|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Dec 13, 2017 1:20:49 GMT -5
I don't have any issue with JJ, as I said I really enjoyed the 2009 Star Trek movie. I just felt as though the last two (one by JJ and the other one by Lin) were not that good. Not sure how to quantify it, but I have re watched the 2009 Star Trek several times, but I think I have never re watched the second two even though I own them on blu-ray. The box office results also kind of tell the sames story 1 Star Trek Par. $257,730,019 2 Star Trek Into Darkness Par. $228,778,661 3 Star Trek Beyond Par. $158,848,340 Just a steady decline after 2009 (big drop off for #3). These are just US numbers and I understand that international plays a big part as well, but the point still shows that interest is waning in the franchise. My concern would be that they make another film like the third one and it kills off the franchise for a fairly long time. I have a great deal of reservation about QT making a Star Trek movie, but my gut tells me he understands the source material enough that he would not make it a gore fest (I may be naive/optimistic with this though). It just that Trek is kind of in a tough spot right now and if a 4th film (Kelvin TL) gets green lit it has to be a success. I am not sure if it would be a success with Q, but it would at least get a buzz. It could also ruin the franchise for a long time, so there is that. That's a bit USA cinema centric, Beyond cost less to make and did more at the international box office at $178M than it did in the USA. Even more on Broadcast TV. Plus with a 2016 release it's the most recent and it hasn't plateaued in DVD and Blu Ray sales. Star Trek 2009 did the worst of the 3 at the international box office. I don't see any waning in the total numbers and after all that's what matters, how much it makes versus how much it costs and they all made money. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Dec 13, 2017 14:38:31 GMT -5
I don't have any issue with JJ, as I said I really enjoyed the 2009 Star Trek movie. I just felt as though the last two (one by JJ and the other one by Lin) were not that good. Not sure how to quantify it, but I have re watched the 2009 Star Trek several times, but I think I have never re watched the second two even though I own them on blu-ray. The box office results also kind of tell the sames story 1 Star Trek Par. $257,730,019 2 Star Trek Into Darkness Par. $228,778,661 3 Star Trek Beyond Par. $158,848,340 Just a steady decline after 2009 (big drop off for #3). These are just US numbers and I understand that international plays a big part as well, but the point still shows that interest is waning in the franchise. My concern would be that they make another film like the third one and it kills off the franchise for a fairly long time. I have a great deal of reservation about QT making a Star Trek movie, but my gut tells me he understands the source material enough that he would not make it a gore fest (I may be naive/optimistic with this though). It just that Trek is kind of in a tough spot right now and if a 4th film (Kelvin TL) gets green lit it has to be a success. I am not sure if it would be a success with Q, but it would at least get a buzz. It could also ruin the franchise for a long time, so there is that. That's a bit USA cinema centric, Beyond cost less to make and did more at the international box office at $178M than it did in the USA. Even more on Broadcast TV. Plus with a 2016 release it's the most recent and it hasn't plateaued in DVD and Blu Ray sales. Star Trek 2009 did the worst of the 3 at the international box office. I don't see any waning in the total numbers and after all that's what matters, how much it makes versus how much it costs and they all made money. Cheers Gary As I stated US box office is not the entire story, but remember that typically a studio will see 50% of the domestic revenue of a movie (ie Paramount gets $50M of a $100M film), where international money is close to 30-35%. Here are the worldwide numbers Rank Title Studio Worldwide Domestic / % Overseas / % Year 1 Star Trek Into Darkness Par. $467.4 $228.8 48.9% $238.6 51.1% 2013 2 Star Trek Par. $385.7 $257.7 66.8% $128.0 33.2% 2009 3 Star Trek Beyond Par. $343.5 $158.8 46.2% $184.6 53.8% 2016 What this shows is that Trek has been moving more and more international on a percentage basis (as most of Hollywood has). I coincide you can make a good case that Into darkness was a success when you take into account Worldwide box office, but Beyond was not a success and maybe did a little better than break even if that. Into Darkness cost $190M to make (production budget not counting Marketing), and while Beyond was less it was still $185M production budget. A fair assumption on these type of movies is that the Marketing cost are offset by the revenue from home (bluray, TV deals, etc) then Into Darkness turned a decent profit where Beyond most likely lost a little bit or broke even. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Dec 13, 2017 15:37:24 GMT -5
That's a bit USA cinema centric, Beyond cost less to make and did more at the international box office at $178M than it did in the USA. Even more on Broadcast TV. Plus with a 2016 release it's the most recent and it hasn't plateaued in DVD and Blu Ray sales. Star Trek 2009 did the worst of the 3 at the international box office. I don't see any waning in the total numbers and after all that's what matters, how much it makes versus how much it costs and they all made money. As I stated US box office is not the entire story, but remember that typically a studio will see 50% of the domestic revenue of a movie (ie Paramount gets $50M of a $100M film), where international money is close to 30-35%. Here are the worldwide numbers Rank Title Studio Worldwide Domestic / % Overseas / % Year 1 Star Trek Into Darkness Par. $467.4 $228.8 48.9% $238.6 51.1% 2013 2 Star Trek Par. $385.7 $257.7 66.8% $128.0 33.2% 2009 3 Star Trek Beyond Par. $343.5 $158.8 46.2% $184.6 53.8% 2016 What this shows is that Trek has been moving more and more international on a percentage basis (as most of Hollywood has). I coincide you can make a good case that Into darkness was a success when you take into account Worldwide box office, but Beyond was not a success and maybe did a little better than break even if that. Into Darkness cost $190M to make (production budget not counting Marketing), and while Beyond was less it was still $185M production budget. A fair assumption on these type of movies is that the Marketing cost are offset by the revenue from home (bluray, TV deals, etc) then Into Darkness turned a decent profit where Beyond most likely lost a little bit or broke even. In the movies that I have been involved in "Production Costs" include profit elements i.e. they are not entirely external (to the studio) costs. For example production costs include studio and sound stage charges, which may not have been recovered had that movie not been made. There are also external effects other than "waning interest", for example what other movies may have attracted some of the normal Star Trek audience. Did Beyond simply open in the US with bad timing? But it did well internationally because those same effects weren't as prevalent. My view on the thread topic is that the idea is being floated to see how much publicity it draws and interest it creates. For example how many of the non Star Trek audience will be attracted because Tarantino is their favourite? Compared to say getting JJ back? Merry Xmas to all Gary |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Dec 13, 2017 16:07:08 GMT -5
For example how many of the non Star Trek audience will be attracted because Tarantino is their favourite? Compared to say getting JJ back? Just to be clear, from the articles I read, JJ is still in the lead, like I guess, producer or something? It made it sound as if Tarantino had to get JJ's okay for it to be rated R, because if not, he wasn't interested. And it's Tarantino that is pushing JJ for director's duties. Of course I have no real idea other than from what I read, but that's what I got out of it so far. And yes, the idea of this thread was for open discussion to see how people feel about Tarantino directing a rated R Star Trek movie. As bad as it may be, at least Star Trek is aimed more towards adults. Can you imagine a Tarantino directed Star Wars? You want to talk about a ruckus. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Dec 15, 2017 4:41:45 GMT -5
I would certainly go see a Tarantino Star Trek (Into Blood), I liked the first two JJ’s, but didn’t care for Beyond (haven’t even wanted to watch it again). If Tarantino’s a fan and has an idea it could be good, but if he wants an R rating just because he knows he’s going to kill a bunch of beings, well maybe that will end the current series. Be good to see Jean Luc again if it’s not to contrived (sorry we lost Anton Yelchin). After the last one I’d certainly like to see another director, maybe Star Trek really needs a shake up like this.
Oh, and totally agree Nemesis was an awful way to end the TNG films,
|
|
