The New Star Trek Movie Bombed
Do you think Disney is now crapping itself over choosing Trek director J. J. Abrams to direct the new Star Wars?
The Fast and Furious 6, The Hangover Part III, and Epic are going to murder what little it already made. Damn you, "Gatsby"!
No wonder Abrams has already discussed leaving the Star Trek franchise.
Oh, well. Zach Quinto is over. Those conservative cunts can rest soundly now.
|by Anonymous||reply 154||05/24/2013|
I hardly think an 85m opening can be classified as a bomb.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||05/19/2013|
I guess it is considered a disappointment.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||05/19/2013|
Star Trek just doesn't have the broad universal appeal that Star Wars has for whatever reason. Honestly they never should have budgeted 190 mil for this.
I liked the movie a lot, but I could have done with it being way less summer blockbustery.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||05/19/2013|
I loved the movie but I like what JJ Abrams is doing with science fiction. Iron Man 3 is not good but entertains kids.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||05/19/2013|
But you are aware that it's doing gangbusters overseas, especially when compared to the awful numbers STAR TREK usually does in foreign territories. Or do non-American monies not count?
|by Anonymous||reply 7||05/19/2013|
The movie itself was horribly disappointing, epicly contrived, and didn't explore any new material at all. I found it horribly disappointing.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||05/19/2013|
The terrible title probably didn't help matters.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||05/19/2013|
[quote]But you are aware that it's doing gangbusters overseas, especially when compared to the awful numbers STAR TREK usually does in foreign territories. Or do non-American monies not count?
Gangbusters?! "Star Trek" doesn't have a foreign market, dumbass. That's another part of the problem. The film flopped. The studio has already written it off. There's no swinging back from this weekend.
[quote]I hardly think an 85m opening can be classified as a bomb.
Apparently, you don't understand how the industry operates. Do you know how much they spent on filming and marketing?
|by Anonymous||reply 10||05/19/2013|
[quote]To expand international, Paramount dispatched Abrams’ Bad Robot partner Bryan Burk to share 20 minutes of footage with media and distributors abroad earlier this year. It helped: international told a stronger story. Since sequels usually play well overseas, the total is $80.5 from 40 markets through Sunday, or +80% from the prior film. For comparison, STID is running +33% on a global basis compared to the 2009 reboot. Worldwide total is $164.5M.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||05/19/2013|
btw, when did zq turn into such a self-absorbed douche?
|by Anonymous||reply 13||05/19/2013|
i haven't seen zq with jonathan groff in a long time. i wonder if they're still an item?
|by Anonymous||reply 14||05/19/2013|
The word "bombed" is officially on the list of words that have been stripped of their meaning on DL. It joins breaking and sociopath.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||05/19/2013|
It didn't "bomb" at all. It came in only a few million short of the number the studio had projected for it.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||05/19/2013|
r16, please learn how the industry works before chiming in. It's a bomb. Week #1 = everything. Plus, the films that are coming starting next week will kill whatever's left to be made. It's over, and the studio knows it. This is a growing trend with the industry: spending too much on promotion.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||05/19/2013|
I'm sure it's a disappointing opening but hardly a disaster.
Also it looks like it does have an international market. Since rolling out last week it has made 80 million dollars overseas.
Box Office Prophets did a whole analysis in which they say the pre memorial day holiday weekend always underperform.
Anyone trying to connect this to Zach Quinto being gay is obviously just trolling.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||05/19/2013|
I just saw it and loved it, the theater was 3/4 full at 3pm on a Sunday.
The audience loved it.
It's going to have legs.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||05/19/2013|
I've heard nothing but stellar word of mouth for ths. If that counts for anything, it's going to do well.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||05/19/2013|
It doesn't have an international draw. Star Trek never has.
r19, r20 = parody/studio troll
|by Anonymous||reply 21||05/19/2013|
I love the way OP keeps saying $85 million on the opening weekend is a bomb, as if by just saying that will somehow make it true.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||05/19/2013|
Our theatre was full of people. Got there about half an hour before previews and we were still relegated to the outer seats. Nothing in the middle.
What was strange was the lack of people at the movie theatre, period.
Not very many people taking in a movie, any movie, on a Sunday.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||05/19/2013|
R21 I refer you to this article in the Wall Street Journal with the headlines: "Star Trek' Tops Box Office, Transports Well Overs"
Now I could believe them who went to the trouble to give the numbers and the tracking overseas or I could choose to believe you the anonymous DL poster. Guess who I'm listening to?
Here are the quotes: But while "Into Darkness" isn't improving upon its predecessor domestically, grosses overseas so far are 82% higher than in the same markets over the same time period, Paramount said.
"Into Darkness" grossed $40 million internationally this weekend, bringing its foreign take to $80.5 million after opening in some countries last week. Ticket sales have been particularly strong in the U.K., Germany, Australia, and in Russia, where the new film has already grossed more than the 2009 one.
Mr. Abrams's first "Trek" movie grossed $128 million overseas and $258 million domestically. For most big budget movies nowadays that ratio is reversed and Paramount sought to improve it this go-around with a more costly foreign marketing campaign and more extensive global publicity tour.
It appears "Into Darkness" will end roughly doubling the international box office take of "Star Trek" and bringing in about the same domestically.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||05/19/2013|
What bothers me is the relationship that Uhura and Spock have.
I'm sorry, but Spock does NOT have a girlfriend, never needed one and never had one.
He was a clinical, detached, genius. Leave him be.
They can hook-up Captain Kirk with every slut in the universe, but leave my Spock ALONE!!!!!
I'm not liking this version of Uhura at all.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||05/19/2013|
This movie was sold out in a giant theatre in SF on a Saturday night. Sold out motherf@ckers!
|by Anonymous||reply 29||05/19/2013|
I totally agree, r27 - just, "What the fuck?" It's damned-near ruining it, for me. This aint fucking, "Twilight", so why must they cater to these insane teenaged straight 'shippers'?
|by Anonymous||reply 30||05/19/2013|
Didn't it make less than the first one did four years ago?
|by Anonymous||reply 31||05/19/2013|
My God, what a disastrous bomb. The industry will never recover.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||05/19/2013|
Not a big fan of Spock and Uhura together, but I really liked Uhura this film. Glad to see they gave her a couple of opportunities to be a badass.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||05/19/2013|
Op is an idiot. Plain and simple. It was expected to make more but is in NO way a bomb. 165 million it's first week and 89 percent of audiences liking it will mean it will have legs. OP is a f@cktard looking for attention. I work in movie marketing (had nothing to do with this film though) and can tell you for a fact that this movie is a success.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||05/19/2013|
Only a super negative DL Queen could catagorize #1 at $70,000,000 as a "bomb." One always wonders what these people's credentials are/were/hope to be.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||05/19/2013|
You have no clue. In Hollywood terms if it falls below expectations it's a bomb. they spend so much money promoting these things that if it doesn't fly out of the gate it's probably not going to meet their end goal. Which, for them, is a BOMB.
The NYT had the most correct review of this. It's not Star Trek. Its abrams making a teen boy flick/video game based loosely on Trek, but it does not have the heart and soul of the original concept.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||05/19/2013|
[quote]You have no clue.
Apparently not, since you keep telling us the same thing over and over again and we just won't believe you. Go figure!
|by Anonymous||reply 37||05/19/2013|
If this were feudal Japan Abrams would have fallen on his sword already for his Paramount masters. STAR TREK is now officially a radioactive property and he studio has already put out feelers to see if there are any interested buyers. There's rumors that Rodenberry's estate may buy it outright. Further, Pine and Quinto's agents are near-stalking studio management because thy want confirmation that their clients are being let out of their contracts for all future sequels. That little nugget was let slip by Abrams.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||05/19/2013|
OP is that Dark Knight/Heath Deadger troll who was ranting about Iron Man and spells out "Junior" in "Robert Downey, Jr."
|by Anonymous||reply 40||05/20/2013|
R37...die in a grease fire, bitch.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||05/20/2013|
R42, dear? R39 was being facetious.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||05/20/2013|
Oh your words of doom are so terrifying, r41. You don't sound laughably impotent at all!
|by Anonymous||reply 44||05/20/2013|
It wasn't a bomb, but it was a slight disappointment, considering it opened a bit below the previous film.
The producers probably expected that "Star Trek Into Darkness" would have outperformed the previous film in the same way that "The Dark Knight" did "Batman Begins." It didn't, possibly because "Star Trek" just has a lower ceiling for grosses than most famous properties.
It's easier for something like Iron Man, which comes with far fewer preconceived notions, to gain new fans than Trek, especially after nearly fifty years as a pop culture mainstay.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||05/20/2013|
Almost everyone I know who is actually is a Star Trek fan was annoyed by it.
Non-fans seem to love it.
Seriously, it was a retread. It basically copied other movies and shows, to the point it was just plain predictable. So many logical and plot holes. It was pretty crappy writing and plotting, but the effects were amazing.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||05/20/2013|
The gay "activists" are so busy boycotting closet cases films & shows they either totally forgot or didn't have much time left to support the one starring the most celebrated gay hero Zach Quinto.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||05/20/2013|
The film is being marketed as a film that non-Trekkies will enjoy.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||05/20/2013|
There wasn't enough Quinto thread in this forum, that's why the film bombed.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||05/20/2013|
Imagine if Matt Bomer was in it, R50.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||05/20/2013|
Matt Bomer would look HOT in a Starfleet uniform.
Dear god, just please lose the hats. No Star Trek has EVER had hats. They didn't work. Whoever had that idea needs to be fired and never allowed to work on Star Trek (or Star Wars) again.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||05/20/2013|
Meryl wasn't it, so we don't care and don't intend to respond.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||05/20/2013|
"I'm not liking this version of Uhura at all."
Did the little woman do more than just sit there and be the space version of a telephone operator? Shame on her.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||05/20/2013|
There were no women in leadership positions. Did you notice?
|by Anonymous||reply 55||05/20/2013|
It didn't bomb. It just didn't win the expectations game the way that something like "Gatsby" did.
It may still be a disappointment though with so much more competition this May than existed when the original came out.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||05/20/2013|
My intergalatic man-pussy is moist.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||05/20/2013|
[In Hollywood terms if it falls below expectations it's a bomb]
I'd say it's more Nikki Finke's terms (who happens to be visiting today as the OP), on how she views Hollywood success.
There's no one who celebrates a Hollywood failure with more fanfare, and sadly, with more passion than Ms. Finke.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||05/20/2013|
Gets an 87% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, not too shabby. Clearly this is a pretty good movie, regardless of the griping here. I'd see it, but probably only if it's available in 3D, I haven't checked that yet.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||05/20/2013|
Let's try that again: [quote] In Hollywood terms if it falls below expectations it's a bomb
I'd say it's more Nikki Finke's terms (who happens to be visiting today as the OP), on how she views Hollywood success.
There's no one who celebrates a Hollywood failure with more fanfare, and sadly, with more passion than Ms. Finke.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||05/20/2013|
Not a single ticket sold anywhere in the world. The OP was right, a disaster - worse than Heaven's Gate or Ishtar! The casting of that gay man, Zach Quinto, cursed the production and they are celebrating this epic failure in the streets of Tbilsi - God has heard their prayers!
|by Anonymous||reply 61||05/20/2013|
After seeing this film, a man in New York was so disgusted he jumped out the window. Fortunately his fall was broken by the marquee for "The Nance."
|by Anonymous||reply 62||05/20/2013|
I'm a bit disappointed for a different reason. The movie obviously didn't bomb. But it didn't really provide the grounds for starting a TV project again. The first movie in 09 wasn't exactly a failure either. Yet it wasn't enough that made TV studios believe that there is a large enough market for a new show. This movie doesn't seem to help either. It's too bad. I would love to watch some good Trek on TV again.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||05/20/2013|
Wow, mass suicides over epic fail of new Star Trek movie!
|by Anonymous||reply 64||05/20/2013|
If the schadenfreude is this thick over this bomb, Datalounge is going implode when "After Earth" tanks.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||05/20/2013|
You guys have no idea howHollywood works!!!112 A film must make 10 times it's budget in the first weektpevenbe considered a mild success!!!1123
IM SAYING IT SO ITS TRUE!!!!124
|by Anonymous||reply 68||05/20/2013|
Not for nothing but Best Buy is already taking pre-orders for the Blu-Ray and you get $8.00 discount to the theater ticket. Never heard of a pre-sale the same week the movie opens theatrically.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||05/20/2013|
Epic Diaster! Bomb, I know it.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||05/20/2013|
The problem is they spent almost $200million on budget and at least another $100 million in marketing. This would be a very good opening for a movie budgeted at half that. The thing is, where is the $200 million? Big chunks of the movie are on freaking Earth. There are no awe inspiring effects/shots in the movie. JJ Abrams is terrible at directing action movies despite what everyone wants to believe/is saying.
Most of it is the studios' fault because they feel a kind of security, the more money they throw at a big project. So, NO even with 160million worldwide, this will not break even.
For those who don't know, a movie must make twice its budget and marketing to be considered profitable. Star Trek is not going to crack $500 million, let alone $600m.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||05/20/2013|
R10 (and your subsequent iterations): either you work for a rival studio or you are clinically insane. Or both.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||05/20/2013|
Did the special effects team manage to do something about Chris Pine's skin?
|by Anonymous||reply 75||05/20/2013|
R71 is right but the morons here will never admit that.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||05/20/2013|
Even Star Wars Phantom Menace was better than even the best of the Star Trek films (which I'm sure sucked). Star Wars fans are generally older and more intelligent than Star Trek fans. I only saw Star Trek's Nemesis and Generations but they stunk. I watched trailers for all the movies and they look like a bunch of wrinkled 40 old men doing nothing. Sukage.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||05/20/2013|
No offense to Zoe Saldana,but she will never be as drop dead,mouth gappingly gorgeous as the original Uhura.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||05/20/2013|
Let's put the blame for this squarely where it belongs: BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||05/20/2013|
Whoops, R43, typo. I meant R38 was spewing bullshit, not R39.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||05/20/2013|
[quote]Star Wars fans are generally older and more intelligent than Star Trek fans.
This may be the stupidest thing ever posted on Datalounge, and that's quite an accomplishment.
I'll bet you spend your time insisting lightsabers would beat phasers.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||05/20/2013|
I always thought Star Trek was created as a poor man's Star Wars.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||05/20/2013|
You're aware that Star Trek preceded Star Wars by years, right?
|by Anonymous||reply 83||05/20/2013|
Star Wars appeals to a broader audience because it is basically a soap opera in space.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||05/20/2013|
I saw it in DC yesterday. IMAX 3D. Sold out, as were the following two showings.
I thought it was fantastic. Measurably better than the first, which I also liked. (And this is someone as more of a Star Wars fan, who also loved Khan and Search for Spock, but not the TV series.)
Incredible action, some nice funny moments, nods to the original series and movies. There were some plot holes and there were some things from the original series/movies that probably should have been left alone. But this is intended to be a summer blockbuster film and I think they 100% delivered.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||05/20/2013|
[quote]Zachary Quinto can't act to save his life and people realized this while watching American Horror Story and avoided this movie because of him.
You are really pathetic. Get help, you loon.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||05/20/2013|
Christ, OP and r71 are idiots. Even the vile Ms. Finke is touting the fact that it did spectacular business overseas. Underperformed in the US, yes, but its global total so far is $165 million. That ain't a flop.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||05/20/2013|
[quote]I always thought Star Trek was created as a poor man's Star Wars.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||05/20/2013|
R90 I cannot believe someone is that stupid. Can you? Surely, this imbecile is aware that Star Trek came to be over a decade before Star Wars. Jeez! I second what you said, "OMG!"
|by Anonymous||reply 91||05/20/2013|
I saw a preview last Wednesday in a theater full of Trekkers and they LOVED it.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||05/20/2013|
I saw it in Austin at the Alamo Drafthouse in 3D. Every seat was taken and the audience had a great time. They laughed throughout at the humorous parts, gasped when Khan was revealed and applauded at the end. I think they enjoyed it, I know I did, too.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||05/20/2013|
I assume they are purposely trolling. Not only does Star Trek precede Star Wars but it was always crafted to more a bit more philosophical in tone, while Star Wars was just a classic heroes journey.
And Quinto is a great actor. He received lots of praise back when he played Sylar on "Heroes" and he has received a lot of praise for his role as Spock in this franchise.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||05/20/2013|
Quinto was undoubtedly the best Spock available, because they ignored possible problems with him being outed or coming out, and cast him anyway. They really wanted him.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||05/20/2013|
Next to "drama queen" in the dictionary there's a picture of OP.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||05/20/2013|
Okay, whatever R89. Those of us who know how things work, know it ain't a "hit" either. You forget exhibitors take a percentage of the box office and that percentage grows over weeks. So no, I stand by my statement. If you weren't so quick to rush to judgement you'd see I never said it was a straight up flop. I said it would not reach $500/600 million which would get it close to breaking even.
And please, Finke is not a journalist. She'll write what she's told to curry favor.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||05/20/2013|
FROM NY TIMES, 5/17/13
[quote]And the economics for a blockbuster can be daunting. If a film costs $200 million to make and another $200 million to market, it needs to generate $800 million at the box office just to break even, because distributors and theater owners keep roughly half the revenue. Not that many films generate such big numbers. Last year, only seven films had worldwide grosses of more than $750 million, according to Box Office Mojo.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||05/20/2013|
R82 = baiter, and not a particularly good one.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||05/20/2013|
[quote] even Ann Coulter hates it. She loathed this movie and that's enuff for me
Yeah, enough for me to now wanna see it.
Here's one for the financial experts in the field (and not the OP): does the 3x gross formula hold true for mega budgeted movies? It's one thing when the formula was derived at a time when a movie cost $2 or $3 million and marketing was the same. Or even with $20 or $30 million dollar films I can see the marketing math. But if a movie costs $200 mil, is there really $200 million dollars worth of marketing? Especially with ad budgets from the studios getting drastically cut.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||05/20/2013|
OP, you sound like a drooly creep in a caftan.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||05/20/2013|
Not even close to bombing. A bombing Star Trek movie would be defined as Star Trek: Nemesis which completely tanked. To date it has only made $43,254,409 domestically (including DVD/home video sales). It tanked overseas as well and has never recouped its budget. That, my friend, is a bomb.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||05/20/2013|
Why all the Zachary Quinto hate here? Nimoy will always be my favorite Spock, but I think Quinto did a damned good job in both movies. I think he's a really decent actor. Also, I really respect Quinto for standing up and publicly coming out as a gay man (just like George Takei from the original Trek). He showed a lot of balls. I will always respect him for standing up to the Hollywood establishment and doing the right thing. Kudos, Quinto!
I'm an old Star Trek guy (of 48). I go almost all the way back to the beginning of Star Trek. I really enjoyed "Into Darkness" and I give it my stamp of approval.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||05/20/2013|
"Into Darkness" rocks! I liked it even better than "Star Trek" (2009). It's not quite "Wrath of Khan" good, but it is damn entertaining!
|by Anonymous||reply 104||05/20/2013|
R104 Agreed. I found "Star Trek Into Darkness" to be a very entertaining movie. My partner and I went to see it twice over the weekend. We both loved it. The theater was packed for both showings we attended.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||05/20/2013|
I liked "Iron Man 3", but I think "Into Darkness" was a much better movie. For pure action, "Into Darkness" fucking delivers. I liked the story too. It borrowed a lot from "The Wrath of Khan" but it was original enough to deliver the goods. I have seen quite a few movies this year and I will say that "Into Darkness" is my second favorite (after "Mud").
|by Anonymous||reply 106||05/20/2013|
To the people saying it didn't bomb: Do you guys realize that the budget for the movie was $190 million dollars? And so far the film has only managed to bring in a little under $165 million dollars worldwide?
Translation: It was not able to break even and after opening weekend, numbers tend to drop off. They'll make some money up with DVD sales and merchandising, but yeah - it under-performed.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||05/20/2013|
I'll go see it at least two more times at the theater, then I'll definitely buy the Blu-Ray. Into Darkness was a hell of a lot better than those last three Star Wars movies (Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith) and deserves to make shitloads more more than those dungheaps. I loved the original Star Wars trilogy, but I am floored that the prequels made so much money. They were awful. Star Trek Into Darkness is fucking great and deserves to rake in the cash.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||05/20/2013|
I love this "FAQ" for the new Star Trek movie...
|by Anonymous||reply 109||05/20/2013|
Bye Bye Star Trek. Thank god this is the end. I'm will be so glad to have Star Trek gone once and for all. Star Wars wannabes.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||05/20/2013|
Maybe The Next Generation cast can come back and make a new movie now.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||05/20/2013|
R111, God forbid! I loved "The Next Generation" TV series and the second feature film ("First Contact"), but the other three "Next Generation" movies ate diarrhea-shit. They were horrid.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||05/20/2013|
Cumberbatch made a really good Khan. I know some people hate this movie because they didn't get a muslim to play him. Jeez. Get over it.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||05/20/2013|
Ricardo Montalban was not a muslim!!
|by Anonymous||reply 115||05/20/2013|
Into Darkness is the best movie of 2013, so far. I loved it. For pure entertainment value, it's worth every penny I spent to see it. I will see it again. Cumberbatch is awesome as Khan (Montalban was better, but Cumberbatch rocks). I fully recommend this one.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||05/20/2013|
[quote]Into Darkness is the best movie of 2013, so far.
That's pretty damning.
It's certainly well crafted, at least visually and effects-wise. But the story is shit, and it takes a shit all over a lot of what is Star Trek.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||05/20/2013|
Something tells me that OP is both heterosexual AND conservative (possibly even a Westboro Ba--ist Ch--ch troll). This thread looks suspiciously like the work of a Rethug troll. I know the Rethugs are boycotting this movie, so I take it OP is one of them.
|by Anonymous||reply 119||05/20/2013|
r109/r112/r116/r118=racist troll and talks to itself
|by Anonymous||reply 120||05/21/2013|
[quote]To the people saying it didn't bomb: Do you guys realize that the budget for the movie was $190 million dollars? And so far the film has only managed to bring in a little under $165 million dollars worldwide?
Yup, we realize all of that. Now do you realize just how many weeks it will be in the theaters? and that by the time all is said and done, and counting cable and/or network television sales, DVD and Blu-Ray sales, Netflix and Amazon streaming licensing, merchandise sales, and so on, this film will easily make back double its cost? Sorry, that's just not a "bomb," no matter how much you want it to be.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||05/21/2013|
I saw Zoey Saldana in Los Angeles last September, she's the thinnest human being I think I've seen.
|by Anonymous||reply 122||05/21/2013|
[quote]Do you guys realize that the budget for the movie was $190 million dollars? And so far the film has only managed to bring in a little under $165 million dollars worldwide?
Do YOU realize that $165 million is for only three days worth of showings?
|by Anonymous||reply 124||05/21/2013|
After this one First Contact is my favorite.
|by Anonymous||reply 125||05/21/2013|
R120... huh? Don't be ridiculous.
(and I'll bet you haven't read the hilarious Datalounge-worthy snark at the link in R109, have you?)
|by Anonymous||reply 126||05/21/2013|
You people are just exhausting. And not in a good way.
|by Anonymous||reply 127||05/21/2013|
87% on Rotten Tomatos and 72 million opening weekend top box office film in the country.
Is that a bomb?
|by Anonymous||reply 128||05/21/2013|
R129 I love Zachary Quinto. I think he's one of the better actors in Hollyweird. I love him even more because he is OUT AND PROUD. Get off the hate wagon. Zachary rocks!
|by Anonymous||reply 131||05/21/2013|
DL has an odd hostility towards openly-gay celebs. It's just people with issues, pay them no mind.
|by Anonymous||reply 132||05/21/2013|
The article linked in R109 is hilarious and true. None of which means the movie wasn't entertaining. But it was much less "good" than it could have and should have been.
It pretty much continues the trend of "every other Trek is weak"...
|by Anonymous||reply 133||05/21/2013|
Except it gets an 87% RT rating, that's not weak. I was ho-hum about the last movie and hope the new one is a little better.
|by Anonymous||reply 134||05/21/2013|
This new one isn't as good as the last one, imho.
It's very fun.
But you can't think about it too much.
If you do, much of it just falls apart.
|by Anonymous||reply 135||05/21/2013|
it is not a bomb. As stated it made 165 million in three days? The first ST made 385 worldwide and Into Darkness is set to surpass that.
|by Anonymous||reply 136||05/21/2013|
OP is a hyperbolic, homophobic, desperate knave. I regret even reading this insane thread. And why so much frenzied joy over what is a (wrongly) perceived failure? Pathetic.
|by Anonymous||reply 137||05/21/2013|
R132 I have noticed that too. People bitch because a celebrity is closeted and they hate them for it. Celebrity makes a brave stand and comes out of the closet, they are bashed and hated by the same individuals.
My opinion: Many of these haters are actually self-hating homosexuals, or they are gay-hating heterosexuals trying to stir up shit and hurt people. Either way, fuck 'em right up the ass!
Note: I loved "Into Darkness" and will definitely see it again. I found it to be great entertainment.
|by Anonymous||reply 138||05/21/2013|
Quinto is fine by me. I've enjoyed him very much on AHS.
|by Anonymous||reply 139||05/21/2013|
They shouldn't have shot their wad by using Khan so soon.
It would have been better to do a retro-fit of Gary Mitchell - Cumberbatch would have been spectacular making Gary Mitchell his own as opposed to trying to fill Ricardo Montalban's shoes with Khan.
He's wholly forgettable as Khan, but as Gary Mitchell, he could have been epic...
|by Anonymous||reply 140||05/21/2013|
Closet cases are bashing Quinto...because they are cowardly jerks. The rest of us support Quinto.
|by Anonymous||reply 141||05/21/2013|
It needed to be sexier. Had the male cast traipsed about scantily clad it would've appealed to more fans than Alice Eve in her underwear. Kirk's shirt was always being ripped off in some fashion on the tv show, and this cast is arguably sexier than their '60s counterparts.
|by Anonymous||reply 142||05/21/2013|
I agree with some of the earlier posters. Hats the Uhura Spock relationship. It is ruining the whole experience for me.
|by Anonymous||reply 143||05/21/2013|
Exactly. People do NOT want to see Spock getting busy on a regular basis, whether he's being played by a gay OR straight actor.
It's Pon Farr or nothing.
|by Anonymous||reply 145||05/21/2013|
I agree with the NYT review...it betrays the spirit of the Star Trek series.
But this shit is made for 15 year old boys now, who just want to see 'stuff blown up'. The amazing thing is that adults go for it. Our society is infantile now. Women going nuts over tween romance books and men getting hard over tween action movies.
|by Anonymous||reply 146||05/21/2013|
I love how they say it betrays the spirit if the OG movies...umm most of them were universally panned and called crap.
|by Anonymous||reply 147||05/22/2013|
Just more evidence that David Lindenhoff (or whatever his name is) should be banned from writing any more TV or Movies. Seriously, the guy is an awful hack.
|by Anonymous||reply 148||05/22/2013|
Saw it tonight in 3D. Loved it.
Fuck the haters.
|by Anonymous||reply 149||05/23/2013|
Fuck all you old Queens. I liked the Spock and the Uhura relationship. What's the matter with you fools? Actors are acting!
|by Anonymous||reply 150||05/24/2013|
The $85 million dollar opening was good. Great? No but this film will make money and I'm sure that really frost a lot of you assholes.
|by Anonymous||reply 151||05/24/2013|
It was a very enjoyable movie, but I didn't like the lack of imagination in using Khan again and then switching things up to the point of the dialogue being an exact copy of the original film in certain parts.
Hopefully, they can move on to new stories now and think of fresh material.
|by Anonymous||reply 152||05/24/2013|
they should have showed more of Pine and the bulge.
|by Anonymous||reply 153||05/24/2013|
r142, by now you've probably seen the newly released footage of Benedict Cumberbatch taking a shower. Like the Alice Eve panties and Wonderbra shot, it says nothing about the character or story, just OMG BOOBS.
|by Anonymous||reply 154||05/24/2013|