kitik Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Is a third one really necessary after how dissapointing the second one did DOM? But it was supposed to do so much greater than that. It feel heavily from not only ours but even expert's expectations as well. you make it sound like STID was a flop It was not. It may have come in under expectations both box office-wise and story-wise, but it certainly wasn't bad enough to put an end to a 50-year franchise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) (shrugs) Because it could fall less than 200 this time? It just seems like it haven't really gotten the approval of the GA behind it, only the fans. Even then, it's still worthwhile for Paramount. edit: ironically, it doesn't have the full support of the fans, but it's supplanted that with a wider (albeit potentially softer) base of science-fiction/action general audience members. Edited June 25, 2015 by Telemachos 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolioD1 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I think it's mainly because having a new star trek thing come out for the 50th anniversary year will give me a gigantic fan boner, even if I'm not 100% it'll actually be good. so that's the main reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K1stpierre Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 you make it sound like STID was a flop It was not. It may have come in under expectations both box office-wise and story-wise, but it certainly wasn't bad enough to put an end to a 50-year franchise. No, technically it wasnt a flop, I'm just saying its kind of iffy since domestically it didn't follow expectations. I'm guessing they are predicting bigger OS numbers. Even then, it's still worthwhile for Paramount. edit: ironically, it doesn't have the full support of the fans, but it's supplanted that with a wider (albeit potentially softer) base of science-fiction/action general audience members. If they can reel in good OS numbers (like transformers seems to do, though I'm not saying anywhere near that ballpark), then I guess DOM doesn't matter all that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil in the Blank Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 (shrugs) Because it could fall less than 200 this time? It just seems like it haven't really gotten the approval of the GA behind it, only the fans. Sure, and Jurassic World could had opened to 40M and struggle past 100M DOM so why bother making films at all? Investing 150M to 200M in a film always has its risks, but the ST Reboot has had 2 profitable films, and more importantly it helps keep the ST Franchise in the limelight and all the financial benefits from sales of its 50 years of content that that entails. It would be craziness to shrug and throw in the towel just because the movie made 225M DOM rather than the 300M DOM that they probably expected. It was still a successful film. And probably just as, if not more profitable than a film like Mad Max that the entire forum seems to have gotten behind as a success. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJohn Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Star Trek Into Darkness had a severe marketing problem: mystery box. They should have said straight away Cumberbatch was Khan. They should have revealed it in the first freaking teaser. Edited June 25, 2015 by CJohn 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolioD1 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Star Trek Into Darkness had a severe marketing problem: mystery box. They should have said straight away Cumberbatch was Khan. They should have revealed it in the first freaking teaser. Well Justin Lin's last movie showed ALL the cool bits in the trailers so I guess that might not be a problem this time around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil in the Blank Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Star Trek Into Darkness had a severe marketing problem: mystery box. They should have said straight away Cumberbatch was Khan. They should have revealed it in the first freaking teaser. Yeah it was weird. Nobody would had cared outside the hardcore trekie fans anyways, and the movie was aiming for the GA so why all the secrecy? The moment when it was revealed in the film that he was Kahn just fell flat in the cinema for me. I got the feeling that most people reacted just like.... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 No, technically it wasnt a flop, I'm just saying its kind of iffy since domestically it didn't follow expectations. I'm guessing they are predicting bigger OS numbers. If they can reel in good OS numbers (like transformers seems to do, though I'm not saying anywhere near that ballpark), then I guess DOM doesn't matter all that much. Yeah, like Spottswoode said, the ST movies drive a huge moneymaking franchise for Paramount: endless books, board games, costumes, Vegas theme attractions, the vast library of four TV series and the other movies, etc etc etc. As long as they don't start spending way over 200m on each movie, they're fine. The Abrams reboots did a good job of establishing an OS presence, and that should continue to grow (albeit on a smaller, quieter level than most of the mega-tentpoles that get all the attention). Domestically, they basically need to target a gross around what the production budget is. Anything more is gravy. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJohn Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Yeah, like Spottswoode said, the ST movies drive a huge moneymaking franchise for Paramount: endless books, board games, costumes, Vegas theme attractions, the vast library of four TV series and the other movies, etc etc etc. As long as they don't start spending way over 200m on each movie, they're fine. The Abrams reboots did a good job of establishing an OS presence, and that should continue to grow (albeit on a smaller, quieter level than most of the mega-tentpoles that get all the attention). Domestically, they basically need to target a gross around what the production budget is. Anything more is gravy. 500M WW is the target for this one, IMO. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonwo Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Yeah, like Spottswoode said, the ST movies drive a huge moneymaking franchise for Paramount: endless books, board games, costumes, Vegas theme attractions, the vast library of four TV series and the other movies, etc etc etc. As long as they don't start spending way over 200m on each movie, they're fine. The Abrams reboots did a good job of establishing an OS presence, and that should continue to grow (albeit on a smaller, quieter level than most of the mega-tentpoles that get all the attention). Domestically, they basically need to target a gross around what the production budget is. Anything more is gravy. Paramount actually don't own anything Star Trek related aside from the films as CBS got control of the franchise when Viacom split from CBS almost a decade ago. I think the big reason why Star Trek hasn't returned to television is because CBS isn't interested at the moment Edited June 25, 2015 by Jonwo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goffe Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) this movie has a chance at out grossing the last one. It has a July release without much competition and it has the 50th Anniversary of Star Trek to use in its marketing. of course we have to wait and see, but I'm pretty sure it won't be a good fim without JJ at the helm, so yeah, it would never have legs to propel it over the second one. I don't think the 50th Anniversary will impact the gross that much, if at all. Edited June 25, 2015 by Goffe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan Hunt Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 of course we have to wait and see, but I'm pretty it won't be a good fim without JJ at the helm, so yeah, it would never have legs to propel it over the second one. I don't think the 50th Anniversary will impact the gross that much, if at all. Lin is capable of making a good film, certainly one better than Into Darkness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaster506 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 If Trek ever returns to TV put it on Showtime. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goffe Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Lin is capable of making a good film, certainly one better than Into Darkness sure, whatever you say Ethan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan Hunt Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 sure, whatever you say Ethan. You actually like into Darkness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WrathOfHan Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 sure, whatever you say Ethan. Fast Five>Both of the new Trek movies 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyGossamer Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Lin went film to film with Abrams when Furious 6 clown-stomped Into Darkness WW. Edged it out DOM too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan Hunt Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Among Lin movies I really like are Fast and Furious (4), and The Bourne Legacy (not as good as the originals but enjoyable IMO), Edited June 25, 2015 by Ethan Hunt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Zoe Saldana will be/is the biggest female box office star of our era. You read it here first. Edited June 25, 2015 by The Futurist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
