Newbie

Visually the film is truly beautiful from scenery and cinematography to set, costumes and props. And I really enjoyed the first 1/4 of the film, but story wise, it really pains me to say I actually think the sci-fi miniseries so far story wise is the better telling of the story. This isn't specifically a knock against this film. You can adapt a short book, like Pride and Prejudice and to date its best telling has been the BBC 6 hour miniseries (8 hours of tv time), and that's a short book. Dune is complex a richly detail good sized book. You could easily adapt it and have material for 13 - 15 tv episodes. Thank how much the time they used to tell the story of the 1st book of the Expanse (a far less dense or rich story), and that took 15 episodes. After the first 1/4 the pace of the story just takes off, and not in the good way. It's still a good film, but it suffers when judging it as a good adaptation. My spouse whose never read the books or seen any adaptions of the material, liked it, but just liked it. He doesn't know if he would be interested to see the next part. As in his words, he doesn't really feel a connection to the characters so far involved. interestingly enough both of us said, this should have really been a prestige streaming show. Loose production value, but give yourself time to get into the world being created for you.

Then you literally haven't being paying attention. Hell there have been two nursing strikes in the US (if not from the US, then my apologies), in literally the last 5 days. There were numerous strikes and walkouts during the last year and a a half year. Most didn't make national news, but many did. At least 7 strikes in 2020 before Sept 15 of 2020, and several that happened later in the year and through this year. And just for coincidence sake in July of this year 900 nurse striked in Chicago (Have no idea if your screen name has any bearing on your location). And they also have had record levels of nurses quitting, or retiring early, and that's not counting those who have walked off due to mandatory vaccination policies. And to show how short one company is a chain fast food restaurant called Raising Cane's Chicken which has 500 drivethru's is rotating its corporate office staff and putting 1/3rd of them in the stores working cashiers, and cooking, 1/3 stay in covering the work of the full cooperate staff, and the other 1/3 is out recruiting. And every two weeks is rotating those corporate workers. And they are raising wages between 17 and 25% for store staff. In my town I already mentioned how fast foods chains are paying 2 to 3 dollars more then what they paid a year ago to try and keep staff. Two of the stores a Wendy's and Taco Bell is offering those higher rates, and paying people nightly to try and make sure people stay.

Jesus. First many places have had to raise hourly wages to keep, especially people who earn minimum or near minimum wage (at least in the US), and there are some professions that have had to deal with more customer abuse then what ha been typical. And some jobs get far more abuse for the same thing than other jobs. I never had a signal person complain about masks or social distancing at the office. But in other settings I have seen a lot of it. And those have typically been places that are staffed by lower income jobs. Then you have places that where someone feels inconvenienced for having to put a mask on for being at a business for 15 20 minutes. For those that are pissed about it, its a much bigger pain going somewhere for hours. You will see people who normally might not do anything out of line, who will snap over a longer burden. Then you have the labor market, where I live places that normally paid minimum wage are now starting people between 2 - 3 dollars above that just to keep workers. The local theaters aren't. They currently feel they can't afford it. So if you are an entry level worker making minimum wage and are working a heavier load then previously, getting more crap then normal, why on Earth would any logical rational being continue working there when there are a host of other business for entry level workers paying a significantly higher rate? Unless you're an idiot, or a masochist there isn't a reasoned or rational reason for staying, and guess what in no way shape or form is that being lazy.

2 big reasons. Because the bulk of what they release is rather cheap, they can afford to spend a higher amounts for a handful of properties, and just use those big ticket projects, be it tv or film to help increase their overall year round subscription base. And because they are a publicly traded company, stocks really help keep new businesses or businesses which are changing flush in cash, as stock buyers aren't judging you from the perspective of today or yesterday but how they see the future of the industry. Its how Amazon serviced for years when they were losing money hand over fist. Or how Tesla's stock is over the moon, its because its were investors see the market going longterm. That's how studios are seeing their streaming services, they are looking for a profit today or even near in the future, they are looking years and decades into the future.

Well of course some of the people who watch for free would go to the theatre. But there are two other sub groups. Those that would watch something on a tv for free but this isn't something that would attract them to a movie theatre (Both my sisters family fall into this category), then there are the people who might pay to watch it at home, but still wouldn't go to the movie for it (this is what my brother and his family would do , if there was a charge for it like Black Widow). And rationally there is literally no way to judge how large any of these three groups would be. For myself, I have liked some DC releases, but hated Suicide Squad. After that there is no way I would pay a movie ticket to watch this film, regardless of word of mouth or reviews. I would rent it on home market or a streaming type service, I wouldn't pay 30 for it though. And this is all regardless of Covid. But I absolutely watched it at home, and I really rather enjoyed its, but there are a handful of scenes that make me very glad I didn't see it in a theatre. So you can add me and my spouse to the category who because of the last release, wouldn't go to see this at the movies (and we are both comic readers, though neither of us are into much comedy in comics, so there is that). I've been reading comics for 40 plus years, I a really love to see a property do well. But take Marvel's Thor. I liked the first Thor, but it has its problems, and I didn't like Thor the Dark World. If it wasn't for the Avengers, I probably wouldn't have gone to the movies to see Thor 3. But since I liked what Hensworth was doing with the character especially when you add the Avengers film, it was enough to change my mind. If something is bad in my mind, it takes a lot of either build up good will from other sources, or I won't go to the movies to see a sequel or continuation of it. I mean I am a bed wetting die hard Star Trek fan. And if I didn't have decades of built up love for the characters, there is literally no way I would have watched the majority of Trek films (generally think they work better on tv then film), and some have been utterly awful.

Just curious when is the last day for ST3?

What were you expecting it to do? Have no idea in local currency (virus the two previous Trek films), but its increased for the US Dollar each of its three releases. I would guess a final take (in dollars) close to 70 million (currently estimated by Deadline at 63.3 million) versus Into Darkness' $57 million (in US dollars, again). And this film lacked any star that has strong appeal in China. I always assumed that Into Darkness benefited by casting Benedict Cumberbatch who seems to have a rather large following for an actor of his limited box office. With the overall lack of large increase for this year in China''s box office (especially versus previous years),and the fact that with very few exceptions (and none of them large markets) Beyond is averaging more then 20% less then what Into Darkness did, I never imagined a significant increase. In fact I thought it was quite possible that it could even decline versus the last film.

What is LC?

Actually agree. I think each film is worse then the previous. Yikes.

so normally what time do we see Rth post?

Yes Khan is an extremely arrogant person at least as portrayed in TOS, so he is going to put a grander on his name, and his story. but it's not earned in that movie. and the call to Vulcan (when the ship should be calling for help from Earth which they are in lunar orbit) is completed stupid. That scene for me was the blood and yelling Khan moment to others.

i didn't think they really did mass midnight showings and after anymore? My area completely stopped having any scheduled ones after the shooting they have had rare events like TFA where they didn't have it schedule but added the showings that night for some midnights, and some rare event where someone has rated out a facility. i just assumed those showings were not in play or extremely limited. and why would they separate out IMAX numbers? Where Trek's first two films did surprisingly well.

Like I said its 4 million in 2008 and 2 million from into darkness. Both started with 7pm shows. Now if if we got midnight snack anymore, I would have included those but we don't.

I wonder why people thought previews would be strong. The last one did 2 million, the one before that did 4 million. Trek's audience is older (has been on TV since Voyager started, TNG and DS9 didn't release much demo info so hard to judge those). But hardly surprising ass its a series that still has many fans from literally the late's 60's and 70'r to current. If I remember right two films also performed kinda of odd in that they typically had poor friday bumps, and held stronger during the week days, which I seem to recall is also a pattern for shows with an older audience. As long as the run doesn't pull a final Frontier or Nemesis i am fine with it (both financial and critically0. i would like to see it perform at the very least at the first contact level (and stay in top five for my personal opinion, again since most of Trek films aren't that good, top 5 really is barely OK in my book for Trek).

And Star Trek 2009 did much, much better then all but one Star Trek overseas adjusted for inflation, by american dollars (I know not really the best way to try and figure it out, but whatever). But with the exception of The Motion Picture TOS films did almost nothing overseas. I mean Khan did less then 18 million overseas. Search for Spock less then 12 million. There is a huge, huge areas overseas for trek to grow (not assaying it will), but it is very underdeveloped property compared to how it performs in the US. Of course the dollar exchange rate is really a factor currently. The Motion Pictures 56 or so million probably adjust higher then trek 2009 128, but nothing else was even close. i do expect it to sell more overseas then the Into Darkness but thanks to the exchange rate, i don't know if it will be enough to pass the dollars earned, it will be interesting to watch. And the relative strength of the dollar issn't anything producers can plan for. I do hope most territories will releasee admission data for comparisons, I know some do, but not all (the last time i paid any attention).

They already did, and it was performing stronger then Into darkness at the same point int time.

I think the biggest hope they have had since they restarted the franchise wasn't s much the US audience, but was growing the overseas audience which outside off a few places was utterly dismal, a huge, huge area they can improve, and both of those films dramatically improved overseas, even when factoring in 3D, Imax, ect.

Did your theatre only have Trek in IMAX?

Which ones there are three different sets of uniforms scene in the movie for the crew?

Beginning to think int might just hold allow 90 average, but I doubt it will drop past mid 80's

Talking to spouse about thursday. Surprised he hasn't hounded me. Im the much bigger overall Trek fan, but he absolutely loves the two reboot films and was only a casual Trek viewer of the rest of Trek.

I would absolutely encourage people not to watch that trailer. it is very much a spoiler heavy regarding the conflict of the film. When I saw it (it was linked within a an's non spoiler review...) and it is a veery big spoiler.

Nope. Khan was very much a revenge tail. With perhaps the use of science in inadvertently creating a weapon of mass destruction, when its intended use is the complete opposite. Star Trek VI felt with the three primary powers (Federation, Klingon, and Romulans) having agents working to start an installer war to destroy the weakened Klingon Empire. Into Darkness is an absolute example of very Trek like morally play story telling.

of course you could do action, a huge part of TOS has action elements. it just couldn't be elaborate, compare a gun fight from bonanza to a gun fight in the most recent larger scale western, to show the difference in not so much having action, but how much larger and visual your action can be How manny episodes does the crew have fight scenes in, how many times did we see the Enterprise under fire or returning fire, how many hand held passer fights happened, how many short fights happened, how home many out and out brawls did we see. I mean seriously TNG a much more successful in its time, with larger budget, a library of high end models and stock shots, the ability to create and often need exterior ships shots in 178 episodes had fewer fist fights, fewer ship battles, fewer crew Brawls and fewer hand held phaser fights then what dos produced in the 78 episodes that aired As of the rest most of it is spot on, but Westerns and SciFI had long been doing period pieces with morality stories centered on more modern issues. Two points on Treks progressive history, Only the failed pilot had a women in the command structure for a Starfleet Ship. And was absolutely a no go with the studio, who said that the character tested extremely poorly (both with men and women). The only female written for the show has it was picked up by NBC is a Romulan Commander who is of course defeated or outmatched, because she fails for Spock, who is out an out playing her. So not a great example for the only female we see in command. The ranking female character that we see on the show is never given the big chair, or ever leads a landing party. We see even ensign checkoff and random engineer DeSalle (ok i think he's in a few episodes, but this was the first on the bridge i believe). We are also told I believe that there are no female captains in either Starfleet or the Federation, we hear something like the tin the very last episode of the show. So while we see Uhura as a bridge officer, we never see her in command. And I hate that the first kiss shown and referenced between two races in a fact a forced sexual encounter, on both characters. Neither character has any physical control over their form when it occurs, really does lesson the impact when you really think about it. And for example of modern Trek not forgetting morality plays, Into darkness absolutely continued that type of story telling with a very easy to see story about drone war fair something that was and is still a factor in modern life.

Specifically in relating to TOS I never did understand the idea you hear and read that now all of a sudden producers were changing things for the general audience (And I have been hearing them about Trek since 78). Trek was created for the general audience. It was created for mass appeal television viewing. It was never, ever, ever designed to be niche. TV in those day had to hit 20 million just to be a viable not in danger property. While it never was very popular in original run, it did become popular in syndication.