Star Trek Beyond | 7.22.2016 | Not an Oscar winner.

[CJohn]

poor comparison. STID was following a film that was extremely well liked and was adding 3D to the series for the first time. I find it interesting how people rag on movies like Pirates 4 or ASM for decreasing from their predecessors despite 3D yet when the same thing happens to STID people go  "Oh, it was never expected to surpass the original, only loonies thought so"

I was not comparing it to STID. Did you read the post I was answering to?

[Jonwo]

Budget cuts aren't always a bad thing, Star Trek II had a much lower budget than Star Trek TPM and turned out to be the better film, Skyfall I think either had the same budget as QoS or cut to $150m and that turned out fine. 

[filmnerdjamie]

poor comparison. STID was following a film that was extremely well liked and was adding 3D to the series for the first time. I find it interesting how people rag on movies like Pirates 4 or ASM for decreasing from their predecessors despite 3D yet when the same thing happens to STID people go  "Oh, it was never expected to surpass the original, only loonies thought so"

 

The revisionist history is delicious. And pathetic.

Edited November 15, 2013 by filmnerdjamie

[Mojoguy]

poor comparison. STID was following a film that was extremely well liked and was adding 3D to the series for the first time. I find it interesting how people rag on movies like Pirates 4 or ASM for decreasing from their predecessors despite 3D yet when the same thing happens to STID people go  "Oh, it was never expected to surpass the original, only loonies thought so"

Also people need to shut up about Iron Man 2's numbers. It made about the same as the first Iron Man which was fine. It could have made much much less money like many sequels.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Mojoguy

[A Marvel Fanboy]

Ironman is a bigger franchise than Trek.

 

IM2 sucked but it still did more than 300m (all three IM movies did) and ranked #3 in 2010. That is a big difference than 200m+ Trek.

 

ST was #7 in 2009 and now its sequel probably wont be even in top 10 of 2013.

[A Marvel Fanboy]

The revisionist history is delicious. And pathetic.

You cant fight the revisionism. At one point I almost got banned because of that.

 

Since then I just accept the fact "STID: Nothing went wrong".

 

Gotta say it out loud.

[CJohn]

You cant fight the revisionism. At one point I almost got banned because of that.

 

Since then I just accept the fact "STID: Nothing went wrong".

 

Gotta say it out loud.

You almost got banned because of the ridiculous shit you were making in the Smurfs 2 OS thread. 

Edited November 16, 2013 by CJohn

[dashrendar44]

poor comparison. STID was following a film that was extremely well liked and was adding 3D to the series for the first time. I find it interesting how people rag on movies like Pirates 4 or ASM for decreasing from their predecessors despite 3D yet when the same thing happens to STID people go  "Oh, it was never expected to surpass the original, only loonies thought so"

 

Last time I checked, most people here did rag about STiD as a FLOOOOOOOOOOP! since the first estimations and all through its Domestic run (that infamous WWW thread on the movie's opening day) so I don't know what you're smoking.

 

It's Captain Craig that called people saying "Oh, it was never expected to surpass the original, only loonies thought so" and he's pretty much alone saying no one should have expected an increase when some other said it's a disappointment compared to legit expectations but not a flop as it was parroted as on opening weekend.

 

And Firedeep, amigo, you that like to drop the "Flop" stamp of shame as fast as you can, where was your "Pacific Rim: What Went Wrong" thread then because last time I checked PR barely passed the 100M bar against a 190M budget whereas STiD got a WWW thread few seconds after the first estimations even if it ended at 228M Dom against the same budget as PR?

 

Double standard here. I guess people were more eager to see STiD fail hard and jump as quick as they can to dismiss it as an absolute flop and bury it before all was said and done when in fact it just did well on its own compensating OS what it lacked DOM...

Edited November 16, 2013 by dashrendar44

[Talon]

STiD did fine but it`s surprised me that it decreased in US to be honest. Well at least it increased OS, not much but noticeable.

[Charism]

 Well at least it increased OS, not much but noticeable.

127,950,427 -> 238,586,585I think this increase is "much".

[Talon]

127,950,427 -> 238,586,585I think this increase is "much".

Yep, yep and I completely agree, but some people seem to think if not 100% increase it`s not much and everything that is not 1b is a flop.

[lab276]

STID was a disappointment on all levels.

[John Marston]

STID did not do that great overseas. The vast majority of its money came from China. Nobody says STID is a flop. This is just a tactic to silence your argument. "Stop saying STID is a flop ! " even though that is not what you said. Is it a disappointment ? Yes

[kayumanggi]

STID was a disappointment on all levels.

 

Come on.

[dashrendar44]

Nobody says STID is a flop. This is just a tactic to silence your argument. "Stop saying STID is a flop ! " even though that is not what you said. Is it a disappointment ? Yes

 

Paranoid much?

 

Did you skip the part where I said people deemed it a disappointment (And I'm the first to admit it, Paramount admitted it as well) so your "Me against the whole world think STiD is a disappointment" narrative doesn't work because 95% of this forum was calling STiD a flop sealed and delivered on opening weekend.

Edited November 16, 2013 by dashrendar44

[A Marvel Fanboy]

STID OS is not great, not even close. STID OS did shit numbers in the standard of a $190m budgeted sci-fi action blockbusters nowadays.

 

STID OS did less than original PR and quality-ly horrible Smurfs 2 both of which flopped DOM in the same year.

 

Please stop compare STID and ST OS and say what a great increase it is. Because:

 

1. ST 09 bombed OS. 

2. The increase was at best standard for a 3D enhenced sequel in today's international markets. 

Edited November 16, 2013 by firedeep

[4815162342]

Lots of people said STiD was a flop. Most of them weren't serious but were taking glee in the failure of overpredictions.

 

 

Firedeep, yeah STiD's OS numbers were not good in comparison to most blockbusters, they were brilliant in comparison to every other Star Trek film ever made. STiD was the first Trek film to get a solid global market rather than just a domestic one. And that market will only get better.

Edited November 16, 2013 by 4815162342

[John Marston]

STID OS is not great, not even close. STID OD did shit numbers in the standard of a $190m budgeted sci-fi action blockbusters nowadays.

 

STID OS did less than an original PR and quality-ly horrible Smurfs 2 both of which flopped DOM in the same year.

 

 

Star Trek 2 made less than Gi Joe 2 overseas. 

 

 

 

People like to say "oh you just overpredicted the movie". Expecting it to outgross the original is not an over prediction or a loony prediction.'

 

 

 

I am not a hater of this film. I loved it, but this revisionism is just embarrassing 

Edited November 16, 2013 by John Marston

[A Marvel Fanboy]

STID was a disappointment on all levels.

[i am not saying STID is a flop.]

 

But Lab276 says all the true here.

[kayumanggi]

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is the biggest Trek film ever. It made bigger numbers than THE WOLVERINE, G.I. JOE: RETALIATION, PACIFIC RIM, THE HANGOVER lll, THE SMURFS ll, OBLIVION, AFTER EARTH, etc. Paramount didn't care and still made STID despite the low performance overseas of the 2009 film. Apparently, they don't care of the "not great" overseas number of STID since they are doing the third movie. In addition, STID is the best reviewed big blockbuster movie of summer 2013 at RT. I agree.

Edited November 17, 2013 by kayumanggi