Star Trek 12 Gets Release Date

[Buck]

I'm not sure if its Star Trek 12 or Star Trek 2, but the release date is June 29, 2012.

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/01/11...-nothing-else/

UPDATE: Paramount has confirmed to MTV that the projected release date for the "Star Trek" sequel is indeed June 29, 2012.

This counts as news, but there's not much to it. We all know there's a "Star Trek" sequel coming. Hell, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, writers/producers of the May reboot, were talking about sequel possibilities as far back as the week after the first movie came out. Now we have a date to pin our hopes to: June 29, 2012.

Nothing else is known or announced, so don't ask. Maybe director J.J. Abrams will return to helm the sequel, maybe he won't. Maybe Khan will be the villain, maybe not. For all we know, the plan is to give us an epic "Star Trek Meets Star Wars" crossover. Could happen, right?

The news comes from a variety of sources, including Ain't It Cool News and Box Office Mojo, but there's no Paramount-issued press release that I can find. The information ran through some trustworthy sources, but we've yet to receive comment from the studio directly.

Regardless, there really hasn't ever been any doubt that we'd be seeing more "Star Trek." Abrams' take on the series made it friendly to an entirely new, much wider audience than its ever known before.

Were you anything less than certain that a "Star Trek" sequel was coming eventually? Where would you like the story to go from where it is now? Any specific hopes for the sequel?

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls

It's a good movie that unfortunately is very forgettable, and doesn't deserve to be ranked with the best Star Trek movies.

The third act is horrific, stupid and insulting.

I agree, the ending could have been better. I watched it with a more critical eye the second time around.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by DoucheMcCloud

1. Into Darkness earned $70 million it's opening weekend. Star Trek earned $75 million.

2. Industry analysts and the studio expected $90-$100 million, so it's far short of expectations.

3. Studios DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT expect sequels to earn less than their predecessors, especially when the budget of the sequel is $40 million more than the original. Look no further than Spiderman 2, The Dark Knight, The Matrix Reloaded, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, etc. Iron Man 2 was slightly below Iron Man ($6 million less) but Iron Man 3 has already exceeded both films.

4. Into Darkness will likely earn its $190 million dollar budget back domestically (minus marketing, of course) but it won't be a major earner and will certainly have a disappointing take. Generally speaking, a film begins to decline in its second week of release by 50%. Given that next weekend is a 3 day holiday, it's likely that Star Trek will only see a modest loss of maybe 30%-40%, so the total would be around $135 million or so in week two (and I'm being optimistic).

By week three, the domestic gross would likely be around $20 million and by week four, all bets are off because The Man of Steel is released and it will get crushed. $10 million in week four would be huge.

So for the sake of guessing, that puts the film at the following:

Week 1: $85 million
Week 2: $50 million ($135)
Week 3: $20 million ($155)
Week 4: $10 million ($165).

By the end of an 8 week run, it should probably reach $190 million but that isn't exactly a given, especially when considering the tepid response the film received this weekend and the other choices available in Iron Man 3, Man of Steel, in a addition to Monsters University and World War Z the weekend of June 18th.

If it hasn't hit its budget by the end of June, it's dead in the water.

Your numbers may end up being correct, but the actual remit to the producer/film less exhibitor and distributor fees (even when the film is financed in whole or part by the distributor) is typically on a sliding scale from as little as 90% for an event movie during the first couple of weeks to around 70% in the out weeks. Internationally, the distribution breakdown is much different, with around 50% returning to the producer/financed.

Even if the budget before P&A was $190mm (it wasn't), the film should perform much better overseas than the first one. Part of the reason it opened up first overseas was there was virtually no way for it to make back its budget and marketing spend primarily from the domestic box office - hence the change in distribution strategy.

So if it ends up making the money you estimate, you're looking at a remit of around $140mm (less around $40mm direct marketing and fees) or $100mm from the domestic ($90mm deficit) - so they'd need $180mm internationally to break even. Of course they'll make additional in home entertainment, so they should be okay - but it likely won't do huge business.

Frankly, there was no reason it needed to cost as much as it did IMO, but I guess if a lot of buildings don't crumble, it's just not a summer blockbuster.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by frazod

Is it possible that Abrams dicking around for four years lost some non-Trekkies?

I know that Paramount was very upset with the delay and I can only imagine that it hurt the box office. I also have to say that I think that Paramount did a poor job of marketing the film. While there are a few billboards around town, we haven't been bombarded with Into Darkness.

Also, they really failed (IMO) by not scheduling the original Star Trek film on premium movie channels or FX or Spike or Network within weeks of its release to generate more interest in this film. Hell, Paramount is part of Viacom (which also owns Showtime), so Star Trek should have been raging for a month in advance.

Four years is a long time for a sequel with, for lack of a better term, a "cult" audience.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

Your numbers may end up being correct, but the actual remit to the producer/film less exhibitor and distributor fees (even when the film is financed in whole or part by the distributor) is typically on a sliding scale from as little as 90% for an event movie during the first couple of weeks to around 70% in the out weeks. Internationally, the distribution breakdown is much different, with around 50% returning to the producer/financed.

Even if the budget before P&A was $190mm (it wasn't), the film should perform much better overseas than the first one. Part of the reason it opened up first overseas was there was virtually no way for it to make back its budget and marketing spend primarily from the domestic box office - hence the change in distribution strategy.

So if it ends up making the money you estimate, you're looking at a remit of around $140mm (less around $40mm direct marketing and fees) or $100mm from the domestic ($90mm deficit) - so they'd need $180mm internationally to break even. Of course they'll make additional in home entertainment, so they should be okay - but it likely won't do huge business.

Frankly, there was no reason it needed to cost as much as it did IMO, but I guess if a lot of buildings don't crumble, it's just not a summer blockbuster.

Yeah, I agree completely but I think what could really help this film in the long run is the DVD release. The Star Trek audience will most likely eat it up, as opposed to a film with similar numbers without the built-in audience.

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls

Spoiler!

I didn't mind that so much...you can have that in the movie and still deal with it...but when they went ahead and make Khan the main villain...for no particular reason other than HEY KHAN KIDDIES...well that was just stupid. There's 0 reason to have conflict between Khan and Kirk in this movie, which is why it completely falls flat in the end.

You want to have Khan in the movie, fine...but don't make him BE the movie because that's weak ass storytelling, lazy ****ing writing and bullshit...if they really wanted to impress me, have Khan be the guy who dies saving the Enterprise just because his people are on board. ****, that would have really turned shit on it's head.

And then can really dig into this metaphor for 9/11 with Peter Weller being a warmongering dick and Klingons and Section 31. Khan can really be turned on it's head with him being an ally the whole movie, just wanting to save his people...and you can still have him doing superman shit and having a vendetta against Marcus...and at the end you have Kirk staring off into space and wondering what it would be like to have Khan as an enemy...and the audience nods and smiles....

**** you Abrams. **** you very much.

Stop, just stop. The only reason you are so infatuated with that idea is because you were the one to think of it. Ready for your response if had Abrams proceeded with your idea? "**** YOU ABRAMS, THE ORIGINAL KHAN WOULD HAVE BEEN TOO INTELLIGENT TO HAVE EVER BEEN MARGINALIZED INTO THIS SITUATION. WHO IN THE ***ING THEATER CARES THAT KHAN SACRIFICED HIS LIFE AT THE MOVIES CLIMAX? RATHER THAN FEEL ANY EMOTION OVER HIS SELF SACRIFICE, THE THEATER BREATHED A SIGH OF ****ING RELIEF THAT THIS CHARACTER COULD NEVER SHOW HIS TRUE POTENTIAL."

The truth is, this movie was dead in the water for you the moment Khan was selected as the villain. Don't deny it, you made a myriad of posts about your belief of the movie's inevitable failure if they had made this selection for the antagonist.

Someone mentioned earlier that this movie may have cemented Khan as a Joker like figure in the Star Trek universe. Honestly, this may be what extends the life of Trek franchise in the future(Whether it be a TV series, movie or otherwise).

Trek fans were starting cry foul over how "derivative" the franchise was becoming with each new series taking place in the Trek universe. Well, it's not perfect, but this current franchise is probably Trek's best bet to stay relevant in the newer generations. This idea is underlined by the average age of people (+30) who are attending Into Darkness. While this series may be unsuccessful at reviving the Trek universe, it was probably its best hope of rejuvenating the franchise.

I feel that Abrams is probably one of the most overrated directors in Hollywood, but Clay's incessant fanboy trolling over Into Darkness pushed me over the edge. This was a fun adaptation and re-visioning of one of the best storylines of Trek history. You admitted this much before going all Hulk troll inside the thread.

I'm not going to waste my time responding to any of your trollboyant retorts to me, so instead I will direct you to your own post directed at those raging about Iron Man 3's Mandarin Storyline.

Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls

butthurt fanboys

Chiefspants out.

[Hammock Parties]

Spoiler!

No, it wasn't dead for me the moment he was in the movie. In fact I was just fine with it until the third act.

It was fine for him to be in the movie. It WASN'T fine for him to BE the movie, and then slapping TWOK climax ripoff on the end was the final straw.

Uninspired, unoriginal, stale bullshit.

When the climax of the movie is DEVOID of emotion and UTTERLY PREDICTABLE, that's a load of horseshit. A giant, Borg Cube sized load of it.

STEAMING PILE OF DAMON LINDELOF EXCREMENT.

[Chiefspants]

I don't know about you guise, but this sure sounds like someone ready to be objective about dis moviezz!1!1!

Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls

Leaving in 13 minutes. Can't wait to shit on this movie.

[Hammock Parties]

Way to cherry pick. 90 percent of my posts leading up to the movie were genuine bouncing off the walls excitement.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by DoucheMcCloud

I know that Paramount was very upset with the delay and I can only imagine that it hurt the box office. I also have to say that I think that Paramount did a poor job of marketing the film. While there are a few billboards around town, we haven't been bombarded with Into Darkness.

Also, they really failed (IMO) by not scheduling the original Star Trek film on premium movie channels or FX or Spike or Network within weeks of its release to generate more interest in this film. Hell, Paramount is part of Viacom (which also owns Showtime), so Star Trek should have been raging for a month in advance.

Four years is a long time for a sequel with, for lack of a better term, a "cult" audience.

I can't really speak to that. They had me at hello.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by DoucheMcCloud

I agree. But I'm more worried about that assclown Lindelof ****ing it up than the time between movies.

Well lo and behold!

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

Going to call it,

Spoiler!

it's Kirk on the other side of the window this time.

You ****ing called this YEARS in advance.

Boy I bet you were surprised!

[patteeu]

I saw it last night. I agree with Siberian's "meh". I'm pretty much on board with most of GoChief's negative reactions (but I wouldn't say it completely ruined the movie for me). It was a kind of lame movie but it wasn't horrible.

[jiveturkey]

I loved it.

I'm not a Trek fan but these last two movies have been a ton of fun IMO.

My wife even loved it and she hates anything that involves space.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by jiveturkey

I loved it.

I'm not a Trek fan

Big shocker.

[the Talking Can]

so i'm going to offer a bit of a mea culpa to the fanbois...

i spent some time discussing the film with a friend, a fan with fairly encyclopedic knowledge of the series, who really laid out how badly he thought they misused Kahn's storyline...

i still found the movie highly entertaining (and I'm generally averse to 'just' being entertained), but i can now see why people are disappointed in it...