The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Paramount bolding going where no Trek has gone before
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 03-09-2009, 11:09 AM
jla1987's Avatar
jla1987 jla1987 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister2 View Post
In retrospect of the 1960’s Star Trek phenomenon, I can see why, in my own opinion, it became something of a geeky nerd thing. No one had a computer back then, the internet wouldn’t be a house hold name until 30 years later and aside from it being a Sci-Fi TV series, it was rather techy sounding and cheap graphics as the common person would loose interest real quick. Paramount, until late, had never put out enough money to put together something spectacular where anyone, Trek fan or not, could enjoy it. Add the latest special effects, throw in some younger sexy actors, speed up the action, opposed to the boring phaser beam, and you just might have a movie of epic proportions. Devoted Star Wars fans and Trek naysayers of the past just may come to see this movie. In fact, I’m positive they will. The latest trailer showed me more in 2 minutes then what Star Wars offered in its last 3 movies. If it is the same as I am thinking, the last 2 batman movies were a huge hit, IMO, because it decided to grow up and loose the cheap one-line attempts at humor, leaving everyone thinking this is for kids. It is time for Trek to do the same thing. If you want a huge theater turnout, you have to get with the times, and stop being afraid to shell out the necessary money. Star Trek has come to that point to either put up or shut up. Berman and Braga slaughtered to death trek, Throw them out the closest air lock and let J.J. Abrams direct it…..Good job!

Then again, I know I am biased and very critical of Star Trek. I’m 36 years old, and to tell the truth, I hated the TOS TV series, although I thought the TOS Movies were awesome, much better than the TNG Movies. DS9 was my favorite series, and although Voyager had its failures, I could sit for 2 weeks straight and watch all episodes of the 7 seasons back to back…again. I don’t understand all the technical babble, I don’t want to. I don’t have schematics of enterprise, and I’m not ready to B-Slap someone for screwing up canon. I don’t go to conventions or own any costumes or badges or any LCARS software on my PC. But I absolutely love Star Trek. As a kid I would be so disappointed to miss an episode of TNG in its first season. I want to be excited again by Star Trek, and this movie seems to be what I have been looking for.
Well put! I agree with 98% (because I don't like DS9 and love TOS)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-09-2009, 11:30 AM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister2 View Post
Only, no trek movie made over 100 Mill except “the voyage home” which did just under 105 Mill. The rumor of this budget being in the 160 Mil mark says they better do what no trek has done, fill the seats!
True, but this doesn't account for inflation adjustments. Also, many films of those earlier years didn't top $100 million at the box office, yet were hardly failures. Ex. Only four films from 1984 topped $100 million when STIII was released.

With a production budget estimated at only $17 million, STIII earned over $79m in 1984 dollars, which is a hefty profit margin (460%). Put it in current terms, STAR TREK at $150m budget would have to earn $690m to equal that success, which would make it a mega-hit in today's box office.
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-09-2009, 02:25 PM
Mister2's Avatar
Mister2 Mister2 is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 147
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by starbase63 View Post
Care to go into why you hate TOS?

And how is redoing the TOS era "going where no Trek has gone before"?

They've already been there, done that, Kirk got the girl...
1. I just never cared for the 60's TV shows.
2. They are redoing it without the 1960's budget.
3. Nah...they haven't...and someone’s got to get the girl…

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionTrek08 View Post
True, but this doesn't account for inflation adjustments. Also, many films of those earlier years didn't top $100 million at the box office, yet were hardly failures. Ex. Only four films from 1984 topped $100 million when STIII was released.

With a production budget estimated at only $17 million, STIII earned over $79m in 1984 dollars, which is a hefty profit margin (460%). Put it in current terms, STAR TREK at $150m budget would have to earn $690m to equal that success, which would make it a mega-hit in today's box office.
I kind of follow, but how do you fit the 1977 Star Wars makeing 461 Mil into this?
__________________
"I once tracked a mouse through Jefferies tube 32"


my lug nuts require more torque than your honda puts out
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-09-2009, 03:11 PM
Livingston's Avatar
Livingston Livingston is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Along the Kessel Run
Posts: 4,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister2 View Post
At the beginning of the trailer, where Kirk is on the bike looking up at the Enterprise, I felt as if the Enterprise was looking down at Kirk as well. I would love to have a poster of that. A J.J. Abrams moment of genius in that shot. It might just be me and my tarded hopeless romantic affliction, but after watching the trailer over again with that point of view, the ship seemed to come alive in its few short camio’s.
No kidding. That shot of Kirk looking up at the enterprise would make a great poster and yeah, the shots of the E moving through the debris field, the thing looks massive, TWOK massive! It's nice to see these ships looking like STARSHIPS.

As for spectacular effects and action, I'd say the Kelvin battle is going to be something to see. From the few shots in the trailers, it looks insane and it's the start of the film as well from what's I've read. But on a side note, I doubt it'll be any Endor space battle, as for space battles, the one at the end of ROTJ takes the cake!

DS9 had some good ones too, always liked how they used the Defiant as a large fighter zipping in and around the capital ships.
__________________


"Death, delicious strawberry flavored death!"

Last edited by Livingston : 03-09-2009 at 03:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-09-2009, 03:14 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister2 View Post
I kind of follow, but how do you fit the 1977 Star Wars makeing 461 Mil into this?
Not to step in too far, but doesn't that total count a couple of re-releases, including the 1997 Special Editions in the total?
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-09-2009, 03:21 PM
Mister2's Avatar
Mister2 Mister2 is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 147
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
Not to step in too far, but doesn't that total count a couple of re-releases, including the 1997 Special Editions in the total?
Never heard of it. Not saying it's not true, just never heard of it. Either way, Star Wars had always been Number 1 in the box office since 1977 until Titanic sank it to 2 and then batman clowned it to 3. Trek had never been on the top 150 all time highest gross.
__________________
"I once tracked a mouse through Jefferies tube 32"


my lug nuts require more torque than your honda puts out
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-10-2009, 07:16 AM
jla1987's Avatar
jla1987 jla1987 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,483
Default

The closest we got was Star Trek IV which is number 343 on the all-time grosses list.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-10-2009, 08:31 AM
Mister2's Avatar
Mister2 Mister2 is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 147
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jla1987 View Post
The closest we got was Star Trek IV which is number 343 on the all-time grosses list.
This movie just has to do better...And it is obvious it has that potential now.
__________________
"I once tracked a mouse through Jefferies tube 32"


my lug nuts require more torque than your honda puts out
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-10-2009, 10:08 AM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,458
Default

I am fired up to see this movie. I wish JJ Abrams the best of luck in creating a successful motion picture.

(Which reminds me..... Why isn't this called "Star Trek: The Motion Picture II"? ) (I keeed. I keeeeeeed.)
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-10-2009, 10:26 AM
Mister2's Avatar
Mister2 Mister2 is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 147
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martok2112 View Post
I am fired up to see this movie. I wish JJ Abrams the best of luck in creating a successful motion picture.

(Which reminds me..... Why isn't this called "Star Trek: The Motion Picture II"? ) (I keeed. I keeeeeeed.)
JJ wanted to give the impression you need not know anything about trek to like this movie. Star Trek by it self says...beggining.
__________________
"I once tracked a mouse through Jefferies tube 32"


my lug nuts require more torque than your honda puts out
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:39 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.