And I love the way you make everything into a personal attack
#
Fine its the greatest film ever made
it should have a million sequels
and JJ is GOD
Happy now??
It will still ~BOMB
and if it doesn't JJ might find he can't get honest work
GODS you people can never accept a non collective view can you
I prefer non-collective views and even agree that JJ Trek was bad, but your arguments aren't arguments that convince - they just make you seem like the crazy guy outside of the bus station yelling random crazy things.
first off, januhull that comment was not needed here. please edit it out before you pick up an infraction.
second sollvax, some of the people arguing with you dont even like the film but if you are going to try and argue a point with facts then get the facts right.
but im going to stop arguing with you. believe what ever makes you happy.
In either case, it's merely YOUR opinion that the movie sucked. And frankly, I don't care what you or anyone else had for an opinion on the movie, or any movie for that matter. The only opinion that matters to me, is my own opinion. I do not try to shove my opinions down other peoples throats. Perhaps you should stop trying to shove your own opinion down ours.
Because how would they shoehorn Mitchell in, having gone to such lengths to stick the crew that appears from season 2 onwards all together on the bridge in the first movie?
Mitchell was a long-time friend of Kirk's, the Enterprise's helmsman, was surely Second Officer given that his rank was Lt. Commander (actually, I have this notion that its implied he outranks Spock, making him First Officer, but don't hold me to that. Haven't seen the ep lately).
After not being in the first movie, he's just going to suddenly appear and take Sulu's job, is he?
Sure, the movie may have done away with previous Trek, but I tend to look at it with a wider perspective. Think about just how many people in a new generation were introduced to Star Trek because of the movie - that can only be a good thing for the franchise, surely!
We as a fanbase are highly resistant to change, but I'm starting to think that we many not see a return to the Prime Universe.
New timeline, new circumstances. The threat of Nero didn't exist in the original timeline, the Enterprise was launched 14 years later in the new timeline, Kirk's "hero and mentor" wasn't his father in the new timeline...
Suffice it to say, if Gary Mitchell makes an appearance in this movie, the circumstances of which will not be identical to what happened in the original timeline.
We as a fanbase are highly resistant to change, but I'm starting to think that we many not see a return to the Prime Universe.
"Fresh minds, fresh ideas, be tolerant" - Kirk to Scotty, in Star Trek... 4 I think?
"Infinite Diversity, Infinite Combinations"
Both of which supports a diverse range of thoughts, ideas and situations. Yet somehow, most "Trek fans" cling to one particular aspect, and nothing else matters. To me, it's all Entertainment anyways.
New timeline, new circumstances. The threat of Nero didn't exist in the original timeline, the Enterprise was launched 14 years later in the new timeline, Kirk's "hero and mentor" wasn't his father in the new timeline...
Suffice it to say, if Gary Mitchell makes an appearance in this movie, the circumstances of which will not be identical to what happened in the original timeline.
Well, this brings me to a problem with the Abramsverse, to be honest.
They played the Nero-timeline interference as an in-universe reason reason for there to be changes to the continuity, rather than just saying "look, we need to write within a different continuity for the sake of dramaturgy".
This means that any changes made by Nero's incursion have to be plausible within the context of Star Trek. And well, some of the stuff changed (like Chekov's year of birth for example) doesn't strike me as plausible.
To be fair, since Kirk and the crew of the Kelvin did have their fate's altered quite significantly, Mitchell & Kirk's relationship being changed is something not only plausible, but likely.
However, I don't see the point in bringing Mitchell in as a bad guy, if he's going to be a completely different person from ToS Mitchell? If you're going to have bloke who's nothing like Mitchell in the movie, but is supposed to be Gary Mitchell, then why not just have a different baddie altogether? If it's a good movie, it'll stand on its own merits without needing little bits of nostalgia.
$96,800,000 / $12,000,000 Wrath of Khan
Gross Cost Return $8.06 per $
$385,680,446 / $140,000,000 Startrek the abomination
Gross Cost Return $2.75 per $
It bombed
175% profit is not bombing by anyone's definition of the word except yours, kiddo. People in this world invest way, way, more than $140m to see $245m profit out the other end.
Actually according to dollar valuations over time, the 104 million profit from the original trek movie would be 307 million in 2009 dollars, so it would be one of the highest grossing trek movies.
ST4 would be 206 mil in 2009 dollars,
and the rest go downhill from there.
and you could make a higher return just by making a BAD Tv series
some exec somewhere is cursing
Dude, your arguments throughout this thread have sucked. Your facts aren't facts. You don't know what you are talking about regarding anything, as far as I can tell.
You lost. Pack it up and troll some other thread. Maybe they will be kinder regarding the things you pull out of your butt to further your crazy-talk arguments.
And ironically, when you tell that guy he is wrong (which he isn't) you used the wrong form of your. You meant "you're" (you are).
Tighten up the chinstrap on your aluminum foil hat and enjoy the crazy, bro.
this film made less per dollar than the others (thats a flop)
oh and when you call me a troll you prove me right
Sollvax, the film grossed more than all of the other Trek movies did, regardless of whether you adjust for inflation or not. Even if it did make "less per dollar than the others", many more people saw XI that saw the others. It earned much more than was invested into it - that fact is supported by numbers - which means it made a large profit.
I understand that you don't like the film, that much is clear, but the the film was a major success - you really can't debate that point when the figures are in front of you.
I just don't see how a villian with god-like powers and a tale about fading humanity translates into the sort of $200 million giant summer CGI spectacle Paramount doubtlessly wants. Like it or not, they aren't interested in making character studies, just sci-fi Michael Bay movies that print money.
Give me the budget and a free hand I will make a much better movie , with a much better cast and a much better script
oh and I'd make a lot more money out of it as well
Riiiight. Sure you would.
And I am sure you'd be able to knock out a better Trek MMO in your spare time, on weekends, using a #2 pencil and an abacus. Using a real computer would just eat into your profit margin, afterall.
I just don't see how a villian with god-like powers and a tale about fading humanity translates into the sort of $200 million giant summer CGI spectacle Paramount doubtlessly wants. Like it or not, they aren't interested in making character studies, just sci-fi Michael Bay movies that print money.
Star Trek vs Predator, starring Shia LaBouef, coming soon to a theater near you.
Comments
#
Fine its the greatest film ever made
it should have a million sequels
and JJ is GOD
Happy now??
It will still ~BOMB
and if it doesn't JJ might find he can't get honest work
GODS you people can never accept a non collective view can you
Dude, if you ever find yourself considering suicide because of your utterly negative views on life, do us all a favor.
DON'T STOP!
I prefer non-collective views and even agree that JJ Trek was bad, but your arguments aren't arguments that convince - they just make you seem like the crazy guy outside of the bus station yelling random crazy things.
First off, i'm not attacking anyone. I am however, de-constructing your flawed arguments, since they are full of holes.
Second, using "sarcasm" to prove a point, doesn't exactly help your case either.
on the second day no one came
in America people went
and to the jerk saying I should self destruct
HUMANS DON'T
second sollvax, some of the people arguing with you dont even like the film but if you are going to try and argue a point with facts then get the facts right.
but im going to stop arguing with you. believe what ever makes you happy.
the cost of the film was MASSIVE
and it deeply sucked
In either case, it's merely YOUR opinion that the movie sucked. And frankly, I don't care what you or anyone else had for an opinion on the movie, or any movie for that matter. The only opinion that matters to me, is my own opinion. I do not try to shove my opinions down other peoples throats. Perhaps you should stop trying to shove your own opinion down ours.
Because how would they shoehorn Mitchell in, having gone to such lengths to stick the crew that appears from season 2 onwards all together on the bridge in the first movie?
Mitchell was a long-time friend of Kirk's, the Enterprise's helmsman, was surely Second Officer given that his rank was Lt. Commander (actually, I have this notion that its implied he outranks Spock, making him First Officer, but don't hold me to that. Haven't seen the ep lately).
After not being in the first movie, he's just going to suddenly appear and take Sulu's job, is he?
We as a fanbase are highly resistant to change, but I'm starting to think that we many not see a return to the Prime Universe.
Suffice it to say, if Gary Mitchell makes an appearance in this movie, the circumstances of which will not be identical to what happened in the original timeline.
"Fresh minds, fresh ideas, be tolerant" - Kirk to Scotty, in Star Trek... 4 I think?
"Infinite Diversity, Infinite Combinations"
Both of which supports a diverse range of thoughts, ideas and situations. Yet somehow, most "Trek fans" cling to one particular aspect, and nothing else matters. To me, it's all Entertainment anyways.
ok one last post.
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/StarTrek.php
yes the last film did have a huge budget and yet it still made more than any other trek film when you take the budget off and look at the profit only.
the most profitable film is XI with about 235million profit.
the next one is voyage home with 109 million profit. it did over twice as well. nemesis had about a 7 million profit.
Gross Cost Return $8.06 per $
$385,680,446 / $140,000,000 Startrek the abomination
Gross Cost Return $2.75 per $
It bombed
Well, this brings me to a problem with the Abramsverse, to be honest.
They played the Nero-timeline interference as an in-universe reason reason for there to be changes to the continuity, rather than just saying "look, we need to write within a different continuity for the sake of dramaturgy".
This means that any changes made by Nero's incursion have to be plausible within the context of Star Trek. And well, some of the stuff changed (like Chekov's year of birth for example) doesn't strike me as plausible.
To be fair, since Kirk and the crew of the Kelvin did have their fate's altered quite significantly, Mitchell & Kirk's relationship being changed is something not only plausible, but likely.
However, I don't see the point in bringing Mitchell in as a bad guy, if he's going to be a completely different person from ToS Mitchell? If you're going to have bloke who's nothing like Mitchell in the movie, but is supposed to be Gary Mitchell, then why not just have a different baddie altogether? If it's a good movie, it'll stand on its own merits without needing little bits of nostalgia.
Nah, I can't be the only one thinking it, or something in a similar vein, so I'll take one for the team.
175% profit is not bombing by anyone's definition of the word except yours, kiddo. People in this world invest way, way, more than $140m to see $245m profit out the other end.
You're wrong. Let it go.
ST4 would be 206 mil in 2009 dollars,
and the rest go downhill from there.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
a bad film less than $3
your wrong as well
and you could make a higher return just by making a BAD Tv series
some exec somewhere is cursing
Let. It. Go.
Dude, your arguments throughout this thread have sucked. Your facts aren't facts. You don't know what you are talking about regarding anything, as far as I can tell.
You lost. Pack it up and troll some other thread. Maybe they will be kinder regarding the things you pull out of your butt to further your crazy-talk arguments.
And ironically, when you tell that guy he is wrong (which he isn't) you used the wrong form of your. You meant "you're" (you are).
Tighten up the chinstrap on your aluminum foil hat and enjoy the crazy, bro.
and the figures work
this film made less per dollar than the others (thats a flop)
oh and when you call me a troll you prove me right
Anyway - I always new it's not Khan and I'm happy they're not doing him again. After all he wasn't an out of the ordinary villain.
Sollvax, the film grossed more than all of the other Trek movies did, regardless of whether you adjust for inflation or not. Even if it did make "less per dollar than the others", many more people saw XI that saw the others. It earned much more than was invested into it - that fact is supported by numbers - which means it made a large profit.
I understand that you don't like the film, that much is clear, but the the film was a major success - you really can't debate that point when the figures are in front of you.
I bet he's thinking they cost about...
oh and I'd make a lot more money out of it as well
Riiiight. Sure you would.
And I am sure you'd be able to knock out a better Trek MMO in your spare time, on weekends, using a #2 pencil and an abacus. Using a real computer would just eat into your profit margin, afterall.
Good luck, armchair-Spielberg. :rolleyes:
Star Trek vs Predator, starring Shia LaBouef, coming soon to a theater near you.