Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) (1 Viewer)

[Neil Middlemiss]

From THR.com:Star Trek Into Darkness (Paramount/Skydance Productions)Budget/marketing: $365 millionProjected global gross: $490 millionRevenue analysis: J.J. Abrams' sequel is on track to exceed the $385.7 million earned by his 2009 Star Trek. Fueled by a better showing internationally (Paramount expects overseas box office to hit $260 million), it won't earn as much domestically as that film, but profits should reach $75 million.

 

[PaulDA]

”golly gee fans, you’re supposed to never question my choices. Why can’t you be like the yes-men I surround myself with?” What I see in interviews is a man who only wants to please himself, not fans, and probably now admits to himself that his choices just weren’t that good.

More power to him. I don't want artists (commercial, fine or otherwise) to make art to "please the fans". I want artists to make the art they want to make. I may not like the result (I'm not a big fan of Star Wars in general, and even less so of the I-III films) but I fully support, and strongly encourage, artists to make the art they want--with NO regard to what might "please the fans". The audience has the right to be happy, sad, indifferent, angry, disappointed…etc. with the results of the artistic work. They have NO right to expect satisfaction on their terms. If a particular artistic production includes an effort to "please the fans" as an integral, organic part of that production--fine. But if the painter, writer, filmmaker, composer…etc. starts with the premise that they must "please the fans" before producing art that reflects what the artists wants--that's a sad day for art of any kind.

On the other hand, any artist who puts out a product into the public eye should have NO expectation that it will be free of criticism or questioning of artistic choices. That attitude is deplorable and deserves no sympathy.

 

[Brett_M]

I have enjoyed reading the back and forth about this film. For me, I am a fan of Star Treks 2-4 and First Contact. I really liked Abrams' installment that rebooted the franchise. I stayed away from spoilers and press regarding STID but knew that Khan was the antagonist -- I think it was the thread title on another site. That doesn't matter to me.

What matters is (1) Did the movie look and sound good to me? Yes. (2) Was I moved or affected by it? Yes. (3) Did I enjoy it? Yes. (Both times I saw it.) I can't ask anything else from a film.

As an old fan, I liked the little touches that alluded to previous films. I have told many people that I saw it and liked it, to which many responded "I don't like Star Trek." My response was "This ain't your daddy's Star Trek." Abrams and Co. have opened the universe of Star Trek to a new generation of fans. My 15 year-old daughter (a fan of classic sci-fi flicks) HATES old Star Trek. (In point of fact, she despises Wrath of Khan -- she can't get passed Khan's "ridiculous" hair style.) She is head over heels for both Abrams films. After seeing STID, we watched Wrath of Khan as a family and both my wife and daughter "got it." They saw the juxtoposition of the Kirk-Spock scene in WOK and Spock-Kirk scene in STID. It added depth. I have no problem admitting that I wept openly during that scene in STID. (I also lose t when Kirk stumbles a bit during Spock's ulogy in WOK.)

For the record, I'm also a fan of Prometheus and GI Jane. Sue me.

 

[Malcolm R]

From THR.com:Star Trek Into Darkness (Paramount/Skydance Productions)Budget/marketing: $365 millionProjected global gross: $490 millionRevenue analysis: J.J. Abrams' sequel is on track to exceed the $385.7 million earned by his 2009 Star Trek. Fueled by a better showing internationally (Paramount expects overseas box office to hit $260 million), it won't earn as much domestically as that film, but profits should reach $75 million.

Once again the press seems to think that the studio gets to reap the entire "gross".

You cannot compare gross box office to budget to determine profitability. You have to use the "net" box office...the portion actually returned to the studio after exhibitors and others have taken their share from the "gross."

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

An attempt to remake Goldfinger with a new Connery rather than using a new actor with a different take on the character and new adventures after having setup that these are supposed to be a new take on the characters with a new and different timeline.

Here's a link to the full article in which deductions for actors and co-studio takes are accounted for. I cannot attest to the validity of all the math involved, but hold THR in higher regard than general 'press' in these matters.http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/iron-man-3-hangover-3-562666

 

[Richard V]

I was just thinking after reading the last few posts that back in the day, when Roddenberry and Coon and Fontana and Justman and all the rest were simply doing their best at the time. They had no history to worry about or fan base. They only had flash Gordon, Forbidden Planet and a few other films to be influenced by. They did pretty well I think with a modest little TV show that still manages to have a large fan following.We're they more talented? We're they simply the right people doing the right thing at the right time? Did they have better real world life experiences to draw stories from? I suspect it was all those things. Most of the team were WW2 vets and saw war and many awful things in life.Today's movie makers are influenced by Lucas and Star Trek and other re-runs. So these guys likely just don't have the same ability to create from a certain point of view. They are boomers and their life experiences are vastly different and education mght not have been as strong. Or as another poster who used to participate here would call them hacks.What I'm trying to say is that any new attempts at doing Star Trek can only be judged against the original and the makers of these new films have nothing but that history that they grew up with. I think it might take another group outside of Bad Robot to really make Star Trek films as original as the originals were in the 1960's. Or maybe these guys can do it, but are hampered by certain requirements for a large budget mainstream summer popcorn movie.

Don't kid yourself. If the internet had been around in Roddenberry's and TOS's day, he would have been trashed by Forbidden Planet, This Island Earth, Flash Gordon, and War of the Worlds, fanboys.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Perhaps it is a fool's errand to look for originality in a Hollywood Summer film, but I was very disappointed that the filmmakers decided to do an alternate version of Wrath of Khan. This was probably my biggest problem with the film in general terms and specifically I really disliked the absurd rendition of Khannnnn! by Spock. Aside from the fact that it was a remake of a film that was a revisit of a ST:TOS episode; knowing the WoK storyline telegraphed nearly all of the key plot points in the second half of the film.

Okay, now that I've got that out of the way - I continue to like the cast of the new version quite a bit - in particular Karl Urban and Simon Pegg. The call outs to the original series were fun and were of short enough duration to not derail the film's momentum. (Mudd Incident, Tribbles, and McCoy's Gorn reference stand out in my mind.) The action sequences were well choreographed and effective. Despite some complaints about the writing (above) I will credit the writers for adding the Trek-style commentary on current events. Without getting too political I thought the question of whether to launch torpedoes at Harrison was a veiled reference to America's drone policy - and I'll leave it at that.

I'd rate it at 3 stars (out of 4) with lack of original storytelling being the biggest detriment. I really enjoyed the reboot so this is (slight) step back for me and I sincerely hope that the next film does not ape a storyline from the classic version.

- Walter.

 

[PaulDA]

I've already posted my views on the film's story (along with some quotations from others that reflect my views), so I'll simply comment on my second viewing last night at a proper 15/70 IMAX cinema.

IMAX sequences don't change the story, but they do enhance the spectacle. The 3D left me indifferent (no headache like I usually get--maybe IMAX 3D has something going for it because of the dozen or so 3D films I've seen, only one other--Hobbit in IMAX 3D--did not give me a headache). But the larger IMAX imagery was great--as it was in the Nolan Batman films. I hope the BD release offers a changing aspect ratio like the Nolan films (though I'm not holding my breath).

Bottom line, if you enjoyed the film and you have access to a 15/70 IMAX cinema--see it there before it's replaced by Man of Steel. The visual impact is worth it.

 

[RobertR]

Don't kid yourself. If the internet had been around in Roddenberry's and TOS's day, he would have been trashed by Forbidden Planet, This Island Earth, Flash Gordon, and War of the Worlds, fanboys.

And you know that how, exactly? I certainly wasn't "trashing" Roddenberry back then, and I was a big fan of Forbidden Planet.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Fun summer blockbuster flick.

Mediocre Trek movie.

Hope the next one is a better balance of the two.

 

[Nelson Au]

Lou, perhaps as I get older, I get less tolerant of mediocre. . Some friends want to see Into Darkness and asked me to join them. It will be the IMAX 3D showing. Just curious and OT. How are the glasses, similar in size and comfort as the standard realD 3D glasses? this will be my first IMAX theatrical film.

 

[TravisR]

How are the glasses, similar in size and comfort as the standard realD 3D glasses? this will be my first IMAX theatrical film.

I don't know if it varies but the IMAX 3-D glasses that I get are yellow, much thinner and a little tighter (not painfully so).

 

[Nelson Au]

Thanks Travis. I had the impression they were larger and might have a cable attached to them. Probably much older active type technology I am thinking of.

 

[Tino]

Different IMAX theaters have different size glasses. True IMAX glasses are a bit bigger and more comfortable. Digital IMAX glasses are a bit smaller and are snug over my glasses. Enjoy Nelson, I think you will be impressed.

 

[TravisR]

Thanks Travis. I had the impression they were larger and might have a cable attached to them. Probably much older active type technology I am thinking of.

Found a pic of the kind my theater has. They look like they're connected in the back but they're not.

 

[Nelson Au]

Thanks Tino! I have a bit of an issue with 3D, it doesn't always work for me, but I will certainly enjoy the imagery! Thanks Travis, not exactly meeting the top fashions! I'll let you know what the theater I go to has.

 

[PaulDA]

Found a pic of the kind my theater has. They look like they're connected in the back but they're not.

3-D glasses.jpg

Can't find a picture of the ones I had the other night but they were "cooler" looking that these. They were actually bubble shaped lenses with minimal colour framing. Of all the 3D glasses I've seen (both in person and in images), they are the ones I'd be least embarrassed to wear down the street for a stroll (if I had to).

 

[Kevin EK]

I've just read that THR article on the profit prospects of this summer's big spenders so far. It's a mixed bag. Some of it is about right. The notes on Iron Man 3 and on Fast 6 look about right. But then things go off the rails with several of the others, particularly Star Trek ID. The reason is that they are only taking into account the admitted production budget plus a rough estimate for the marketing which they've arbitrarily tacked on. They are not taking into account a basic Hollywood accounting rule of needing to bring in about 3x the production budget for a movie to go into profit. Under their thinking, they're showing some movies only bringing in a bit over 2x, which is quite optimistic.

The actual production budget for Star Trek ID looks to have been a little higher than 200 million. I'd conservatively put it at closer to 210, but we could just round down to 200 for purposes of keeping things simple. They then spent a MASSIVE amount of money on promotion, all over the globe and all over every corner of the internet. This includes television ad buys in every country, promotions linked to multiple outlets, billboards, posters, a linked video game, etc. The promotional budget would have been at least the 175 million that THR adds to all the numbers on that page. But then there are other cost factors which are what trigger the next third of the costs. Some of which the article tries to factor in, namely the biggest profit participants. (And in the case of Star Trek, I would guarantee that JJ Abrams' company isn't sitting that out, but it isn't mentioned in the article.) Other cost factors include the compounded interest on the loans taken out to finance the production and marketing and the fact that the studios receive a smaller and smaller piece of the pie from the ticket sales after the first weekend. The reason the first weekend is so important is that the studio gets a huge amount of that gate. After the first weekend, things drop off quickly. Usually that amount gets averaged out to the studio getting 50 percent of the gate overall.

I would also challenge Paramount's estimate of the movie making 490 million. That's a very, very optimistic appraisal, given how the movie is doing. Given how much the movie is pulling in now, plus the fact that they'll be dropping the number of theaters much farther next week with Man of Steel coming in, and given that it's dropping by a significant amount in its income each week, I'd put the real number at maybe 450 million, give or take. Given that the movie needs to make about 600 million to break even, that will put it about 150 million short, not 75 million ahead. With the 2009 movie, they were about 75 million short when they finished the theatrical run, but they were able to make that up with the home video sales in pretty good time, particularly given the economy at that time. I'd say they went into a decent profit as well. With the new movie, they'll have to do almost twice the home video business they did four years ago in order just to break even. And they will make it, but I think it will take longer.

None of this is to say that the movie is somehow a flop. When I posted in the other Star Trek thread, people assumed the numbers meant that I was somehow dismissing the movie's quality or performance. That's not the case. The 2009 Star Trek unquestionably had the biggest opening ever for a Star Trek movie and was easily the biggest ticket seller of any Star Trek movie. The new movie will go on to top the 2009 movie, possibly by as much as 75 million dollars. So there's no question that these movies have been big sellers. The problem they run into is that they spent so much money making the movie that they'd have to be even BIGGER hits than they are to really bring in the profits for Paramount. When you spend 200 million dollars making a movie, you really need it to do business on the level of Avatar or the Avengers. If you're only bringing in half that dollar amount or less, it doesn't work on a cost analysis sheet.

I have no doubt that Paramount will indeed make a third Star Trek movie with this cast, even while JJ Abrams is off doing a Star Wars movie. But it won't be for 200 million dollars or anything close to that. There comes a point with all of these blockbusters where the studios say that it's just too much money.

BTW that 3x formula isn't always correct, as we've just seen with The Purge. The Purge says it had a 3 million dollar production budget. Right. That of course leaves out any of the players getting back end pieces, including the producers. It also forgets that they didn't just spend 3 million dollars marketing that movie. I'd say that Universal spent up to 20-30 million dollars on all the promotion, including all those billboards, commercials, etc. So with the Purge, I'd put the formula at more like 10x. But even with that, they're comfortably into profit already.

 

[Nelson Au]

Kevin, I want to read your post, but I wanted to quickly post my reactions to a second viewing. And I'm hungry and want to eat! I was surprised that I found it more enjoyable. Perhaps because I was able hear dialogue I missed that I read you guys talking about. All the exposition stuff like Carol saying the fuel cells were removed from the torpedoes to make room for the cryotubes, The story overall had more stuff that made it more coherent. The seeming eternity it took for the Enterprise to fall into Earth orbit didn't seem so unrealistically long. (unlike that runway in Fast 6)I was surprised the 3D glasses where the lenses being seemingly thin flimsy film in the frames. They were black frames and more squarish shape, definitely fit fine over my glasses. I have to say, in IMAX, the 3D worked for me! I could see the ash and debris falling in front, some shots I can see people stand out in the foreground. I saw the spear coming at me as Kirk and McCoy were running away in the opening shots. When I saw it in realD 3D, because of my eyes and their lack of ability to work together to create a stereo image, that didn't work very well and I missed about 99% of the 3D effects! must be due to the larger image.Another aspect that surprised my friend, he said when we saw it in realD 3D, the stuff in foreground and debris flying, was sharp as a tack. In IMAX, those same effects were slightly blurred. That was how I was perceiving it. So perhaps the IMAX process is slightly different. it made it less distracting for him so he could focus on the main images. What's right? The sharp foreground or soft?I just set up a new blu ray player last night in my home theater set-up. I had got a 3D capable TV last year, but still had my old player. So being that I knew I would see Star Trek today, I had to try it. I have Prometheus. So I watched the scene at the end when the Prometheus crashes into the alien ship and it comes crashing down, you see Shaw and Vickers running away. From my usual searing position from a 65" plasma screen, 12 feet away, I perceived no 3D effect. But when I got up and sat on the floor four feet away, I could see things pop! I could see Shaw stand out in the foreground. I could see the ash and debris falling in front. So I had the same perception today in the IMAX showing. I have to do some training to get my eyes to work together, but it was neat to see the 3D effects in Star Trek this time.And one aspect that felt different, the first time I saw Star Trek Izd, it felt more like the bad guy was Marcus. This time around, Marcus is still the main bad guy, but Khan felt more the threat.

 

[Nelson Au]

Oh yeah, and Kevin, where I saw Star Trek ID today, there was about a dozen people there! maybe 20 as far as I could see. Of course that could that it was a 10am showing on a Sunday morning. The parking lot was full when we left, so I'm sure there's more ticket buyers for Star Trek, I did my part! And I didn't plan to see it a second time and was waiting for the blu ray.