Star Trek 4 (1 Viewer)

[Worth]

Well, it seems that "stars" don't have that big an effect on the box office numbers. Interestingly, none other than Stanley Kubrick once studied this and his take was that adding them to a picture does not balance out their cost in most cases...

Intersting. Yet Kubrick almost always cast movie stars - Kirk Douglas, James Mason, Peter Sellers, Ryan O'Neal, Jack Nicholson, Tom Cruise & Nicole Kidman. The only films that didn't feature stars - not counting the earlier ones that couldn't have afforded them - are 2001, Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket.

 

[Tino]

Are you saying you don't think he's a good looking guy?

I judge actors on their talents, not their looks.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but Hemsworth is one of the biggest stars in the world right now. Adding him to the cast of ST4 would undoubtedly boost the film's box office.

You know, you'd think so, but I think Chris Hemsworth is an interesting argument to the idea that there are no more movie stars.

When Hemsworth plays Thor, at least $100 million worth of people will show up in the opening weekend, and the potential is there to gross a billion dollars.

In anything else, not so much.

He was asked to headline a bunch of films since debuting as Thor, and each has been a box office failure: Rush, In The Heart Of The Sea, Blackhat, and 12 Strong all underperformed. He's appeared in prominent supporting roles in films like Bad Times At The El Royale, and those films have fared no better. He did have a non-Thor hit in "Snow White and the Huntsman" (the film was more noted for Kristen Stewart and Charlize Theron's performances), but when he was brought back to headline the next installment in that series, "The Huntsman: Winter's War," the film did poorly enough to kill any franchise possibility.

So, for whatever reason, Chris Hemsworth is both the star of multiple billion dollar grossing films, and a guy who can't open a non-Marvel movie. I think he's a good actor and an engaging screen presence, but the general public apparently is only interested in his portrayal of Thor.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I judge actors on their talents, not their looks.

I agree with that and Hemsworth, in my opinion, is about as one note as it gets when it comes to actors.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Intersting. Yet Kubrick almost always cast movie stars - Kirk Douglas, James Mason, Peter Sellers, Ryan O'Neal, Jack Nicholson, Tom Cruise & Nicole Kidman. The only films that didn't feature stars - not counting the earlier ones that couldn't have afforded them - are 2001, Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket.

Yes, there are quotes from Kubrick stating he likes working with movie stars but he had a very specific interest in how he did so. I think he had mainly decided that he did not much need them but if they chose to work with him then he was interested.

Kubrick did not cast Douglas though, it was the opposite in that Douglas asked him to work on things with him. Also when Kubrick attempted to work with Brando that did not go so well. Again he was not casting Brando, Marlon had asked him to come work on One Eyed Jacks.

I think the trick with Kubrick was always how much he could tolerate from the movie stars he worked with and if he felt they brought something to the table. Sellers, Mason, and Nicholson all were fantastic and definitely brought something to the table. Stanley did not feel the need to tell them what to do because he knew they would come up with something interesting.

It seemed he liked Kidman but was not crazy about Cruise...and he apparently drove Cruise nuts and toward an ulcer. However, the combo of having husband and wife movie stars in his film he felt worked for Eyes Wide Shut.

Ryan O'Neal and Kubrick are said to have got along great.

So, I don't think Kubrick was anti movie star...I think he was all for them if they were going to be interesting. I just think he saw them as expensive and not always worth their cost. Probably both in terms of cash and the hassle of dealing with somebody that felt they were a "star."

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

You know, you'd think so, but I think Chris Hemsworth is an interesting argument to the idea that there are no more movie stars.

When Hemsworth plays Thor, at least $100 million worth of people will show up in the opening weekend, and the potential is there to gross a billion dollars.

In anything else, not so much.

He was asked to headline a bunch of films since debuting as Thor, and each has been a box office failure: Rush, In The Heart Of The Sea, Blackhat, and 12 Strong all underperformed. He's appeared in prominent supporting roles in films like Bad Times At The El Royale, and those films have fared no better. He did have a non-Thor hit in "Snow White and the Huntsman" (the film was more noted for Kristen Stewart and Charlize Theron's performances), but when he was brought back to headline the next installment in that series, "The Huntsman: Winter's War," the film did poorly enough to kill any franchise possibility.

So, for whatever reason, Chris Hemsworth is both the star of multiple billion dollar grossing films, and a guy who can't open a non-Marvel movie. I think he's a good actor and an engaging screen presence, but the general public apparently is only interested in his portrayal of Thor.

This is the thing. As far as I know people don't pay to see nor flock to Chris Hemsworth films. Hence, why I did not think of him as a star.

People flock to just about every comic book film that comes out and so Thor they will pay for but they would have done so even if Hemsworth was not the guy in the suit.

 

[Tino]

in my opinion

Ha Finally! We’re getting thru.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Ha Finally! We’re getting thru.

No, I do that here intentionally because I think it is both ridiculous and funny...

 

[Tino]

No, I do that here intentionally because I think it is both ridiculous and funny...

But at least you’re aware of it. I think.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

But at least you’re aware of it. I think.

I'm very aware you like it when I say "in my opinion" or any words to that effect but I also wonder whose opinion you think I might be stating when I say something and do not attribute it to anybody else...and that makes me laugh.

When I was talking about what somebody else thought I attributed that to Mr. Kubrick. If I just say it and don't say "well according to ______" then I am speaking for myself. Not sure why you say that is not obvious.

Any time you type something here I assume you are telling us what Tino thinks UNLESS you attribute those thoughts to somebody else. To me, at least, that is simple and clear.

Going back to Hemsworth and Star Trek 4...

I would have liked to see a Star Trek 4 but as far as I recall Hemsworth appeared only in flashbacks as Kirk's father and SPOILER ALERT he dies while Kirk is being born so I don't really have any interest in seeing more flashbacks of Kirk's dad. Plus I mean Hemsworth did not even register with me as Kirk's dad...I just thought they found some guy that looked a bit like Pine to play the character.

I would like to see a regular sort of mission where the Enterprise is not destroyed for the 10th time and the crew needs to problem solve as a team to find a solution to a seemingly impossible problem. And also one that is not just a remake of a previous show or film plot slightly twisted so the character that "dies" is not the one that "died" in the previous episode.

I mean, they established the new crew as characters can we now just move on to the five year mission and tell some new stories?

I feel like the only reason they want to bring back Hemsworth is because he is Chris Hemsworth now and people know him as Thor...which to me is not a good reason to bring back a fairly inconsequential character that was not interesting in the first place.

 

[Philip Verdieck]

What???? How is that even POSSIBLE?!?

Next he will be telling us he doesn't know what the Kessel Run is...

 

[Philip Verdieck]

People seem attracted by the costumes and special effects more than the people you cast.

People are attracted by good stories, good acting and explosions. The glut and success of superhero movies now represents one (and sometimes a second) studio doing it right with their wealth of material that people grew up reading. It isn't tied to all of a sudden people liking costumes and special effects when they didn't appreciate that 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago, etc.

We have had costumed superheroes since the Batman TV show and a series of Batman and Superman movies (with occasional one offs with other characters). It isn't changing taste.

I would say its also Hollywood that has had a down period attempting to recycle things that make these fuller and more divergent (than Batman and Superman refreshes) Marvel movies so successful.

 

[Tino]

I'm very aware you like it when I say "in my opinion" or any words to that effect but I also wonder whose opinion you think I might be stating when I say something and do not attribute it to anybody else...and that makes me laugh.

When I was talking about what somebody else thought I attributed that to Mr. Kubrick. If I just say it and don't say "well according to ______" then I am speaking for myself. Not sure why you say that is not obvious.

Any time you type something here I assume you are telling us what Tino thinks UNLESS you attribute those thoughts to somebody else. To me, at least, that is simple and clear.

I was going to respond to this but I know ultimately it will be futile. Let’s just agree to disagree on the importance of “imo” or lack thereof and move forward.

Back to Trek, I still believe this is a small bump in the road and we will see a Star Trek 4 with this cast in a couple of years.

Whether it be a Tarantino version, a JJ version or someone else. Star Trek lives and always will.

 

[Philip Verdieck]

Pine doesn't want more money. As @Josh Steinberg explained earlier in the thread, he wanted Paramount to honor their end of the contract he signed prior to filming Beyond. Paramount wanted to lower his previously-agreed-upon fee for the fourth film, and Pine said no. I think it is perfectly reasonable for the talent to expect the studio to stick to their end of an existing deal. There is no reason that he should take a financial hit as a result of Paramount's bad decisions despite doing the same amount of work normally expected of him on one of these films. And if Paramount isn't willing to pay him what he's worth, he can find work elsewhere. His presence in Wonder Woman gives him a bigger franchise than Star Trek anyway.

Err, except he'd dead in that franchise.

 

[Tino]

Err, except he'd dead in that franchise.

His character from the first film may be, but he is still starring in the sequel and future films probably. So Pine is very much still a part of the Franchise.

 

[Philip Verdieck]

I agree with that and Hemsworth, in my opinion, is about as one note as it gets when it comes to actors.

He's got at least 2 notes. He has great comedic timing (as seen in the Thor/Avenger movies).

I also had no idea that was him in ST 2009 until someone mentioned it.

 

[Philip Verdieck]

This is the thing. As far as I know people don't pay to see nor flock to Chris Hemsworth films. Hence, why I did not think of him as a star.

People flock to just about every comic book film that comes out and so Thor they will pay for but they would have done so even if Hemsworth was not the guy in the suit.

This is very close to the truth. There is a built in audience that will go see any Marvel movie. However, the 2 franchises with actors who nail the roles the best (Thor and Iron Man), as well as the ensemble franchise which curiously has both of them as anchors (The Avengers) have produced a string of very successful sequels. That success is not solely the buit-in fanbase but others who appreciate those actors. It will be curious to see how the Doc Strange sequel fares.

 

[Philip Verdieck]

For Star Trek: TMP Paramount simply reworked some of the scripts intended for Star Trek: Phase 2 into a movie to piggy back on the success of Star Wars. It mostly worked. Mostly.

Close but not quite. Paramount/Rodenberry took all the work done for the intended series Phase 2and then reworked a TOS episode The Changeling into a movie.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

He's got at least 2 notes. He has great comedic timing (as seen in the Thor/Avenger movies).

I also had no idea that was him in ST 2009 until someone mentioned it.

It does appear to me that what Hemsworth most enjoys and is far better at than dramatic acting is being funny. I don't see him as a great comic actor either but due to his enthusiasm for it I think he does it better than trying to carry a film like Blackhat where his limitations as an actor become painfully obvious and he was quite clearly miscast.

He's kind of boring and lacks charisma plus his dramatic delivery is so flat it is DOA. He just does not have the "it" whatever "it" is when it comes to the camera loving him and him oozing presence in every scene. Guys like Nicholson, Hoffman, Pacino may not have been "great looking" but man the camera loved them and they had this presence that jumped off the screen.

Hemsworth looks great in a costume. He can be kinda of funny. He has zero presence on screen and has no clue how to immerse himself in a part...but really they don't ask him to immerse himself, they just need him to look good in the suit and crack a joke or four. Which honestly is what passes for acting these days.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

This is very close to the truth. There is a built in audience that will go see any Marvel movie. However, the 2 franchises with actors who nail the roles the best (Thor and Iron Man), as well as the ensemble franchise which curiously has both of them as anchors (The Avengers) have produced a string of very successful sequels. That success is not solely the buit-in fanbase but others who appreciate those actors. It will be curious to see how the Doc Strange sequel fares.

Yes, my overall point is with these big franchise films people pay to see the franchise...not so much the actors playing the characters. I mean in truth Pine is a far better actor than Shatner ever was but Shatner got to define the part. However, I never really minded that Shatner was not a great actor and that some of his line deliveries were so hammy they were, if you paid attention, hilarious. He just was Kirk and I accepted him as such.

With Star Trek or Star Wars or super heroes, or Bond...well...people come for the franchise. So, you can change the actors, you can fiddle with the stories...but these people want some stuff they recognize up there on the screen. So, the costumes and the effects tend to be part of what they expect and want. I mean if you radically alter the way Superman, Batman, or Bond looks...well...that is going to piss off fans.