ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Boycotting Into Darkness does nothing but hurt the future of Star Trek

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this May. 27 2013, 4:27 pm

60 million in profits in two weeks isn't measly.     You are just reaching. 


 


and a handfull of sequels out of all the sequels made is hardly proof of anything.


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

warp speed

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 24

Report this May. 27 2013, 5:51 pm

Quote: wissa @ May. 27 2013, 4:27 pm

>

>60 million in profits in two weeks isn't measly.     You are just reaching. 

>and a handfull of sequels out of all the sequels made is hardly proof of anything.

>


< They only made the money because they deceived Star Trek fans into thinking it was a new movie. It won't happen again. That's why people like me are letting fans know it is a rerun.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this May. 27 2013, 5:56 pm

What about all us fans who loved it?

We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 27 2013, 6:03 pm

You said extraordinary, which means "Very unusual or remarkable", which, by the "handful", which is 15 from the past decade alone,  disqualifies Star Trek from that description.


60 million is not measly to the average individual, to Paramount, not so much. You are thinking in terms of your own personal dollars and cents, not corporate fiscal analysis. The profit margin is low for STID. I'm not reaching for anything.  You can spin many things but numbers never lie. 


Star Trek is 26%


Fast and Furious is  50%


Iron Man 3 is 82%


The Great Gatsby is 49%


Even Pain and Gain is  46%


That is not reaching. Those are real numbers.


 

warp speed

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 24

Report this May. 27 2013, 6:48 pm

We have all waited four years for a new Star Trek movie. With no new Trek movies, sci fi movies, or tv programs we have all been in withdrawal. I was really hyped for this movie until when in the theater I found out it was a redo. The special effects do not take away from the fact that it is a rerun. Many of you may enjoy watching redos but I do not especially after waiting four years for a new movie. I will not purchase another Star Trek movie ticket until I have read the reviews. I only hope the reviewers are honest and are willing to tell us if it's another redo.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 27 2013, 7:27 pm

All this talk about "boycotting" and "box office disappointment" is interesting, but not really relavant.


The film is tracking almost identically with the 2009 release (it's currently estimated at a few hundred thousand dollars over 2009's take after 12 days (which is actually a little behind in ticket sales when you take inflation into account). It held up very well against 2 powerhouse releases this weekend (FF6 and Hangover III) and has shown that word of mouth is going to carry it along, not kill it.


This is no different than 2009. A small group of fans got irritated and blew a gasket or two, but the film still was popular and very successful. In fact, I'd argue that the phenomenon of the harder-core fans only verifys to audiences that this is something they WANT to go see. So, while the 15-20% of the fanbase "boycott," it only helps general audiences feel like maybe this is something they'd want to go see. It's actually an inverse effect. "Oh, if the whacky Trek fans don't like it, it's probably cool." I know that's painful, but I do think that's what's happening.


Also, the international success has been 2X that of 2009 up to this point...so I think the thoughts about failure are wishful thinking on the part of some.


I'm very comfortable in how the film has been performing. If it had nose-dived in comparison to 2009, I'd be very worried.  If it had gotten bad reviews, I'd be worried. But it didn't on either count. It's shown that it will probably have the same legs as that movie...and it's domestic take will likely come in a few million under the 2009 release. That said, the overseas numbers more than make up for that.


Movie #3 is all but assured.

warp speed

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 24

Report this May. 27 2013, 7:38 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ May. 27 2013, 7:27 pm

>

>All this talk about "boycotting" and "box office disappointment" is interesting, but not really relavant.

>The film is tracking almost identically with the 2009 release (it's currently estimated at a few hundred thousand dollars over 2009's take after 12 days (which is actually a little behind in ticket sales when you take inflation into account). It held up very well against 2 powerhouse releases this weekend (FF6 and Hangover III) and has shown that word of mouth is going to carry it along, not kill it.

>This is no different than 2009. A small group of fans got irritated and blew a gasket or two, but the film still was popular and very successful. In fact, I'd argue that the phenomenon of the harder-core fans only verifys to audiences that this is something they WANT to go see. So, while the 15-20% of the fanbase "boycott," it only helps general audiences feel like maybe this is something they'd want to go see. It's actually an inverse effect. "Oh, if the whacky Trek fans don't like it, it's probably cool." I know that's painful, but I do think that's what's happening.

>Also, the international success has been 2X that of 2009 up to this point...so I think the thoughts about failure are wishful thinking on the part of some.

>I'm very comfortable in how the film has been performing. If it had nose-dived in comparison to 2009, I'd be very worried.  If it had gotten bad reviews, I'd be worried. But it didn't on either count. It's shown that it will probably have the same legs as that movie...and it's domestic take will likely come in a few million under the 2009 release. That said, the overseas numbers more than make up for that.

>Movie #3 is all but assured.

>


Not if it's another rerun.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 27 2013, 7:44 pm

It can be whatever it wants. If this movie is somewhere in the same ballpark as the last, a new movie is assured. They are contracted for 3 movies, and they'll surely make 3 movies unless this one bombs. And, it's not bombing...nor will it. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change that.


So, it can be a scene-by-scene remake of "Plato's Stepchildren"...but they'll definitely make another movie.

proteusxz

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this May. 27 2013, 8:00 pm

Jeez...how do you post on this thing?!

Ok, long story short for try #3.

NuTrek blows. Will ignore. Hope it goes away soon. Might shoot Abrams before he ruins SW too. Waiting for NEXT Trek after this pointless retread of characters whose storylines were already fully realized and over(-ish except for Spock of course).

warp speed

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 24

Report this May. 27 2013, 8:04 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ May. 27 2013, 7:44 pm

>

>It can be whatever it wants. If this movie is somewhere in the same ballpark as the last, a new movie is assured. They are contracted for 3 movies, and they'll surely make 3 movies unless this one bombs. And, it's not bombing...nor will it. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change that.

>So, it can be a scene-by-scene remake of "Plato's Stepchildren"...but they'll definitely make another movie.

>


So in your opinion it doesn't matter whether they make reruns or not. As long as the studio makes money who cares? Well that will end as soon as Star Trek fans get tired of paying for reruns.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 27 2013, 8:08 pm

Quote: bunkey @ May. 27 2013, 6:03 pm

>

>You said extraordinary, which means "Very unusual or remarkable", which, by the "handful", which is 15 from the past decade alone,  disqualifies Star Trek from that description.

>60 million is not measly to the average individual, to Paramount, not so much. You are thinking in terms of your own personal dollars and cents, not corporate fiscal analysis. The profit margin is low for STID. I'm not reaching for anything.  You can spin many things but numbers never lie. 

>Star Trek is 26%

>Fast and Furious is  50%

>Iron Man 3 is 82%

>The Great Gatsby is 49%

>Even Pain and Gain is  46%

>That is not reaching. Those are real numbers.

>


Numbers never lie? Um, I'll have to tell that to my stats teacher. There's a book called "Lies, D*mn lies and statistics" that talks about how you can bend numbers to suit any point of view.


Now, here is one thing that we will never know-what Paramount thinks. Are disappointed? Probably, but most businesses like to make more money. That really shouldn't be a surprise. But, Star Trek has had its fair share of box office bombs and the studio comes back to the franchise anyway.


Again, from friends in the industry, Paramount probably isn't sweating over Into Darkness' numbers. They are actually more concerned about "World War Z."

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 27 2013, 8:23 pm

[quote]


[quote]


It can be whatever it wants. If this movie is somewhere in the same ballpark as the last, a new movie is assured. They are contracted for 3 movies, and they'll surely make 3 movies unless this one bombs. And, it's not bombing...nor will it. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change that.


So, it can be a scene-by-scene remake of "Plato's Stepchildren"...but they'll definitely make another movie.


[/quote]


So in your opinion it doesn't matter whether they make reruns or not. As long as the studio makes money who cares? That will end as soon as Star Trek fans get tired of paying for reruns.


[/quote]


Nope, all I really care about is if I enjoy it or not...and if my friends and family enjoy it so I have other people so share the experience with.


I only care that it makes money so there will be more Star Trek in the future. A successful film franchise means the chances of CBS trying a new weekly series are greatly increased. If the new film franchise tanks, I'd say they won't bother. 


Not sure how you classify "Star Trek Into Darkness" a "re-run." If you mean a "remake" I still don't follow you. Aside from using 2 familliar characters and mirroring the Spock death scene, the plot was fairly different from TWOK. "Star Trek Nemesis" was more of a TWOK remake than STID was.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this May. 27 2013, 8:45 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ May. 27 2013, 7:27 pm

>

>All this talk about "boycotting" and "box office disappointment" is interesting, but not really relavant.

>The film is tracking almost identically with the 2009 release (it's currently estimated at a few hundred thousand dollars over 2009's take after 12 days (which is actually a little behind in ticket sales when you take inflation into account). It held up very well against 2 powerhouse releases this weekend (FF6 and Hangover III) and has shown that word of mouth is going to carry it along, not kill it.

>This is no different than 2009. A small group of fans got irritated and blew a gasket or two, but the film still was popular and very successful. In fact, I'd argue that the phenomenon of the harder-core fans only verifys to audiences that this is something they WANT to go see. So, while the 15-20% of the fanbase "boycott," it only helps general audiences feel like maybe this is something they'd want to go see. It's actually an inverse effect. "Oh, if the whacky Trek fans don't like it, it's probably cool." I know that's painful, but I do think that's what's happening.

>Also, the international success has been 2X that of 2009 up to this point...so I think the thoughts about failure are wishful thinking on the part of some.

>I'm very comfortable in how the film has been performing. If it had nose-dived in comparison to 2009, I'd be very worried.  If it had gotten bad reviews, I'd be worried. But it didn't on either count. It's shown that it will probably have the same legs as that movie...and it's domestic take will likely come in a few million under the 2009 release. That said, the overseas numbers more than make up for that.

>Movie #3 is all but assured.

>


Your analysis is spot on, V'ger.  Once again, I have failed to find time this weekend to see the movie, but maybe, just maybe, I can see it this week so that I won't have to resort to the DVD. 


As you said, Movie #3 is virtually assured.  Abrams won't be directing it.  It's not clear, at this point, who will be onboard from the Bad Robot crew.   It does sound like Bob Orci would like to do another one and that he would like to go more sci-fi with it.  I take that to mean that he would like to dispense with having the crew go up against another villain and/or have to deal with a first contact situation of some sort.  I think this is a good move.  They can't all be the crew against against a villain.  In any case, I'm looking forward to seeing STID and the following film.  As a longtime TOS fan, I really enjoyed ST 2009.  IMO, Abrams and company have done a pretty good job with these two films (though I still like TWOK, TVH, TUC, and TSFS more). 


After movie #3, who knows?  CBS has the rights to the TV shows and they could just go ahead and do whatever the want.  It doesn't have to connect with the Abrams films at all.  Heck, all these fans who complain about these films, well, they could end up hating the next TV show more, like a lot of the fans that hated ENT. 


 


 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

warp speed

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 24

Report this May. 27 2013, 8:54 pm

The promos had shown an unknown villain and I was excited to see this movie. I believed that it was an original script. I waited four years for a new Star Trek movie and it looks like they tricked me. Enjoy your reruns, retreads, or redos but I will not buy another ticket until I know for sure that it's an original story.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 27 2013, 9:18 pm

Quote: rocketscientist @ May. 27 2013, 8:45 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ May. 27 2013, 7:27 pm

>

>

>All this talk about "boycotting" and "box office disappointment" is interesting, but not really relavant.

>The film is tracking almost identically with the 2009 release (it's currently estimated at a few hundred thousand dollars over 2009's take after 12 days (which is actually a little behind in ticket sales when you take inflation into account). It held up very well against 2 powerhouse releases this weekend (FF6 and Hangover III) and has shown that word of mouth is going to carry it along, not kill it.

>This is no different than 2009. A small group of fans got irritated and blew a gasket or two, but the film still was popular and very successful. In fact, I'd argue that the phenomenon of the harder-core fans only verifys to audiences that this is something they WANT to go see. So, while the 15-20% of the fanbase "boycott," it only helps general audiences feel like maybe this is something they'd want to go see. It's actually an inverse effect. "Oh, if the whacky Trek fans don't like it, it's probably cool." I know that's painful, but I do think that's what's happening.

>Also, the international success has been 2X that of 2009 up to this point...so I think the thoughts about failure are wishful thinking on the part of some.

>I'm very comfortable in how the film has been performing. If it had nose-dived in comparison to 2009, I'd be very worried.  If it had gotten bad reviews, I'd be worried. But it didn't on either count. It's shown that it will probably have the same legs as that movie...and it's domestic take will likely come in a few million under the 2009 release. That said, the overseas numbers more than make up for that.

>Movie #3 is all but assured.

>

Your analysis is spot on, V'ger.  Once again, I have failed to find time this weekend to see the movie, but maybe, just maybe, I can see it this week so that I won't have to resort to the DVD. 

As you said, Movie #3 is virtually assured.  Abrams won't be directing it.  It's not clear, at this point, who will be onboard from the Bad Robot crew.   It does sound like Bob Orci would like to do another one and that he would like to go more sci-fi with it.  I take that to mean that he would like to dispense with having the crew go up against another villain and/or have to deal with a first contact situation of some sort.  I think this is a good move.  They can't all be the crew against against a villain.  In any case, I'm looking forward to seeing STID and the following film.  As a longtime TOS fan, I really enjoyed ST 2009.  IMO, Abrams and company have done a pretty good job with these two films (though I still like TWOK, TVH, TUC, and TSFS more). 

After movie #3, who knows?  CBS has the rights to the TV shows and they could just go ahead and do whatever the want.  It doesn't have to connect with the Abrams films at all.  Heck, all these fans who complain about these films, well, they could end up hating the next TV show more, like a lot of the fans that hated ENT. 

 

 


I'll too have not had the opportunity to see it, but next week is looking promising


From what i have heard "Into Darkness" as a good mix of social commentary, character moments and action. Despite some negative press, the good seems to outweigh the bad, similarly to Trek 09.


Also, I saw someone wearing a T-shirt that seemed oddly appropriate:


"If you have haters, you're doing something right."

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum