WKND BO: #StarTrek $70.6M/$84.1M, IronMan3 $35.2M/$337.1M, Gatsby $23.4M/$90.2M

[lab276]

Yeah because trailers didn't feature Pine, Quinto, Saldana at all...Just Cumberbatch. Yeah those trailers should totally have 3 minutes of presenting who is Kirk, Spock,Uhura, Bones, Scotty, Sulu and so on to general audience all over again . Are you saying people are that stupid?

Not who they are, but why the audience liked them in the first place.

[dashrendar44]

Or maybe not. Apparently STiD is in large part a rehash of WoK, although I haven't seen it.

 

You haven't seen WoK, me neither. That's the majority of the audience. Like many people didn't see the first Superman but then go see MoS.

Edited May 18, 2013 by dashrendar44

[Spidey Freak]

Yeah, it seems people prefer lame rehashed same old than a movie that tries to heighten the stakes and action.

 

No, they like risky movies like IM3 which also feature popular characters/actors being developed further. IMO, TASM wasn't risky enough which was what kept it from attaining greatness but after watching STID, I can safely say that TASM looks like Cloud Atlas compared to the complete "play by the numbers" rulebook that was Into Darkness.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Spidey Freak

[lab276]

No, they like risky movies like IM3 which also feature popular characters/actors being developed further. IMO, TASM wasn't risky enough which was what kept it from attaining greatness but after watching STID, I can safely say that TASM looks like Cloud Atlas compared to the complete "play by the numbers" rulebook that was Into Darkness.

I liked IM3, but it's not risky. Edited May 18, 2013 by lab276

[dashrendar44]

No, they like risky movies like IM3 which also feature popular characters/actors being developed further. IMO, TASM wasn't risky enough which was what kept it from attaining greatness but after watching STID, I can safely say that TASM looks like Cloud Atlas compared to the complete "play by the numbers" rulebook that was Into Darkness.

 

I found Cloud Atlas trite and naive so for me that means nothing at all. IM3, risky? Coming after Avengers. Hilarious.

[baumer]

How can it go from 28 to 23?  

[Ozymandias]

No, they like risky movies like IM3 which also feature popular characters/actors being developed further. IMO, TASM wasn't risky enough which was what kept it from attaining greatness but after watching STID, I can safely say that TASM looks like Cloud Atlas compared to the complete "play by the numbers" rulebook that was Into Darkness.

 

...............

[Jack Nevada]

Isn't it just great that we now have two iJack's for the price of one? 

Edited May 18, 2013 by Jack Nevada

[Spidey Freak]

Yeah because trailers didn't feature Pine, Quinto, Saldana at all...Just Cumberbatch. Yeah those trailers should totally have 3 minutes of presenting who is Kirk, Spock,Uhura, Bones, Scotty, Sulu and so on to general audience all over again . Are you saying people are that stupid?

 

Promos should have focused more on the chemistry between the Enterprise crew like how Avengers promotion focused on interaction between the actual Avengers with minimal Loki. 

 

Also, the point of a mystery villain is letting him be a mystery. When you revolve your entire promotion around him, you miss your own point.

[Spidey Freak]

I found Cloud Atlas trite and naive so for me that means nothing at all. IM3, risky? Coming after Avengers. Hilarious.

 

Mandarin twist wasn't risky? And I was talking about deciding on producing Cloud Atlas as a big-budgeted, big cast movie. It is your opinion that the film was trite.

[Ball Lightning]

How can it go from 28 to 23?

Rth/Nikki had the assumption that West Coast was going to be strong probably, maybe it wasn't.

[Ent]

The thing is when you have a sequel, many people who didn't see  the first one, won't see the next one.

 

Too many time, studios promote a sequel as they promote a first movie.  Marketing should focus into popularizing the brand by using every platform to rise the visibility of the first movie BEFORE the sequel is out.

 

I have said it once and i say it again, the best way to promote a sequel is to make sure that its first movie is relentlessly showed on TV each year before the sequel's release, becoming mainstream and known by the GA public.

 

It's the only way to turn nerd related franchise into a mainstream one.  People sooner or later will catch it on TV and some may realise what they were missing. Those consumers  will rise the first audience and will anticipate its sequel adding to the fans.

 

By reliying to much on videos, you only attract the fans and the averagely interested in it.  By making the movie free for the masses, through TV channels, you rise your target tremendously.

 

Put the majority of your marketing funds into popularizing the first movie for the masses each year and then half of the job will be done for the next one. 

[dashrendar44]

Promos should have focused more on the chemistry between the Enterprise crew like how Avengers promotion focused on interaction between the actual Avengers with minimal Loki. 

 

Also, the point of a mystery villain is letting him be a mystery. When you revolve your entire promotion around him, you miss your own point.

 

Star Trek Into Darkness is not Avengers. The point is to show that Kirk's cocky behaviour has put down the ship and disrupted the crew while Starfleet is facing one of the biggest threat never encountered especially coming from within. So you missed the point they were trying to sell.

Edited May 18, 2013 by dashrendar44

[Lordmandeep]

I am looking at Sat in my area..

 

It will increase but I don't see any indication of some 40-50% jump at all. 

 

Also don't blame RTH, he has done so much our box office sins.

Glory to his name! 

Edited May 18, 2013 by Lordmandeep

[dashrendar44]

Mandarin twist wasn't risky? And I was talking about deciding on producing Cloud Atlas as a big-budgeted, big cast movie. It is your opinion that the film was trite.

 

Still don't see the TASM comparison even more. TASM was risky?

Edited May 18, 2013 by dashrendar44

[Spidey Freak]

Still don't see the TASM comparison even more. TASM was risky?

 

Rebooting almost immediately with a new cast and crew after the last film of the last franchise, one which was unpopular but still made money? After a sequel to that movie was in initial stages of production but was then dropped? Certainly so.

 

Under normal circumstances, I don't see TASM getting made at all. But Sony had to keep the rights. They were literally forced to take a risk.

[Michael Gary Scott]

It's still going to make twice its budget so clearly some of you don't know what a bomb is

[dashrendar44]

Rebooting almost immediately with a new cast and crew after the last film of the last franchise, one which was unpopular but still made money? After a sequel to that movie was in initial stages of production but was then dropped? Certainly so.

 

Under normal circumstances, I don't see TASM getting made at all. But Sony had to keep the rights. They were literally forced to take a risk.

 

The answer of why it wasn't that of a risky move is in this sentence. Losing the rights and Spiderman cash cow was more risky because Sony was in a bad situtation. So if TASM is risky, MoS is even more risky then.

Edited May 18, 2013 by dashrendar44

[Spidey Freak]

Star Trek Into Darkness is not Avengers. The point is to show that Kirk's cocky behaviour has put down the ship and disrupted the crew while Starfleet is facing one of the biggest threat never encountered especially coming from within. So you missed the point they were trying to sell.

 

My point wasn't they didn't try to sell. My point was they tried to sell it all wrong. Enterprise crew may not be Avengers but they are a group of beloved, charismatic characters just like the Avengers with excellent dynamics and that was what the promos should have focused on. The reason the first movie was such an unexpected success.

[Spidey Freak]

The answer of why it wasn't that risky move is in this sentence. Losing the rights and Spiderman cash cow was more risky.

 

Making the film was still a risk. Imagine if TASM had bombed and Sony was forced to halt sequel production and lose the rights anyway?