You're a fan. Star Trek doesn't have many fans and certainly not enough fans to warrant the enormous cost of this film.

After six weeks, it's not equal to its predecessor in terms of domestic gross versus costs. And given that exhibitors earn a higher percentage with each passing week, it's unlikely that Into Darkness will be much of a "winner" for Paramount (although it's foreign grosses are nearly 50% higher).

The bottom line is that this film isn't performing as expected, which makes it unlikely that Paramount will even entertain investing $150 million into another Trek film, let alone $190 million.

With Abrams off doing Star Wars, the future of this franchise is murky at best.

I don't disagree with any of that. It makes me sad, of course, because I love what these guys are doing. But I agree.

Recently, I read that Into Darkness has been thrown around as an example of how the industry is going to become more reliant on international ticket sales and less influenced by the US market.

What are your thoughts on that?

Not at all. I feel that Cumberbatch's performance alone warrants a viewing of Into Darkness. In addition, even though many here have claimed that the movie is more/less a carbon copy of Khan, it's really not. Sure, it explores a few plot points that were previously visited by the series, but overall, I feel the plot of Into Darkness varies more from Star Trek II than Man of Steel does from Superman I.

That's not to say that the movie is without flaws. Like any J.J. Abrams film/work, he seems to get so caught up in creating plot twists and "mindblowing" story-arcs that he creates blackhole sized plot-holes in the process.

Focusing a moment on Abrams, he is developing a reputation for being almost deliberately unfaithful to the universes of which his franchises operates. This fact has alienated a lot of "purists" from his work, and those expecting him to be faithful to Star Wars universe may be in for a unwelcome surprise.

On the whole, I feel Abrams is one of the more overrated directors currently in the business, and believe he and his brand could suffer a huge blow if his interpretation of the Star Wars Universe fails to meet the expectations being constructed around it. I believe Abrams is a slightly smarter version of Zack Snyder, because even though Abrams has shown he is committed to style over substance, he has demonstrated the ability to tell a story which causes the audience to become emotionally invested in his characters.

Anyways, to answer your question, I felt Into Darkness was entertaining and had a story original enough to be worth a watch.

The Dark Knight Rises is another example of a film that was stronger internationally than nationally (though Aurora :( may have had an effect on TDKR's domestic output).

More reliant? Nah, not really. I think the fact that Into Darkness has doubled its overseas earnings is more of a pleasant surprise (if not outright shock) than something Paramount was expecting to happen.

Overseas earnings rarely play into the reasoning behind producing and funding a Hollywood movie. Banking on non-Americans to get behind American films and concepts, especially in the wake of a non-movie star type of film such as Star Trek, is not the type of gamble that studios and producers like to make.

But that's much different. Batman comics have been around for more than eight decades. There's an enormous built-in audience.

Then, you add European principles such as Christian Bale, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman and of course, Christopher Nolan (not to mention Australian Heath Ledger), and you've got immediate interest from an overseas audience.

An added plus is that the movies themselves were phenomenal.

Even though it would mean losing the current cast members, I'd just as soon see a new series set in the rebooted universe. Seems like that would be the best of all worlds - the new takes on previous stuff would be interesting. Would have the potential to be the best Star Trek series ever.

:thumb:

Well said. And I agree with a lot of it.

Regarding Abrams, how many times has he been "unfaithful" to a franchise? We could argue Star Trek all day, so I'll give the naysayers that one. But what else? How is he developing a reputation for it, if he's only done it once (twice if you count ST 09 and ID separately)?

I don't think Abrams is one of the greats. He certainly has flaws, but so do people like Lucas and Spielberg. But, I think what you just said about his ability to connect and make audiences care is really important. And one of his biggest strengths as a filmmaker.

Hmm, now that you mention it, does anyone know how popular Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock is overseas?

I now wonder if that could provide the explanation behind the weak domestic and strong overseas totals for Into Darkness.

Do you think the industry could begin to see a shift in that direction, though? Given Spielberg and Lucas's recent thoughts on an "implosion" and some sort of coming change/adaptation to the model.

Is this something you could ever see happening?

I don't know about his international appeal, but I can tell you I saw the movie a month after it came out and my theater was full of teenage girls.

While I certainly agree from a conceptual standpoint, I think that after the failure of Star Trek: Enterprise, it would be difficult for Paramount to invest in and produce a new series at this time.

But even more importantly, I think they'd have extreme difficulty finding a network partner to even air it. You're basically looking at a Game of Thrones type budget ($40-$50 million) to do it "properly" and I can't see that happening because I doubt the ad money is there to support it.

That's been the biggest issue facing the live-action Star Wars TV program. They've got more than 100 scripts completed but can't find a network to air the show because of the enormous cost to produce each episode.

Why would they need a budget that big? All of the visual effects are done on a computer now. It's not like GoT where so much of it has to be filmed on location. For Star Trek you need a main set with various ship spaces, but other than that, they can do so much with green screen technology now, it seems like that would be a great cost saver. As long as they don't get eaten alive by salaries, I think it would be doable.

And Star Trek with Captain Kirk will certainly sell better than Star Trek with Captain Whoever.

VFX are still very expensive, especially if you're filming the majority of your scenes in front of a green screen. Shooting thirteen or twenty six episodes at 42 minutes each is going to be costly, not to mention time consuming, if they want it to look realistic.

I'm totally with you but I'm not sure there's a TV audience out there that will support the cost of doing business. Otherwise, they would have done it by now.

You're depressing me. :sulk: