Newbie
-
Posts
246 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Newbie
-
-
4 hours ago, shayhiri said:
A lot of recent positive reviews claim that the biggest thing going for this is how "close it feels to the spirit of the original series".
That is definitely NOT a plus for me. I would never watch the disgusting old TV junk. I liked STID so much because it is pure JJ - nothing else - and if this is different, I'm out.
Lord in heaven. First please understand this very, very basic concept. No film is going to be pure JJ (at least not a major tent pole), and certainly not one where the characters, the past history, the design elements, the setting, some of the specific scenes and dialogue are all based on others work, some aren't even based word for word dialogue that was created by someone else.
Abrams when he rebooted Trek wasn't trying to create new Trek material that could be placed next to an episode from 66 or 69 and be seen as part of that production. His goal and Viacoms was to take the essence of Trek and put into into a what audience expect and see in modern film productions.
He has even given interviews back for the original where he mentions that what was most important was getting the spirit of the show and its characters. The very thing mentioned in the review 9and often mentioned in reviews both in the first and second reboot film). Saying something as the spirit of the original doesn't mean that its an exact replica of what was done back in the day.
So obviously please don't watch this film, as it has a new director there is literally no way its going to be pure JJ, please save your money.
-
1
-
-
That was insane back in 2009. As a fan I just couldn't believe it.
-
5 hours ago, Daniel Dylan Davis said:
Actually apparently adjusted for inflation only Star Trek 09 passed both The Motion Picture and Wrath of Khan. Into Darkness is #4 behind 09, The Motion Picture, and The Voyage Home.
Sorry I apparently wasn't clear. I was only comparing the 1st release of the reboot films to the first release of the original films, and comparing the 2nd releasee of the reboot films to the 2nd release of the original films.
1. Star Trek had larger ticket sales in adjusted dollars and more total admission the Star Trek the Motion Picture.
2. Into Darkness had larger tickets sales in adjusted dollars, but didn't actually have more admission then wrath of Khan
and I was hoping that Beyond would continue at least what Into darkness did in relationship to Search for Spock.
-
44 minutes ago, stuart360 said:
The Motion Picture is one of the best ST films, its exactly what Star Trek is supposed to be about. Exploration, wonder, the unknown.
The complete opposite of what these Jar Jar Abrams films are.
Yes The Motion Picture does tell a story that has Exploration, wonder and the known, well it's Nomad basically. But I really wouldn't insult the last two films, because Trek's 2 through 10 don't do any exploring. Heck even the Motion Picture starfleet isn't seeking out new life and new civilizations, V'Ger is.
Into Darkness is the only film that has the crew of the Enterprise out on a mission seeking out new life and new civilizations.
The Motion Picture is 180 degree tonal shift away from what Star Trek presented itself as. Now it's cold, sterile, having machinery and man merge to possibly seek (or form) a higher form of existence, completely against how Star Trek previously had treated technology, where it was a tool, but never something to equal or replace man. there are parts I do love and aspects of the film that absolutely work, but i don't think its overall a strong movie.
Of course, working with a story treatment from the cancelled Star Trek Phase II tv series, starting filming before the screenplay was completed, probably wasn't the best possible way of showcasing those themes.
It's like also stating Star Trek is best when its presenting a morality play about some issue of the human condition. Yeah, that's a part of Star Trek.
But just because "Spock's Brain" tells a morality play about the dangers of letting society become dependent on technology, doesn't mean that its any damn good.
-
17 hours ago, Jonwo said:
I'm amazed how overbudget Star Trek TMP went, $46m in 1979 was probably the equivalent of $250m today, only Superman was higher. It's likely why Star Trek never got a high budget until the reboot.
Hollywood Accounting. The actual budget or the film was significantly lower (though still extremely high for its day0. it included the development and preproduction coast of Star Trek Phase II, it included all the payouts to the actors to keep them available, when it was seemingly forever going from new tv series, no film, no tv series, no film, eat, eat.
But again still extremely high, budget wise just for the film itself, but lets see starts shooting before a script is complete paying two fx houses (hell did we even call them houses back them), to get the vast amount of special visual fx done on time, all because they weren't going to change its release date. Whats weird considering that the film results have never been stellar, many of th TOS films set record breaking opening weekends. Trek was the original front loaded film franchise.
I will be interested in seeing if this 3rd film in the reboot TOS series, manages to score a larger adjusted for inflation US box office performance. Loved that Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness both outperformed star Trek the Motion Picture and the Wrath of Khan when adjusting for inflation (though i do wish that Into Darkness would have had more actual admissions, which star Trek did manage, oh well). I honestly don't expect that to happen this time, but heck I might get surprised.
Anyone have any idea how much of an Imax run this film will get? Both earlier ones did extremely well in Imax, considering that there were just modest hits, and not big blockbusters.
-
7 hours ago, Telemachos said:
Because the movie uses it as a deus ex machina to resurrect Kirk 5 minutes after he died (in screen time). It's absolutely terrible as a dramatic construct.
Because that entire scene is played as a nudge-nudge-wink-wink to WRATH OF KHAN, so much so that it's really distracting and pulls you out of any inherent drama in the scene. It ends up feeling like a skit where the idea is to see how many references to the original you can riff on.
I liked STID -- quite a bit, for the most part -- but the two moments you mention were absolutely awful, IMO. My wife (who's less familiar with Trek minutae than me) didn't really mind the Spock/Kirk scene. It was nails-on-a-chalkboard bad for me.
Now on the first issue i didn't really like that Kirk was considered Dead for as long as he was before khan's blood was injected (though i really am not sure how long Kirk was considered 'dead" before being put into stasis). But I never considered it a "Deus Ex Machina", because it wasn't something unexpected and out of blue to resolve the plot. Now if it hadn't been shown to be a restorative above the medicine of the 23rd century back in the 1967 episode Space Seed, then yeah. But it is based on established Trek canon material in relation to the character of Khan. Now of course, a casual fan or just an average movie goer wouldn't have that knowledge, but for someone like myself, who is fairly well versed in Trek it doesn't fit that classification. The one part i didn't like in relation to that aspect of the film, was the i assume long dead Tribble being revived, that was seriously over the top, for my taste.
On the issue of various mirror situations or dialogue fragments between Kirk and Spock, that also didn't bother me. Back during TNG's television run, there was a website that run an S.O.S. ranking were fans could rate episodes on a 1 - 10 scale. The episodes Cause and Effect (5th season) and Parallels (7th season) both ranked extremely well 8th and 13th (On IMDB it's 7th and 10th so both back in the day and by current ranking systems) out of 178 episodes off TNG, and both showed various changes to the timeline and part of the enjoyment of those episodes was seeing how changes in the timeline could have that same type of mirroring of dialogue and plot switched between characters. Heck there is even some elements of this in TNG's final episode All Good Things (which is another very well received episode). So if I could enjoy it (on television where I think Trek generally can hit higher highs), I couldn't rationally dislike it being done in thee film.
Of course their were things that II did seriously dislike. Spock calling Spock to get info on Khan. Chekov somehow jumping over everyone in the engineering fields to go from Navigator to Chief of Engineering. any use or mention of Interstellar transporter ability (seriously the single biggest flaw in both of the reboot films).
Loved that for literally the first time in all Trek Films, we got to see the crew out on a mission seeking out new life and news civilizations. Every other film has been the ship is having to go out and respond to a threat.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, kowhite said:
Thats what's annoying, it was a good villain! But it was not Khan. That did not work. Well, neither did magic blood. I honestly let out a hearty laugh when Spock screamed Khan. Ha, no. No. Still, solid flick. But that, no.
why does the magic blood bother people, its taken literally from the original episode Space Seed. When Khan's Stasis Tube malfunctions, McCoy talks about something inside of him is whats keeping him alive (not McCoy's medical science). It's the genetic factors in his blood, that have greatly enhanced restorative abilities.
I mean there are things not to like about the film (again with the interstellar beaming, why do you need a ship if you can beam across the quadrant? Or look again we are the only ship in the area, something in about 7 of the 12 films).
Why is it so hard for people to hear Spock yell out Khan's name? We already know that in the Prime universe Spock was more emotional when serving with Pike then later on the 5 year mission, and so many other powerful events had damaged this character compared to the original Spock. Death of his mother. Death of probably billions of Vulcan's, experience through meld the death of his mentor in Pike, days earlier. And we know if Spock loses his emotional control he is more emotional then a typical human. If you can believe he has lost his emotional control its entirely. Did it bother you when it yelled out when attacking Kirk, when Kirk deliberately broke his emotional control after the lose of Vulcan and he is mother? Its the very same concept.
-
1
-
-
59 minutes ago, Telemachos said:
Actually I really like Enterprise, and would be very positive about it if i could cut about 15 episodes off its run, and While Voyager is my least liked Trek, I still didn't find it to be bad tv. I mean seriously the range of what is produced as television is goes to the utter terrible to great, for the most part I found Voyager fairly average. But hell I love DS9 and think season 1 is largely forgettable, that I could loose a third of its 3rd season and a third of its 7th season. I fell in love with TOS as a child and really disliked almost everything from its third season (that's third of its material well almost). I love TNG and I think it has the worst first and 2nd season of any Trek series (minus again the animated which I seriously don't like), and i could easily lose 2/3rd of its 7th season.
And each series probably has at least ten episodes that i think are better then the very best Star Trek movie (khan in my mind). For the most part I don't think Trek has had very successfully created films. It just has never really been their strong suit, and why should it be, its not what it was ever conceived as.
Out of all the Trek films I would only recommend khan, voyage Home (general audience seemed to really like, I am far more critical), first Contact, star Trek (2009) and Into darkness. Out of twelve those are the only ones I wouldn't be embarrassed to have invited causal viewers to watch with me. For my local Trek friends I would only recommend Khan, First Contact, and Trek 2009.
-
2
-
-
38 minutes ago, Sal said:
Big Trek fan but not super excited for this. I know I'll see it but not when.
Interestingly, all the Trek fans I know seem way more invested in the TV Series that's in the works, it's most of what I see mentioned. Whether they like the ideas or not, they're talking about it way more than they are with this movie. I wonder if the upcoming show is going to hurt or help this (or if it will affect it at all).
I am very excited about this film, but way, way more excited for the tv series, for the simple point that Trek for myself has always been more suited to television then the movies. I will gladly take the best episodes of any Star Trek series (outside of the animated, which I hated even as a youngster), and place it against the best Trek film and have no problem finding the best episodes of any live action series is stronger material. and sure you get bad episode off TV, but here's the think you get a Final Frontier or a Nemesis and you wait years for the possibility off a good film. With TV you get a terrible episode like And the Children Shall Lead, and hell you might only have to wait a few weeks to get a gem of an episode.
With a TV series, even a short season series, you have the opportunity for much more in depth plot and character development. and while Film might get better polish you can get a hell of a lot of production bang on television budget then what you could for a film. I mean look at DS9 and the large scale war scenes done in the 6th and 7th season. Even the films with budgets near 200 million have never been able to show cause such long form fx., and god, lets not even start on what type of dramatic storytelling and character development you can achieve on tv versus film.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, junkshop36 said:
Thats because die hard Trek fans hated STiD so they just don't care anymore. They voted that movie as the worst Trek ever! Worse than ST5! Da FUQ! Lol
I hope it does well enough because I thinking looks really good.
What a load of crap. There has never been a scientific poll of US diehard Trek fans and their reactions to Into darkness. NEVER. There was one convention where one part of said convention was polled and they picked it. But that is in no way shape or form a valid representation off Diehard Star Trek fans feelings.
Go the treks one off the largest message boards for star Trek fans, and out of the 25,000 members only a handful are die hard haters of Into darkness. Look at the various rankings of the films done over the last three years and rarely is it last, usually ranks 5th or higher.
Typically threads that come out asking about how bad Into Darkness is, get overwhelming responses saying that opinion isn't very common in the broader community. Sure there are those that do hate it, and some of them go on and on and on about it, but in my 43 active years of remembering Trek (watched it since 68, but don't actually have memories of it until 720, haters and there have been haters of various Treks starting with season 3 of TOS, to those who hated TNG, to hated DS9, to hating Voyager, to hating Ent, to hating and film, for change in film regime. Those people tend to be loud and get their opinions out there, but they never really seem to be representative of what fans think.
It reminds me of when Trek 2009 aired, it started at 7pm, and a large group of local trekkers, trekkies got together and we were asked by our local NBC affiliate if we would stick around for an interview about the film. We did an interview as a group and then broke into smaller groups for more details. Well, the general thoughts were that the film was exceedingly enjoyable even if it had a few flaws. Know what made the news, the 2 people who were utterly negative about the film and thought it betrayed Trek's legacy. 2 out of over 40 people, and those two were the only two used in the interview.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, MuffinMan said:
George Takei Reacts to Gay Sulu News: "I Think It's Really Unfortunate"
" Takei first learned of Sulu's recent same-sex leanings last year, when Cho called him to reveal the big news. Takei tried to convince him to make a new character gay instead. "I told him, 'Be imaginative and create a character who has a history of being gay, rather than Sulu, who had been straight all this time, suddenly being revealed as being closeted.'" (Takei had enough negative experiences inside the Hollywood closet, he says, and strongly feels a character who came of age in the 23rd Century would never find his way inside one.) "
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/george-takei-reacts-gay-sulu-909154
Great example of Takei being wrong. Actors across the board know that the bible for a character and what blanks the artists fills in themselves to help inform a character (I mean especially one with so little in background) are always up to be changed by the writers. While its absolutely true that Sulu was not created as a gay or bisexual role, and that Takei didn't imagine the character as a gay or bisexual male. There is literally no onscreen material that would be impacted by the character being gay or bisexual. None. I mean does he think his character was asexual? Because that was what was showed on screen. Being in the closest implies you hide your behavior either from yourself or yourself and others. that isn't what was shown on screen at all.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, DeeCee said:
I don't really care but in a technical sense something like this couldn't change in the alternate universe.
=====Wrong.
The break in the timeline occurs before the birth of Sulu in the Prime Universe, thus just to be anal, there is no way of knowing if the same two parents produced this Sulu. There is absolutely the possibility of having a different genetic pool for this character. The only characters who we know based on age would be Spock, mcCoy, Scotty and Kirk. Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov were born after the time change and thus could have had a different parent.
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, philyb said:
It's not important, but it is still silly. Sulu wasn't gay.
While he was never conceived as a gay character by the writers back in the 60's, there is no on screen material indicating he was straight. Again Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Chekov, Rand and Chapel are all directly shown to have relationships with members of the opposite sex. Uhura in the 1st aired episode gets briefly stalked by an alien that takes the form of what you are attracted too, and it's a man, so whil she is never shown in a relation we do know what she is attracted to.
But not Sulu. Sulu is the one character that is a blank slate as far as what the audience is shown regarding his sexuality.
-
4 hours ago, philyb said:
That's stupid. Sulu isn't gay, he has a wife and kid in the other movies.
Actually he just has a daughter no mention of wife or girlfriend. In fact Sulu is the only character of significance to never have a romantic scene or physical interaction with the opposite sex in the 79 episodes and 6 films of original Trek,. The closest you can get is a scene in Trek V that has Sulu and Chekov following a heavily muscled female Klingon warrior, and he smirks after Chekov comments about her wonderful muscles, that's the closest you can come to even showing an interest in a female in all of trek In what they call the prime universe. In the mirror universe Sulu hits on Uhura, but we have been shown that the sexual identity isn't always the same between mirror universe and prime so that really can't count.
-
2
-
-
Can someone who is a fan of The Hobbit or LOTR movie series and no longer a teenager explain to me what it is about these movies that is compelling or interesting for you? I am not trying to be rude - just curious what you find compelling about these movies. To me, they have about as much depth as a He-Man vs. Skeletor cartoon. Seems just fine for kids or teens, but I don't understand how so many 20-somethings/30-somethings/40-somethings find this stuff interesting.
Actually LoTR and even the Hobbit have far more fans who are over 40 then under. And if you honestly think the material is equal to He-man vs Skeletor cartoons, then I would utterly question your sanity.
Go read the lord of the Rings should take you two to three days if you are a fast reader, then read all the notes, and histories and end with The Silmarillion and then please, please go find us the cartoon that is equal to it.
-
6
-
-
No I didn't the poster was talking about Modern times and was dismissing the performance of the previous films as having no bearing on the modern film's performance (or who we the poster of the board should expect the films to perform).
Sure lets sue the TOS films, to show its Overseas use, and that makes its growth, even stronger, though of course inflation will increase these numbers but even with inflation all but one is below and significantly below even Trek 09.
1. Motion Picture (most expensive Movie to date Production Budget) 56.7 million (139 million WW)
2. Wrath of Khan 16.9 million (96.8 million WW)
3. Search for Spock 10.5 million (87 million WW)
4. The Voyage Home 23.2 million (133 million WW)
5. The Final Frontier (God what a terrible film) 18.0 million (70.2 million WW)
6. The Undiscovered Country 22.0 million (96.9 million WW)
Adjusted even Trek 09 did better then all previous Overseas numbers except The Motion Less Picture, which was pushed as the next Star Wars, and seriously killed Trek WW)
Heck even if you use the TNG films it paints a very attractive growth rate for the reboot/ sequel/ prequel of Trek (all three are technically correct descriptions of these films, which in and of itself is slightly abnormal).
TNG
1. Generations 42.4 million (118.1 million WW) 35.9%
2. First Contact 54.0 million (146.0 million WW) 37%
3. Insurrection 42.4 million (112.6 million WW) 37.7%
4. Nemesis 24.1 million (67.3 million WW) 35.7%
TNG averaged a higher percentage WW then TOS films did, So I reasonable expected this film to mirror closer to TOS, then TNG.385.7 million WW) 33.2%
Trek 2009 128.0 million (385.7 million WW) 33.2% - Which did due percentage wise less business overseas. And that was with early screenings, overseas, opening overseas first, having early critic and fan viewings in several cities WW, of about 14 of the film all designed to help build interest).
And finally, even with a four year break a serious increase.
STID 238.6 million (467.4 million WW) 51%
Trek has one of the worst stigma's of adventure/action and its been that was for 30 plus years of film going. Now if they can expand to another Area , and still keep english speaking countries and the gains in Asia, I can see another possible chance for significant growth, but I still would not expect 400 or more overseas (at least not at this stage).
-
It isn't just in comparison to other films, it's also in comparison to expectations, here's the WW predictions for STiD in the summer game:
Neo - $815M
iTz ED - $752M
JackO - $750M
TylerDurden365 - $730M
druv10 - $720M
Jake Gittes - $713M
24Lost - $711M
c00k13 - $700M
Simionski - $700M
acsc1312 - $680M
DAR - $675M
Schumacher FTW - $670M
Filmovie - $664M
iceroll - $650M
Punishment - $650M
Iron Olive - $650M
Fake - $650M
Gizmo - $650M
Sam - $630M
Cmasterclay - $630M
Glassfairy - $630M
Michael G Scott - $625M
The Stingray - $625M
Blankments Into Darkness - $625M
RichWS - $615M
Newbie - $613M
CEDAR - $605M
IronMan89 - $605M
Kayumanggi - $600M
Vanilla - $600M
Chasmmi - $600M
Kitik - $600M
ShawnMR - $600M
grim22 - $585M
baumer - $584M
Telemachos - $582M
narniadis - $575M
Jay Salahi - $571M
Dexter of Suburbia - $570M
TLK - $570M
CJohn - $560M
Mattrek - $550M
Goffe - $548M
Tower - $521M
junkshop38 - $515M
ChFloppit - $485M
laguy03 - $485M
This is making less than all of those.
Franchises can change how the market sees them if you make them look more blockbustery. The first three films in the Fast franchise made less than 110M OS (worse than ST 09), but it turned into a blockbuster anyway and this year made 550M.
Yeah and how many sequels did it take for Fast and the furious to became a major player overseas, was it the 2nd one?
Lets look at that franchise, and its overseas performance.
1. Fast and the Furious 62.7 million 30% of revenue
2. 2 Fast 2 Furious 109.2 million overseas 46.2% of its revenue
3. The Fast and the Furious Tokyo Drift 95.9 million overseas 65% of its revenue
4. Fast and Furious 208.1 million overseas 57.3 of its revenue
5. Fast Five 416.3 million overseas 66.5% of revenue
6. Fast and Furious 6 550 million 69.7 % of revenue
It took 4 sequels for it to explode overseas.
-
ST in 2009 had 125M~,
3, 5, 10, 20 years ago it doesn't matter, ST has never been popular overseas. It has a stigma. Comparing it to another franchise and going lol only $230M does not do it justice. It is is not very good Boxoffice Analysis in my opinion.
Seriously people were using Superhero films as a comparison (as they also had lower then typical ratio of domestic to overseas growth when SH films started up again. But since Spider Man and X-Men how many Super Hero films have been released to help get the overseas audience to be more excepting of them (a lot).
The one positive for Trek was that previously Trek had only done well (for a moderately budgeted film in english speaking countries), this year that expanded to many of the asian markets and I was quite surprised by this.
-
Probably the biggest disappointment of the year. Latin America and most of Europe let this movie down big time. Still a lot of work to do to get Star Trek to finally be a big player overseas
I think the disappointment really is its domestic side of things. The upper range I had for Overseas was 265 (roughly 100% increase, which I can't really find examples of the first sequel showing such dramatic percentage growth overseas over the initial film, with the exception of some comedies and the Dark Knight).
Even if Domestically Trek hit 300 million, the ratio it would have with Overseas would be one of the franchises best.
-
At this pace Smaug will have well over 240 mill by sunday jan 5th
Yeah I don't think so. 230 - 235.
-
So tommorow man of steel overtakes TASM as the most successful reboot box office wise domestically
Yes, but also I don't know.
Without looking at the past, its absolute huge Yes. Where we aren't tracking attendance, or loss or gain of audience.
But if you factor in the past projects that its rebooting, is it? I mean adjusted what did Superman do?
What Did TASM do compare to the adjusted previous SPiderman films, What did Casino Royale do in comparison to the adjusted Bond films.Did any of them actually improve teh audience that previously viewed similar material? Has any reboot ever managed to have more viewers then what its based on?
I mean Superman did adjusted what 450 plus
Spiderman did 550 plus adjusted
Clearly in comaprison with just Spiderman its shows far less audience loss then what TASM shows.
Teh Bond Films? Have no idea.
Batman Begins did what percentage of what Batman did? Man of Steel has to be better then that.
What did other reboots do?
-
France did just slightly better then its 2009 opening of 3.1 million. And Italy did a bit better with 1.5 versus 1.1 for the opening.Disappointing with France especially with its opening doing so much better attendance wise to the first night. Unless the exchange rate between the two counties has collapsed it looks bad for the rest of the days of its weekend.
-
Brazil shows a huge increase trek 2009 opened with 693 thousand and ended with 1.9 million. Stir has nearly doubled trek 2009 full run.
-
Always nice to see attendance numbers wish we got attendance and dollar amount, well all the time everywhere.Curious to see what the dollar amount will be? Not up on France' market.
Star Trek Beyond | 7.22.2016 | Not an Oscar winner.
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
He has also talked in at least one interview in the Trek Magazine about things that he wished they could've done different in Star Trek from 2009. Though part of that might have been do from the writer's strike stopping them from script polishing during the actual filming. Most of the film directors and writers (and many of the writers/ producers of the various shows going back to the original have also done the same) who have worked on Trek have talked about some of the things that worked and didn't work, when viewed after the fact. its not something that is an uncommon event.