Kathemy

Watchmen is a 5.

... wouldn't they just need to add Superman and Lex Luthor? Actually, strike Lex Luthor. I never want to see that grisly adaptation ever again. ... and now I realize I misunderstood you

Enterprise intentionally tried to be "more mainstream" and it bombed. Appealing to "fans" - as in "science fiction fans" - was cutting it for eight movies while Kelvinverse more or less got its Nemesis after two. It's still cutting it. The Martian was more of a Trek film at heart than anything Trek has done in nearly 20 years. There's a difference between "appealing only to fans" and "alienating the fans you already have." And the notion that "if it wasn't for the new films we wouldn't have a new TV series coming soon" is speculation. Star Trek can't be Star Wars. Its concept does not lend itself easily to cheap action flicks. Deep Space Nine showed us the concept could be adapted as a war series with stellar results, and if Abrams really wanted to up the visceral effect of the movies he should have taken note to that. Then we have the simple fact that until Kelvinverse there wasn't ever a Star Trek movie released which wasn't accompanied by a television show. Those shows are Trek's backbone.

I have yet to see any news of Star Trek NuIV after this box office debacle. It's total radio silence.

While this statement is repeated so many times it's taken at face value it was never true. People seem to forget that their TOS and TNG movie run produced eight movies in a row all of which profitable with a couple of them actually being mega-hits (ST:IV, ST:II are the best examples.) Resurrection barely broke even and Nemesis lost money but at that point they'd run out of fresh ideas and distanced itself from its science fiction core - remember that the most acclaimed TOS episode "The City At The Edge Of Forever" was scripted by none other than Harlan Ellison. If anything trying to make excuses for the films' "geekiness" is what's backfired. Right now, Star Trek mostly looks like a standard action movie franchise and yes... that general audience is one which might be put off by it. These fans are fickle. Star ships exploding only creates so much interest especially when Star Wars has always outclassed it in that aspect. It's true that ST:ID was generally disliked and considered a pretty awful film in many regards but the worst part of the new movies is that they have done a very poor job generating any actual interest in Star Trek as a concept. They have failed to convert fans to the "Star Trek way of thinking" and to investing in the iconic characters. As for Ghostbusters there is a definite anti-PC (and now I'm talking about the rabid PC crowd) sentiment and the critics lost all credibility when the studio started blackmailing the audience and the reviewers by suggesting anyone having a problem with this unfunny tripe was a woman-hater. "Respected people", unless they had enormous clout, actually got scared of speaking out against it. It was an utter disgrace and the movie deserved to fail, and fail horribly. It was always a bad idea to try to adapt Star Trek to your average Hollywood blockbuster and in the process it lost much of its soul.

It's a fanbase that's been eroded through two utterly underwhelming television shows and through a reboot with a helmsman who openly stated he preferred Star Wars to Star Trek and that he "was never a Trek fan." The hardcore Star Trek fans were people who enjoyed science fiction, cerebral storytelling, morality tales and character drama; not space opera. Now you can say "well those were hardly the mass audience" but those people were the ones who kept supporting it tooth and nail and generated a lot of positive buzz. Playing to that crowd helped keep Star Trek special. Paramount right now looks like a studio embarrassed to be making Star Trek. They even dropped the "Star Trek" prefix from their show Enterprise and only put it in again after two seasons and realizing "hey, maybe pissing off all our loyal fans isn't the way to go."

Paramount took a piss on it.

Mispost.

Holy mother of God...

No, it wouldn't have been stupid. It wouldn't have caused any confusion. Just because Smallville and DCEU have different continuities that wouldn't prohibit an actor from playing the same role in them both. I don't even understand your statement.

The procedure of casting modern Hollywood blockbusters will probably forever escape me but when it comes to Batman versus Superman it's entering the realm of the absurd. First, why couldn't they get Michael Rosenbaum? Star power be damned! Don't they know how many people have watched Smallville, and don't they know that every single one who watched that show loved their Lex, no matter if they even liked the show? I can understand casting someone new if you find someone phenomenal, but Michael was already phenomenal and Jesse Eisenberg is a bloody joke! Oh, and newsflash to the script writers - Lex doesn't shave his head in prison, he's bald! Being aggressively bald is a defining character trait for Lex Luthor! He's got a head where hair's too scared to grow! It's the same with the Wayne kid - why, why couldn't they get David Mazouz?! He would've blown the chosen one away without even trying! You could come up with the old "conflicting schedules" bullshit excuse but it doesn't compute, because a: it's a very small role, b: in this manner Gotham and BvS would co-promote each other which certainly is worth some minor sacrifice and c: these actors regularly film movies during their show years anyway. If they were ever to cast Damian Wayne, I'm sure they'll pass on him again, and it's frankly ridiculous. This is a kid who's been steeped in Batman mythology playing a young Bruce Wayne for two years, not to mention he might be the best under-18 actor in the world today.

I'd go with: BvS: 4.5 JB: Not Seen Ghostbusters: 3 Allegiant: Not Seen Suicide Squad: 6.5 Xmen: 5.5

I use the term to refer to a movie with an emptiness of purpose apart from looking artistic, highbrow and serious. Oscar-bait movies are another thing entirely - they must have a gripping, mainstream and ideally also politically correct message, be cast with big-name actors and have great production values. A critic-bait movie is a movie the critic figures he's cool for liking. Sort of the hipster effect.

The Witch is your average critic bait movie. I thought it was a rather boring film. And I'm a huge fan of Tarkovsky's Solaris, so...

What is the "last word" on how much of the domestic and the international box office translates into studio revenue? Is there one?

Oh, so this is how you get tens of thousands of posts...

Well, let's see. Right now it's sitting at $231m. Add another $10m domestic for $241m. If the movie has an identical run to Into Darkness in China and Korea ($57m+$11m) that alone puts it past it. That's a big "if", but yeah, it should do $300m+.

Comparison with Into Darkness, opening weekend: STB: Korea $5.6m, France $2.1m, Spain $978k STID: Korea $3.8m, France $3.4m, Spain $1.2m The Korea number is encouraging.

There's clearly something "not-so-right" about Mojo's international numbers. Just look at Iceland's second weekend. Iceland 16 3 $55 -100.0% 13 -2 $4 $366,691 2

According to http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/759665-suicide-squad-wins-a-third-straight-weekend-at-the-box-office: Germany – $6.8 million Comparable to Batman v Superman opening weekend: $6,95 million

Alright I know I'm a bit anal but the unreported international number from Mojo is $17,605,115. How much of that is Germany?

BoxOfficeMojo doesn't have Germany reported in its international numbers yet, it seems.

How do you figure $700m? Not challenging, want explanation.

Does anyone care to bet on the total cume of Suicide Squad this Mon to Thu?

Some silly numbercrunching here from a newbie who doesn't know what to do with numbers. BvS vs SS domestic gross: Week 1: $209,072,793 vs $179,104,728 (+16.7%) Week 2: $64,177,749 vs $62,468,607 (+2.7%) Week 3: $29,051,188 vs (20,700,000 + ?) Will Suicide Squad's third week outgross Batman v Superman's?