test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

The Villain of the Abrams Star Trek Sequel Leaked

24

Comments

  • sollvaxsollvax Member Posts: 4 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    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
    Live long and Prosper
  • januhulljanuhull Member Posts: 154 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    sollvax wrote: »
    pointless this film will BOMB
    sequels of remakes usually do

    Dude, if you ever find yourself considering suicide because of your utterly negative views on life, do us all a favor.

    DON'T STOP!
  • boglejam73boglejam73 Member Posts: 890 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    sollvax wrote: »
    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.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • meurikmeurik Member Posts: 856 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    sollvax wrote: »
    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

    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.
    HvGQ9pH.png
  • sollvaxsollvax Member Posts: 4 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    in the local cinema here it ran for TWO days
    on the second day no one came

    in America people went

    and to the jerk saying I should self destruct

    HUMANS DON'T
    Live long and Prosper
  • captainrevo1captainrevo1 Member Posts: 3,948 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    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.
  • sollvaxsollvax Member Posts: 4 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Cost profit ratios was what i ment

    the cost of the film was MASSIVE

    and it deeply sucked
    Live long and Prosper
  • meurikmeurik Member Posts: 856 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    Starting to sound like a broken record, dude!

    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.
    HvGQ9pH.png
  • skhcskhc Member Posts: 355 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    I'm thinking this is misdirection from Urban.

    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?
  • zadamazadama Member Posts: 78 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    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.
  • meurikmeurik Member Posts: 856 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    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.
    zadama wrote: »
    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.
    HvGQ9pH.png
  • captainrevo1captainrevo1 Member Posts: 3,948 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    sollvax wrote: »
    Cost profit ratios was what i ment

    the cost of the film was MASSIVE

    and it deeply sucked

    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.
  • sollvaxsollvax Member Posts: 4 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    $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
    Live long and Prosper
  • skhcskhc Member Posts: 355 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    meurik wrote: »
    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.
  • januhulljanuhull Member Posts: 154 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    first off, januhull that comment was not needed here. please edit it out before you pick up an infraction.

    Nah, I can't be the only one thinking it, or something in a similar vein, so I'll take one for the team.
  • skhcskhc Member Posts: 355 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    sollvax wrote: »
    $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.

    You're wrong. Let it go.
  • lordmalak1lordmalak1 Member Posts: 4,681 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    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.
    KBF Lord MalaK
    Awoken Dead
    giphy.gif

    Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
  • sollvaxsollvax Member Posts: 4 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    a GOOD film makes $5 per $1

    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
    Live long and Prosper
  • sovereignmansovereignman Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    If you know how to produce films/tv series that have nothing but varying degrees of profit, please get a career change, because Hollywood needs you.

    Let. It. Go.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMm_VoKkuco - Needs more female relief ops ensign.
  • boglejam73boglejam73 Member Posts: 890 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    sollvax wrote: »
    a GOOD film makes $5 per $1

    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

    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. :D
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • nyiadnyiad Member Posts: 220 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    I feel so sorry for Star Trek still. The fanbase needs to stop having poison added to their Trek.
  • sollvaxsollvax Member Posts: 4 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    your wrong (a wrong belonging to you)

    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
    Live long and Prosper
  • jjumetleyjjumetley Member Posts: 281 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    My guts tell me it might be true that it's Mitchell.

    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.
  • zadamazadama Member Posts: 78 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    sollvax wrote: »
    your wrong (a wrong belonging to you)

    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

    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.
  • admiraljt#1430 admiraljt Member Posts: 452 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    ! how much do you think ticket prices have gone up by in 10 years?

    I bet he's thinking they cost about...
  • sollvaxsollvax Member Posts: 4 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    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
    Live long and Prosper
  • jkstocbrjkstocbr Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    I don't know who these characters are, and checking up on Memory Alpha I was not all that impressed really. Hope the movie is enjoyable.
  • reginamala78reginamala78 Member Posts: 4,593 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    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.
  • boglejam73boglejam73 Member Posts: 890 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    sollvax wrote: »
    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.

    Good luck, armchair-Spielberg. :rolleyes:
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • sovereignmansovereignman Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited July 2012
    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.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMm_VoKkuco - Needs more female relief ops ensign.
Sign In or Register to comment.