[Johnny Clay]

Originally Posted by theonlyweeman

I meant which country, not whether it came from illicit sources or not. I imagine they'll look and see where it came from, perhaps advertise more in countries where it took less money. But overall as long as it gets them loads of money I doubt they'll be too fussed about the international/domestic split

Doubt they'd ever be that complacent. The global expansion of US cinema in foreign territories over the last decade means they'll certainly be fussed about its box-office performance overseas. Films can make vast sums that way these days - way more than on home soil. The old 50/50 split is a thing of the past.

[linkinpark875]

Originally Posted by Voynich

It had hit a brick wall. They had done just about everything with the current cast. So no, I don't think it was wrong. Either way it was going to be mostly a whole new cast.

They could have gave Enterprise a few more seasons on TV. I'm amazed both Voyager and Enterprise never got much in the big screen.

Star Trek no longer has the buzz it use to for me. Personally I think it's down to better drama on channels like Fox and. For Sci-fi fans in the UK the new Doctor Who filled the void for the UK market.

[Theo_Bear]

Originally Posted by linkinpark875

For Sci-fi fans in the UK the new Doctor Who filled the void for the UK market.

For 3 year olds bought up on Teletubbies or Igglepiggle and his snuggle blanket, maybe.

[Broken_Arrow]

Star Trek was dead when the JJ Abrams movie came out. The franchise was exhausted by the time the final episode of Enterprise aired. While I'm not crazy about the direction Abrams has taken it in, if it wasn't for him then Star Trek wouldn't be a viable franchise right now. To me the movies have never been a good representation of Star Trek as a whole. So I can deal with brainless action movies for now. The real test will be when they attempt a new series. The tv shows are the heart and soul of Star Trek. Abrams has opened it up for someone to do a brand new series at some point without being bogged down by continuity. He even kept the continuity of the previous incarnations of Star Trek in tact so they can be revisited again. He hasn't spoiled it in my opinion.

[Gormond]

I'm a fan, looking forward to the next one

[Theo_Bear]

If I'm honest, I'm looking forward to the release of TNG season 3 on Blu-ray more than In To Darkness.

[RebelScum]

Originally Posted by Theo_Bear

If I'm honest, I'm looking forward to the release of TNG season 3 on Blu-ray more than In To Darkness.

Yes, the buzz around the TNG Blu Ray releases shows there still is a thirst for decent Star Trek. I've been rediscovering season 2 which I haven't watched in years and despite being far from the show at its best I'm enjoying far more than I thought I would. Really looking forward to season 3.

[Theo_Bear]

Have stayed away from season 2 on Blu-ray due to the awful work done on it by the third party effects house that CBS gave the work to. General consensus seems to be that CBS will have to redo season 2 themselves at some point as much of it so bad that it can't possibly be left as it is.

[CJClarke]

Originally Posted by Theo_Bear

Have stayed away from season 2 on Blu-ray due to the awful work done on it by the third party effects house that CBS gave the work to. General consensus seems to be that CBS will have to redo season 2 themselves at some point as much of it so bad that it can't possibly be left as it is.

I've got two episodes left to watch on the Season 2 Blu Ray and it really isn't as bad as has been made out, the SFX on the establishing planet shots aren't quite as good as the Season 1 set, and there are a few scenes where there appears to be more film grain than in others, but it isn't distracting at all (the first episode is the worst for the grain, after that it settles down), it certainly doesn't need re-doing by CBS, and i wouldn't wait on them to re-do it either because i highly doubt that they will.

[Red Arrow]

Originally Posted by soulboy77

Ultimately the new films won't take the franchise forward because they have gone back to the beginning. We will probably have a third film and that will be that because the TNG films are still to fresh in peoples memories to have a re-boot.

So what your saying is after 3 "reboot" films they will stop because people will still be thinking about the TNG films? I think after this new film most people (non-trekkies) will have forgotten of the old Star Trek in my view.

The first Abrams did OK for itself in the box office, but I think a lot of people were put off it as they just thought it was another Star Trek film but this time made by "the Lost guy" so didn't go to see it in the cinema. But with word of mouth I think these people may give the new one a go as they've now heard it's nothing like the old films. More people going to see it = more money for the studio = more ST films being made.

[Bio Max]

Originally Posted by Johnny Clay

2009 Star Trek found favour in US audiences ($258m) far more than abroad ($128m).

Paramount are canny enough to not let as well known a name as Star Trek to slip by in this age of franchise cinema - they know a certain audience will lap up big screen Trek in any iteration. But they'll want a significant improvement on the international figure for ST to be a true major player, because that's how it rolls these days.

From wiki:

Star Trek received highly positive reviews from film critics. The film has a 95% approval rating on the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, based on 295 reviews, with the consensus: "Star Trek reignites a classic franchise with action, humor, a strong story, and brilliant visuals, and will please traditional Trekkies and new fans alike."[146] Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average score, gave the film a 83 out of 100 based on 37 reviews from critics

The film cost 150 million and made 385 million.

Yes I'd call the film a success. (which was my original point)

[CJClarke]

Originally Posted by Johnny Clay

2009 Star Trek found favour in US audiences ($258m) far more than abroad ($128m).

Paramount are canny enough to not let as well known a name as Star Trek to slip by in this age of franchise cinema - they know a certain audience will lap up big screen Trek in any iteration. But they'll want a significant improvement on the international figure for ST to be a true major player, because that's how it rolls these days.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Star Trek Into Darkness do more business internationally than domestically, which would be the opposite of Trek 2009. Sequels, particularly 3D sequels, tend to do better outside the US if big budget films from the last few years are anything to go by. That probably played a big part in Paramount pushing for the 3D conversion.

[Johnny Clay]

Originally Posted by CJClarke

I wouldn't be surprised to see Star Trek Into Darkness do more business internationally than domestically, which would be the opposite of Trek 2009. Sequels, particularly 3D sequels, tend to do better outside the US if big budget films from the last few years are anything to go by. That probably played a big part in Paramount pushing for the 3D conversion.

Agreed on all points.

Paramount will certainly want this in the $700m+ super league and the 3D push is probably the key.

If there's a problem in the mix, it's maybe with the film itself.

To this casual viewer, it doesn't seem to be distinguishing itself in any way other than 'it's a Star Trek sequel'.

[Theo_Bear]

Originally Posted by Johnny Clay

Agreed on all points.

Paramount will certainly want this in the $700m+ super league and the 3D push is probably the key.

If there's a problem in the mix, it's maybe with the film itself.

Is this meant to be satirical in some way, or just laugh out loud funny?

$700m gross? I just puddled laughing so hard. Darkness will probably take less than the last film (about $375m from memory) due to all the fans who didn't like it not giving Abrams another hearing. The "problem" is that the film is Star Trek. It's that simple. The film could be exceptionally good, but it won't even register on the radar of most cinema goers because of its label.

If Paramount calls the film Transformers: In To Darkness, then you're looking at a billion dollar gross.

[Metal Mickey]

I promise I'm not a fanboy, but I think Into Darkness will "do a Dark Knight" (or an Austin Powers, or a Skyfall), and completely outstrip its predecessor, at least in cinemas... it's been almost 4 years since the last movie, lots of time for DVD, Blu-Ray and TV showings to shore up support for a new adventure, and there seems to be enough buzz to make it happen... and of course there'll be the "from the future director of Star Wars VII" hype too!

[CJClarke]

Originally Posted by Theo_Bear

Is this meant to be satirical in some way, or just laugh out loud funny?

$700m gross? I just puddled laughing so hard. Darkness will probably take less than the last film (about $375m from memory) due to all the fans who didn't like it not giving Abrams another hearing. The "problem" is that the film is Star Trek. It's that simple. The film could be exceptionally good, but it won't even register on the radar of most cinema goers because of its label.

If Paramount calls the film Transformers: In To Darkness, then you're looking at a billion dollar gross.

Yes, the same "fans" who will moan on Internet forums about how they're boycotting the film but in actual fact will be first in line on release day anyway because its Star Trek.

I don't know if it will double the 2009 films gross, but you're crazy if you think that it'll do less. The 3D and IMAX factor alone will see that it outdoes it's predecessor. Plus, I think you're underestimating how much the 2009 film has appealed to non-Trekkies in the time since its release, I know people who can't stand the "geeky" pre-Abrams TV shows/movies but loved the 2009 film.

[Johnny Clay]

Originally Posted by Theo_Bear

Darkness will probably take less than the last film (about $375m from memory) due to all the fans who didn't like it not giving Abrams another hearing.

When a film breaks big - $700m big - it's the casual filmgoer who is the deciding factor rather than the fans.

And it's comon practise these days for studios to want a sequel to do better than the first (or at the very least match it). Would Paramount pump an estimated $185m into the Trek sequel otherwise? It's in their best interests for them to want it to do as well as possible. It's a business, not a charity.

Originally Posted by Metal Mickey

it's been almost 4 years since the last movie, lots of time for DVD, Blu-Ray and TV showings to shore up support for a new adventure, and there seems to be enough buzz to make it happen...

Originally Posted by CJClarke

Plus, I think you're underestimating how much the 2009 film has appealed to non-Trekkies in the time since its release, I know people who can't stand the "geeky" pre-Abrams TV shows/movies but loved the 2009 film.

Both true. The post-release performance and public response will have been instrumental in the development of the sequel.

[Theo_Bear]

Originally Posted by Johnny Clay

It's a business, not a charity.

You said it yourself. If I was head of Paramount, I wouldn't green light a Trek film with a $185m budget, knowing it's probably going to only make somewhere between $350-$400m worldwide, when I could spend $200m on the next Transformers movie knowing that at the very least it will gross $900m.

From a financial perspective, Star Trek 2009, while certainly not a disaster, was far from the best use of $150m. Into Darkness will be the same.

[Matt D]

I think the worst thing about JJA's Star Trek is that it created a new timeline where *every* series had been wiped out *except* for that bloody awful Enterprise!

[CJClarke]

Originally Posted by Matt D

I think the worst thing about JJA's Star Trek is that it created a new timeline where *every* series had been wiped out *except* for that bloody awful Enterprise!

This has been covered before i think, but it hasn't wiped out the old timeline. The original timeline still exists, and this new timeline couldn't exist without the old one due to "old Spock's" involvement in the events of Star Trek 2009. The future in the new timeline will be different, but the old TOS/TNG/DS9/Voyager timeline is still valid as all the events in that timeline lead to the new one.

[RebelScum]

Originally Posted by Matt D

I think the worst thing about JJA's Star Trek is that it created a new timeline where *every* series had been wiped out *except* for that bloody awful Enterprise!

Oh Mathew, I really expected better from you.

[Matt D]

Originally Posted by CJClarke

This has been covered before i think, but it hasn't wiped out the old timeline. The original timeline still exists, and this new timeline couldn't exist without the old one due to "old Spock's" involvement in the events of Star Trek 2009. The future in the new timeline will be different, but the old TOS/TNG/DS9/Voyager timeline is still valid as all the events in that timeline lead to the new one.

I know - I'm just joking

Anyway, we can still pretend that Enterprise was just a really bad Holodeck programme


[Although thinking back to the various TV series, I think the treatment of time travel was rather inconsistent, and IIRC sometimes it was shown to create a separate parallel timeline as in the film, with the original still existing, while other times it was "Back to the Future" style, with a single re-writeable timeline]

Originally Posted by RebelScum

Oh Mathew, I really expected better from you.

How so?

[Johnny Clay]

Originally Posted by Theo_Bear

You said it yourself. If I was head of Paramount, I wouldn't green light a Trek film with a $185m budget, knowing it's probably going to only make somewhere between $350-$400m worldwide, when I could spend $200m on the next Transformers movie knowing that at the very least it will gross $900m.

From a financial perspective, Star Trek 2009, while certainly not a disaster, was far from the best use of $150m. Into Darkness will be the same.

You may want to ask for a refund on that crystal ball of yours. Sounds well faulty to me.

[RebelScum]

Originally Posted by Matt D

I know - I'm just joking

How so?

Oh it's ok, I see you were only kidding, for a moment there I thought you are one of those who really do think it erased the other series.

[Big Boy Barry]

Anyway, we can still pretend that Enterprise was just a really bad Holodeck programme

Basically yes.

All of Enterprise was just a fictional programme that Beverely Crusher wrote on the holodeck

It explains why no one in the history of pre-2001 Star Trek mentioned "Jonathan Archer" despite being the Greatest Explorer EVER!!!!! in Berman-logic.