid-70's. I had heard of the title before but thought it was a documentary. I'm more of a "Star Wars" guy too but some of those Star Trek episodes were great. I didn't really get into The Next Generation (still some episodes I haven't seen) but they had some that were as good as the old show (Klingon civil war and Borg episodes plus that one where Picard lives part of a another life long enough to learn a musical instrument). DS9 was better than Voyager. I mostly liked the last show "Enterprise" though it sure ended on a downer.

I heard that Nicholas Meyer was going to write for the new show too. It would have been interesting if he had been an advisor for at least the second of the new movies if only to talk about things he thought about but weren't right for "Wrath of Khan." Maybe it would have too weird for him but so much time had passed. It's probably a matter of Abrams, like anyone else, liking to do his own thing. Still, Meyer co-wrote and directed the best of the old Star Trek movies. He had a feel for the characters and picked up on the literate quality of the old show incorporating it well into the movies. Somebody paraphrasing Melville or quoting Shakespeare can sound pretentious where it doesn't fit, but in Meyer's Star Trek, it added a layer of depth to a character and a story because it has a connection and the rest of it was well-written too.

Yes, that's a good point to remember what was considered a financial success in the 80's. It has never been easy to double your money.

With these remakes of 60's and 70's TV shows you really have to make a great movie to start a franchise. Look at all the attempts to revive Tarzan or the Lone Ranger. It would seem their time has passed though none of those ventures seemed to have the luck of the right people coming together that could make it work. That could happen to Star Trek as beloved as it has been. The people who loved the show when it started, organizing and attending the early Star Trek conventions are well into their 60's and older now. Some of them probably don't like the new movies. However, it seems whenever we go 5-6 years without any Star Trek projects announced, some group of people comes out of nowhere banging their pots for a new show or movie and the crowd gets large enough to get the attention of Paramount.

quote:

Originally posted by chesspieceface:
Pretty terrific State of Trek Address, Catskill, some great points there that I was nodding my head in agreement to all of.

Trek is sort of in a bottle with Kirk and Spock leading the films, but I have high hopes the new TV series from Bryan Fuller ("Dead Like Me" and "Pushing Daisies") will push it forward.

From the new movie just out, there is the new female character who should be prominently featured in part 4, so that can mix it up a little. I liked her, and she'll fit right in on the bridge and ease, however slightly, not having this series' Chekov there anymore. I could not help but be very sad every time I saw him on screen.

When Kirk raised the glass and said "to absent friends" meaning Ambassador Spock but with Chekov standing right behind him as it happened, I got a little misty-eyed, and the memorials in the credits for Nimoy and Yelchin were also very touching. I miss them both.

As for the Star Trek movies predating the new films not making $100 million, it does bear pointing out that in 1986 and especially 1982, a film could be a pretty big success without passing that $100 million plateau, and additionally, in the 1980's, video rental and sales and TV rights added a sizable amount to a film's final "take". (The real proof of success is that they kept making them.) I mention that because the original Star Trek 2 and Star Trek 4 are successes in every sense of the word. I loved those ones, and they remain the only Star Trek movies prior to the current trilogy that I've actually seen at the movies. (Star Trek 4 seems to be the only one of the first 10 that DID make $100 <in 1986 dollars, no less>, as mentioned by Chrisobi above, so that one was just huge, rightfully so.).

Lamentably, the "ship-threatened-by-an-underestimated-villain" is basically Trek's version of Bond's
"villain having 007 dead-to-rights, but instead telling him the master plan and allowing him to escape" trope, and that is distracting at this point. The new Star Trek 4 is to return Chris Hemsworth to the film as Kirk's dad, so that could be fun. It certainly was when Kirk and Spock went back in time in the original Star Trek 4. (Hmm, new Trek 2 updated old Trek 2, so new Trek 4 might be updating old Trek 4. I'm starting to see a pattern!)

And all this from a "Star Wars" guy. Sorry!

quote:

Originally posted by catskilleagle:
I was one of those kids who saw Star Trek for the first time as re-runs in the mid-70's. I had heard of the title before but thought it was a documentary.

[/QUOTE]

Sounds like the plot of Galaxy Quest, absolutely the best Star Trek movie that wasn't a Star Trek movie. For years I wanted them to do a sequel, but it's too long ago now and no one could replace Alan Rickman anyway.

Nevertheless Galaxy Quest is a classic that should be cherished by every one who ever went to a card show or a Comic Con.

So Suicide Squad is here and the reviews are mentioning Green Lantern. Can it get any worse than that?

Seriously, it's bad and I hope it tanks, but it won't. There are no other brand new movies to compete with this week and it has such hype that it should have no trouble ringing up big box office money.

Just about 1 out of 3 of these DC and Marvel superhero films are worth watching these days, that's a rough estimate going by my taste. Yet they will continue to be cranked out until we have at least a couple of multi-million dollar financial flops. Green Hornet and Green Lantern bombed, but on a smaller scale and without the rabid fan base that is so bias it will accept anything as being OK, even when they know it's far from good. I guess that's the card collector's equivalent of saying "I'm just glad they made it".

As far as these films go, I just wish that they wouldn't.

The Marvel movies have been significantly better than the DC movies so far, Nolan's "Batman" trilogy being the exception. Unfortunately, that was structured so that they couldn't really build from those, the way Marvel built theirs from "Iron Man".
I'm looking forward to Doctor Strange later this year.

quote:

Originally posted by chesspieceface:
I'm looking forward to Doctor Strange later this year.

Me too, he was a favorite character of mine. I always preferred the more off center, make that lesser followed, comic characters. They have made a couple of attempts before, mostly on bad TV.

I'm hoping they make a good first movie, but I can't say that I like the trailers I have seen. The second one at least showed some action in it, the first was all training class at the retreat.

And both Cumberbatch and Swinton, goodness sakes, the two of them together could talk the villain to death.

I'll hope for the best and expect the worst.

Suicide Squad will top 145M in its opening weekend, an August record. Just imagine if it was any good!

Actually people I've talked to that saw it said it was fun, just not among the best. Main complaints seem to be that it tries too hard to be funny and it's not graphic or bloody enough for the premise, but it was made to get a PG-13 not an R, so it's going to be watered down. I'm sure there is a director's cut waiting to be unleashed around the holidays.

I am updating my list. Instead of saying hits or misses, how about the following:


BIGGEST FILMS OF THE SUMMER

Finding Dory
Captain America 3
Secret Life of Pets


FILMS THAT GROSSED LESS THAN THEIR BUDGET AT THE U.S. BOX OFFICE

X-Men Apocalypse
Star Trek 3
Ghostbusters
Tarzan
Independence Day 2


FILMS THAT MADE BACK LESS THAN HALF OF THEIR BUDGET AT THE U.S. BOX OFFICE

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2
Alice Through the Looking Glass
The BFG
Ice Age 5

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tommy C,

Add to the list of kids' films that have not done very well :

PETE'S DRAGON
Grossed only 32 M worldwide so far

NINE LIVES
With Kevin Spacey and Christopher Walken-- only 14 M

Ben-Hur seems to be getting trashed as a cut rate movie with Morgan Freeman and a bunch of no-names doing an unnecessary remake of an epic.

They put the TV ad on with the Olympics and the inter-cutting was cute, but the big chariot scene looked better in the original. I guess 100M doesn't get you epic effects anymore.

The problem with the Ben-Hur marketing is that it makes it look like an action epic when the original film was focused more on the drama and religious meaning. Why remake a movie and dumb it down? The whole point of remaking a movie is to try and make it better, not worse.