National Treasure was decent but the sequel was pretty awful and ruined any chance of a "franchise". I didn't see Sorcerer's Apprentice but the idea of Nic Cage as a Sorcerer?

Plus, I don't think special effects are his thing and he's too much of a "feel good" type of director for something like Star Wars.

IMO, the names in the mix should be Brad Bird, Andrew Stanton, Matthew Vaughn and even Gore Verbinski, who did quite well with Rango.

So, the movie has made $70 million at this point.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm

Why is this bad, again?

Because the numbers mirror the original, which cost $40 million less to produce. Movie studios don't dump an extra $40 million into a sequel hoping for similar results, especially if they're spending more money.

I thought they were planning to make a third Treasure movie. Did that get shelved?

Yes, as far as I know. JT's on to other things so I doubt it will happen.

It's only been out 12 days.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdow...ekshowdown.htm

That page pretty much sums it up.

Yea, it appears there was no audience growth. Star Trek = limited female and under 21 appeal.

Summer Movies are extremely front loaded now days. I'm sure Dane can break down the numbers better but most movies make about 75% of their total gross in the first few weeks.

Calling it "Into Darkness" was probably a misstep as well. The people who would buy into a title like that were already going to see it. Not that Star Trek: Vengeance would have been any better. Either way, it's a bit of a gloomy title for a summer popcorn flick. Not to mention that it just sounds goofy.

And it will continue to fall off, week after week. RINGLEADER put it all in perspective with his post earlier in the thread.

What it comes down to is that Into Darkness won't be a "winner", so the likelihood of another entry, especially one so expensive, is very unlikely.

It has not made 70 million in profit...remember, Paramount does get 100 percent of the film gross, only about 55-60 percent.

Well, if they dumped an extra 40 million into this and didn't get the results they wanted, hopefully it convinces them to go back to a reduced budget, and focus more on a stronger script with an original story.

I'd think that would help them get it out faster, too. I'm sure that 40 mil was spent almost entirely on special effects.

For comparison, from that same page, it appears the audience growth for the Fast Furious series keeps growing.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdow...?id=fast56.htm

With Abrams going off to do Star Wars, it's unlikely that he would even be available (let alone, interested) in another Star Trek film. So, if Paramount decides to move forward, you're looking at a new "team" of producers who would hire a writer, create a new story, then hire a director to realize that story, all with a substantially reduced budget.

Unless they already have someone in mind, you're talking at least a year's development and likely, two. Unless they rushed out another film (which I also find unlikely), you're probably looking at another 3-4 years before the next film would be ready for a theatrical run.

They hired one of the "best" directors in Hollywood, assembled a talented, charismatic cast, spent $190 million for these results?

Why even move forward?

But that might end badly. Uni wanted to move so fast on Fast 7 that Justin Lin dropped out because the window was too tight.

That's usually not a good sign, especially since he revived that franchise.

I guess they want to strike while the irons hot. This could become basically another Saw type franchise.

And who better to hire than James Wan, the director of the original Saw film?

:spock:

I'm skeptical, to say the least.

Bad Robot has a contract for three films, so will Abrams just say "meh" and go on about his business?

I guess he will produce and bring in a buddy to direct. Like he did with the Mission Impossible series.

They will likely "mutually agree to go a different direction". It happens all the time.

Do you really believe that Abrams will go directly from Star Wars back to Star Trek in May 2015?

I certainly don't.

Abrams directed and Orci & Kurtzman wrote Mission Impossible III. He didn't hand it off to anyone.

I thought that entry sucked and paled in comparison to the original and Ghost Protocol.

Yea, but Bad Robot also produced Ghost Protocol i thought?

Well, Bad Robot was part of production agreement but Brad Bird (of Pixar fame) isn't Abram's "buddy". That would be a guy like Jack Bender.

Brad Bird's resume is far more extensive, including writing and directing The Incredibles.

Ah k...yea Bird seems like a pretty talented guy.

He's 55 years old and his resume is sick. He was Lucasfilm's first choice to direct Episode VII but he passed in order to complete his next film, Tomorrowland.

I'm sure at some point down the road, he'll direct a film in the Star Wars universe.

No words for that movie. Pure win, better than the first. Only thing is the reappearance of future Spak.

The 13-day total is now $159.4M (vs. $158.6M for the 2009 film in the same amount of time). After 4 days it was slightly behind the '09 entry, then a few days ago it caught up, now it's passed it. Worldwide it's now at $261M.

I enjoyed it a lot more than 2009. Sure, it had predictable moments but sometimes it's about the journey and not the destination. I'm surprised about how many callbacks to "canon" Trek were made in the flick though.

Hopefully there's a final movie to wrap things up to a degree.

I thought it was pretty good. I don't know shit about the Star Trek mythos, but Khan is a ****ing beast.

Spock was giving him that work though. Had his ass on his knees screaming with that five finger Vulcan shoulder death grip thing LMAO I laughed at that part.

Yep. Abrams basically has no original thought of his own.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HeyLm-pLVm4?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

LMAO Red Letter is the shit.

But to be completely fair, Plinkett hasn't liked ANY of the Trek films, save the very first one from '79 ('78?).

So after 18 days in release.... 181 milly.


http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm

He didn't review the original crew movies, although he has spoken favorably about elements of II and VI in other reviews. He didn't like any of the NG films, and was even hard on the only truly good one, First Contact (although he did raise some excellent points that I hadn't considered before).

He did like the 2009 movie.

He slammed it.

Why do I give a shit what he thinks? **** him. Star Trek the Motion Picture was AWFUL. Pure garbage. It only got better from there. The NG movies don't hold up particularly well, but I did like them when I saw them because of how much I missed Patrick Stewart.

Into Darkness was good. I was entertained. That's all I ask for.

Bull. Shit.

Just watched it a couple days ago. It's slow, but it's one of the best pure stories.

I just watched it on Blu Ray, because I got the set for my bday. It's far too long for the plot. It's like they tried to make an episode into a film and had to figure out a bunch of shit to make it longer. So you end up with serious pacing problems and the camera just lingering on people for no reason.

Absolutely this. I didn't care for it the first time I saw it in theaters but when I picked it up on DVD when I was older I loved it.

It's so much cooler when you realize that V'ger visited the home world of the Borg, which in turn, made them become what they became a few hundred years after its visit.

Wait a minute....

V'ger is the returned Voyager probe, launched in the 20th century and well before the events of the reboot, including the new reality - yes? And everything V'ger did is completely independent of anything Kirk or the rest of the federation would've done, correct?

In other words, nothing that transpired in the re-boot would've stopped V'ger from coming to earth and doing exactly what happened in Trek 1.

So technically speaking, won't the 'new' Enterprise crew have to deal with V'ger at some point?

Theoretically, yes.

The events of the motion picture wouldn't occur for another 13 years in the alternate universe.

I really liked Into Darkness. But I really liked the 09 version, too. So, no big surprise. Not a perfect film, but really well executed sequel and a fun reboot/alternate interpretation of events. This whole alternate timeline thing is just brilliant.

I have no idea if they'll do a third. I hope so. Because the set up after this guy is awesome. The next one could be something special. We can actually move forward instead of dancing sideways.

Is there something about watching Plinkett that makes you stupid?

He didn't slam it. In fact, he seemed to like it more than any of the other Star Trek films he reviewed.

:shake:

So Star Trek snobs on here look forward more to Superman, than liking this excellent movie? Give me a break. This movie is easily the best that I have viewed this year.

You know nothing about what makes a good Star Trek movie.

Tired argument is tired.

Man of Steel was better.

I enjoyed the reboot, even though I expected to hate it. The alternate timeline idea really pissed me off. I love Star Trek. I wanted more Star Trek, not rehashed Star Trek. The reboot gave that too me when I didn't think it could. I was very pleasantly surprised.

Star Trek 2.2 is the reason I hated the alternate timeline idea. All of my objections to rebooting the series came through in this rehashed Khan movie. It just seemed like a mish mash of Trek lore. Sadly, I loved Cumberbatch, and he makes a great villain. He makes a shitty Khan. The The role reversal, triblles, and immortality serum just seemed to take the laziness of story writing to a new extreme. One that was satisfyingly lacking in the 09 reboot, but shoved in my face in 2.2.

If 2.3 has whales, VGER, Khan (I'm expecting he escaped his ship's destruction), aircraft carriers, terraforming missiles, etc. I will be skipping it. I should have skipped 2.2 knowing Khan was in it.

It would be hard NOT to be better.

Any decent science fiction movie with an original plot/story > Into Darkpiss

Agreed, we have never had Superman's backstory hashed out in multiple forms of media by different directors/visionaries over multiple decades.

Well, I haven't seen the new Superman movie, but nerd consensus seems to be that it's pretty awesome, and not a ripoff.

To each their own. But it didn't feel like a rehash to me (outside of the obvious moments of borrowed plot, which only really amounted to like five minutes of screen time). It was just a new introduction to a standard original series character. It continued the same things I loved about the reboot. It gave us a new introduction/take on a classic character. And Kahn was much more interesting and fleshed out than Bana's Romulan. Big improvement there, I thought.

And this is all way before the timeframe of Wrath of Kahn. If Into Darkness is a rehash, it's a rehash of the original series Kahn episode.

I wonder if it's just because it's the second in the new series and Kahn was the second film in the original run. Would people have been bothered if they'd waited until the fifth or sixth film to do a Kahn story?

Into Darkness probably isn't quite as good as Star Trek (09). But I did actually like it more than Wrath. I would have preferred less direct homage, but I think they pulled it off. It's all explained very well. It's clever and gripping. And I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. I even got a bit teary at times.

The tribble in the middle of the scene was awkward and pure set up. That could have been handled more gracefully. And the resurrection was strained. But it could have been worse. And it's not like anyone expected dude to stay dead.

It's nice that we finally have the Enterprise out on its mission. I think that has the potential to open up the new timeline. I'm excited to see where they take it.

Yep. You know nothing.

NOTHING.

Wrong. There is nothing clever OR gripping about the third act, and it kills the movie.

Opinions. Assholes. All that.

Okay. My bad.

No.

Star Trek II is a masterful work of art.

Into Pissness is action schlock.

Oh, okay. My bad.

Glad to educate.

I will say that Bruce Greenwood was very good in his role as Pike. His performance deserves a little recognition.

I do have to give him props. He did a great job with the role. I have to fall in the ST purists here. If they're just going to rewrite all the old episodes, I don't need it. I still have my memories of those old episodes. If they want to do a reboot, they have to come up with some new ideas. That said, I had a ton more problems with the first movie. Here's an example. At the end they couldn't just escape from the black hole. They ejected their warp cores and exploded them to give them enough momentum to escape. It would be like a car on a cliff slowly slipping towards the edge. The driver then decides to detach his gas tank and blow it up to give him momentum to get away. Problem is, how does he get away with no gas tank? Just another day for the Edselprise.

Well, since there is no gravity or friction in space, I believe an object in motion remains doing so until otherwise stopped.

I tried to like this one, and even waited a few weeks to see it in an attempt to let go of my expectations of suckitude ever since it was determined Khan was the villain. I don't want to try and convince anyone this was a bad movie, because I don't think it was. In fact, if I had not been a fan of everything Trek prior, I probably would have loved it. My 19 yo did, and I'm glad. It just wasn't for me.

I even tried to find some things to look forward to, like the glowing reviews of Simon Pegg. I'm a big fan of his, and thought he didn't get enough face time in the first movie. Unfortunately he did too good of a job! I thought his acting was a great portrayal of Scotty. Unfortunately, there is no way I can look at him and see a younger Scotty. All the other actors are close enough in appearance to suspend disbelief. In this one I was constantly at war between watching Scotty and Shaun of the Dead.

I can't really put my finger on any one thing, but just so many little things adding up that make me completely uninterested in any 5 year mission. I've already seen that too. Besides, a story line like that fits a TV show, not a movie. No way they start making movie length TV episodes (I hope).

Honestly, I think only one thing could bring me in to watch more of this alternate timeline. War with the Klingons. It happened in the original timeline, so it should be enough to follow the "similar but different" excuses we are seeing for the reboot. It has a broad but very undetailed back story, so just about anything they do would be a new story, or at least a first telling of an old story. Without Vulcan assistance, this could be a VERY dark time for the Federation, and fit in with the whole darkness theme that seems popular right now. It could fit in movies and/or TV shows. In fact, they could spend three movies on it, kill off the entire cast, and then start something new.

I really like the cast. I really liked the special effects. I really enjoyed the action sequences. There's definitely plenty here for me to like, but they just need to move onto something different.

There is gravity in space, but no friction. If there were no gravity in space, planets couldn't be held by their sun. They weren't blown out far enough to escape the gravity of the black hole.

THIS!

It was a good movie but down on the list of ST movies. It doesn't even make it past Wrath of Khan.

I know its going to be a long time before we see another, if ever with JJ. I agree with the other comments, they need to do a movie on how the Klingon war started in the alternate timeline.

Just watched this on Fathers Day. I really liked it. I liked it better than the original Wrath of Khan. I find the original ones a bit more corny than these, which is why I like these two better.


If they did one on how the war started with the Klingons, that would be great.

If they did Khan's presence when he was kicking some major Klingon ass would be a fear induced catalyst with the war with Klingon's believing that the federation has legions of super soldiers like Khan.

The Klingon war and how it started seems a natural for the next movie. Definitely something fans could get behind and would have a chance for many action sequences.:thumb:

Way back when the Klingon's were the Trek's metaphor for the Soviets so in the Alt universe it would be fitting to see what would happen when the Federation ****s up their "Cold War" and it turns into a "Galactic Vietnam"

Was a big fan of DS9 once the Founders were discovered and started a war. Would love a darker spinoff new TV show about the war and maybe the Enterprise crew could kick it off with a movie. Maybe center around two bases right behind enemy lines (one Federation, one Klingon) with excursions to planets where control/occupation shifts regularly and tons of space battles! Would love to see the story told by both sides, and the Klingon culture/history is extremely rich enough to provide some great story telling.

I found this to be incredibly disappointing. I thought Abrams did a good job of Star Trek 2009, but I felt this movie tried to borrow too much from Wrath of Khan. I didn't really believe in the friendship between Kirk and Spock either, there was no real chemistry there for me.

<table id="showdowns" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr style="border: none;" bgcolor="#ffffff"><td colspan="2" style="border: none;" align="center">'Into Darkness' Vs. 'Star Trek'</td></tr><tr style="border: none;" bgcolor="#ffffff"><td style="border: none;" align="center" valign="top">http://boxofficemojo.com/images/mini..._poster_sm.jpg</td><td align="center" valign="top">http://boxofficemojo.com/images/mini..._poster_sm.jpg</td></tr> <tr style="border: none;" bgcolor="#ffffff"><td style="border: none;" align="center">33-Day Total:
$211,732,773</td><td style="border: none;" align="center">33-Day Total:
$224,564,055</td></tr></tbody></table>

Suprising. I've seen the movie twice, and enjoyed it both times. What held this movie back in your opinion, Dane? Is this Abrams losing his appeal, or was the movie just a lot worse than I thought it was?

International numbers make it a little more interesting.

Star Trek (2009) - Foreign: $127,950,427 (33.2%); Worldwide: $385,680,446 (not a 33-day number, this is total).

Star Trek into Darkness (2013) - Foreign: $201,700,000 (48.8%); Worldwide: $413,432,773

I don't think it was any one singular factor but multiple factors. Four years between movies was a real detriment to the franchise. The original reboot, even with a lackluster story and mediocre villain, brought life back to an all but dead franchise. Paramount should have fast tracked a sequel to be in theaters no more than 24 months after the original. That wait really killed any momentum they gained with reboot.

Also, as previously discussed, the domestic marketing was horrid. Paramount should have had Star Trek blazing constantly on Showtime, Spike, FX and even on CBS (like a Sunday Night movie of the week) for months in advance. Instead, they did nothing.

Also, the whole "Is he or isn't he" Khan thing really worked against them. If they would have just come out said "Yes, it's Khan!", then they could have had a different marketing strategy, which would have included better trailers, posters, etc. When it finally became known to audiences, most people were like "meh".

Finally, I think that intelligent audiences have cooled on Abrams and especially, Lindelof. The Lost debacle was bad enough (with even George R.R. Martin chiming in at one point saying he didn't want to pull a "Lost" and **** up the ending of GoT) but Prometheus was just a killer.

Couple that with the word getting out rather quickly that this film was more of a rehash than something new a fresh (alternate timeline, hello?) and it was just too many factors for it to overcome.

yea, i would agree with this. For whatever reason this movie just didnt "resonate" with audiences as much as the first one did. I also think the competition from competing movies was alot stronger this year than in May 2009. This summer has been loaded with popular flicks.