Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 6:39 AM   
 By:   RoryR   (Member)

Everyone, including the writers and producers say that Star Trek is still JJ's baby even when he's doing Star Wars. Plus Paramount has hired Roberto "enough crack smoking" Orci and Alex Kurtzman to write for the series again. Orci even said “Star Trek has called me, and I’m going to serve” like he's doing the franchise as a whole a big favor, even though all he's done is help write two movies a lot of time indulging on things that came before it instead of telling a coherent story.

So, then Star Trek is doomed? With JJ running things, the next Trek movie may by the end for the film franchise. It's really never been much of a film series anyway, very uneven, and I think that's mostly because the concept started out as a TV series and that's where it belongs. You know, I often hear that NBC is the network that's most endangered with extinction and the question, "What can it do to save itself?" And, I think, "Why don't they just bring back 'Star Trek' and correct a mistake they made 44 years ago?" It's not exactly rocket science, and could a network Star Trek show in the modern era of some really great shows be any worse than ST:INTO DARKNESS? It could probably be a lot better, though probably better on HBO than NBC.

 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 11:06 AM   
 By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

fyi
the film did considerably LESS box office than the first one.
apparently fans were not that crazy about it either
brm

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 11:14 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

fyi
the film did considerably LESS box office than the first one.
apparently fans were not that crazy about it either
brm


Uh, no, that is not correct.
The second one made a lot more. Much of it from overseas.

ST 2009
= Worldwide: $385,680,446

ST 2013
= Worldwide: $467,365,246

 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 11:16 AM   
 By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

fyi
the film did considerably LESS box office than the first one.
apparently fans were not that crazy about it either
brm


Uh, no, that is not correct.
The second one made a lot more. Much of it from overseas.

ST 2009
= Worldwide: $385,680,446

ST 2013
= Worldwide: $467,365,246


not stateside!

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 11:20 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

fyi
the film did considerably LESS box office than the first one.
apparently fans were not that crazy about it either
brm


Uh, no, that is not correct.
The second one made a lot more. Much of it from overseas.

ST 2009
= Worldwide: $385,680,446

ST 2013
= Worldwide: $467,365,246


not stateside!


True, but the overseas market more than made up for it.

In the end Paramount is very happy, the overseas take is bigger than any other Trek, and they are making another one. These days big budget pictures are all about recouping costs outside the US. The US alone cannot get these pictures into profit.

Domestic
ST 2009
257 million

ST 2013
228 million

 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 11:39 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

These days big budget pictures are all about recouping costs outside the US. The US alone cannot get these pictures into profit.


Which is why American films are devoid of characterization or story. Blatant sex and violence sells. It's universal. The rest not so much.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 16, 2013 - 4:34 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

These days big budget pictures are all about recouping costs outside the US. The US alone cannot get these pictures into profit.


Which is why American films are devoid of characterization or story. Blatant sex and violence sells. It's universal. The rest not so much.


Some truth to that, although there was not much sex in ID, or in Pacific Rim, they both did great business overseas. But generally action pictures do well in foreign markets.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.