PDA

View Full Version : Star Trek XI coming May 2009



banquo's_bumble_puppy
2008-Feb-14, 02:47 PM
Word has it that Paramount is delaying 'til May '09 due to bigger box office potential....what does that say about the movie?????hmmmm money, money , money

Chuck
2008-Feb-14, 03:02 PM
They're missing all the money from the people who will die or become incapacitated between its actual completion and May of '09.

I'll borrow the DVD when it becomes available at my local library. There's no hurry and there's no need to pay to see it.

NEOWatcher
2008-Feb-14, 03:11 PM
Word has it that Paramount is delaying 'til May '09 due to bigger box office potential....what does that say about the movie?????hmmmm money, money , money
Can you point us to some discussion about it?
Put it that simply, it's shocking, but it could be more complex than that.
And; it may be somebody twisting words from somebody saying that they found that they don't have the time to do it right.

You may want a bit more information before going into panic mode. It may very well follow the rumor, but that doesn't mean it will.

And; if they see that much potential, maybe that's a sign that they are going to make some serious blockbuster type effort. They might be willing to invest more into it if they see more money coming out of it.

banquo's_bumble_puppy
2008-Feb-14, 03:23 PM
http://trekmovie.com/2008/02/13/breaking-news-star-trek-pushed-to-may-2009/

NEOWatcher
2008-Feb-14, 03:36 PM
http://trekmovie.com/2008/02/13/breaking-news-star-trek-pushed-to-may-2009/

So this reporter, is citing a magazine, quoting an insider (ie not official), who claims that...
Now there's a reliable line of information...:lol:

Gee, look at updateS.

Apparently this is all part of a larger plan on the part of Paramount...
So, it's not really Trek-centric, but part of larger decisions


The Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i797c75af15317bcf86a66d3d3bdc152a)also notes that Paramount’s reshuffling of six films was due to a rethink after the strike and that in the case of Trek it was not related to the script.
So the strike messed up a lot of things, who wulda thunk dat.

Overall, I don't have a lot of confidence, but the rumors seem to be rather emotionally based and premature. Don't you think?

Gillianren
2008-Feb-14, 08:11 PM
It wouldn't be the first time a release date was changed due to expected box office. Stardust springs to mind; it was intended to be a spring release, but they thought it might make more money in the summer, so it got delayed until August. Whether that helped it or not, I cannot say; I would have gone to see it no matter what.

Now, if it were delayed for a January or February release--even March or April--that would be a very bad sign indeed. Blockbusters and other movies with high financial expectations are summer movies. Oscar fodder tends to get released in October through December--to qualify for the Oscars, the movie must be released in at least two theatres, one from a list of New York theatres and one from a list of LA theatres, by 31 December. The remaining stretch of the year is the Dead Zone, so to speak, the time when movies aren't expected to make any money or be remembered during Oscar time.

There are exceptions; Silence of the Lambs, which swept the big five awards, was released in March. This year, one of the Best Actress nominees--Julie Christie--was in a movie that I saw on DVD months ago. (The truly excellent Canadian film Away from Her; check it out.) Some of them--Silence of the Lambs again, I believe--didn't exactly hurt in the box office, either, and Gods know there are enough summer releases that flop. But that's Hollywood's expectation, so a summer release is generally a better sign than you might think.

Jason
2008-Feb-14, 11:39 PM
It's pretty much all due to Jaws. Jaws is what convinced Hollywood that people really would spend their summer days in a dark theater watching a movie. The Summer Blockbuster has been here pretty much ever since.

JustAFriend
2008-Feb-15, 02:41 PM
Movies get schedule-changed all the time.... so much depends on what space is available in the theaters, what other movies the studio is releasing at the same time and making sure that they don't release similar movies (i.e. 2 sci-fi movies) at the same time.

But more than likely the sfx shots may have slipped schedule. And no doubt problems with the writer's strike going on... theoretically, they should not have been doing re-writes/changes/updates to the script during the strike.. ha, ha...right...)

NEOWatcher
2008-Feb-15, 03:11 PM
Or maybe when Coroline Porco (http://www.bautforum.com/small-media-large/70215-caroline-porco-advises-new-trek-movie.html) got on board, she said "nope, that's all wrong", and they actually listened.

Lianachan
2008-Feb-15, 05:45 PM
There are exceptions; Silence of the Lambs, which swept the big five awards, was released in March. <SNIP> But that's Hollywood's expectation, so a summer release is generally a better sign than you might think.

Jackson's Lord Of The Rings films did well too, despite being released in December.

Gillianren
2008-Feb-15, 06:58 PM
Jackson's Lord Of The Rings films did well too, despite being released in December.

A lot of December films do very well; it's expected that better films will come out in December. It's Oscar season, after all. January through April is when films aren't expected to do at all well. Remember, at least a couple of the Harry Potters and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe were December releases as well. (A lot of "family" movies come out in December, for some reason. Christmas viewing, one supposes, but surely more families have time for movies in the summer.)

GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter
2008-Feb-15, 08:09 PM
Christmas viewing, one supposes, but surely more families have time for movies in the summer.

You have obviously never worked in a movie theater on Christmas day. :razz:

Gillianren
2008-Feb-15, 09:04 PM
You have obviously never worked in a movie theater on Christmas day. :razz:

Blessedly, I have never worked in a movie theatre at all; my experience is all as a customer. And I do know about Christmas Day--my mother now goes to movies on Christmas every year, and in fact I saw Sweeney Todd on Christmas Eve. However, Christmas vacation as a whole is only two weeks; summer vacation is substantially longer!

Lord Jubjub
2008-Feb-23, 02:21 AM
I've followed movies and movie discussions over the last decade. This is the conventional wisdom:

January is the dump month. If it's released in January, it is either junk or an experimental movie looking for a quick look (e.g. Cloverfield).

February is another dump month, though these movies may have a slightly higher hope. Jan-Feb is Oscar season. Small Oscar contenders are generally given wider releases during these two months. With the younger audiences in school and winter weather a major hazard, it is difficult to create that blockbuster that will draw audiences day after day.

March and April are the wild card months. Spring break, Easter, and better weather means that if a must-see movie is released, it will be seen by those that must see it. In the past, May was also included, but that changed about ten years ago.

May is the early blockbuster month. Generally, it is either the first week or the Memorial Day (U.S.) weekend. Since the high budget blockbusters are few and far between (Matrix was a March release), the first weekend in May often has (over the last decade) been a single blockbuster followed by more big movies the week before and the week of Memorial Day.

June is the normal summer release. The young people are out of school and can see a movie any day of the week. The blockbuster weekend can be the blockbuster week. These movies are not the biggest of the summer, but they are big movies.

The 4th of July (in the U.S.) is the BIG blockbuster weekend. Many people take 3 or 4 days off over that period. The rest of July follows similarly to June.

The first week in August is the last chance for any blockbuster. With most schools in session starting in the middle of the month, weekday attendance starts to drop off. To make the big money, a movie must be released in the first weekend. A movie released after that (especially if it is MOVED) is considered dumped.

September and October is a continuation of late August for any blockbusters. The best releases now are the small releases. Oscar contenders often try to get the jump by getting released now. A slowly expanding release is the norm.

November and December are the Oscar/blockbuster season. Movies that have a chance at getting nominated are best released here. The last week in November and the last two weeks in December are mini-summer type seasons.

DataCable
2008-Feb-24, 10:15 PM
They're missing all the money from the people who will die or become incapacitated between its actual completion and May of '09.Ah, but they'll be gaining the revenue of those who come of age during that time. Gotta consider the birth and death rates, donchaknow. ;)

Lord Jubjub
2008-Feb-24, 11:38 PM
The biggest problem for any movie moved from December to early summer is that the schedule of promotions must be dialed back. Principal photography is starting to wrap up. As the post-production phase is started, re-shoots and loop recordings are made and it is easy to schedule actors for interviews and talk shows. The Hollywood hype machine can move in lockstep with post-production and a series of teasers, trailers, and TV ads.

With the six month push back, you risk over-exposure and ennui from the casual fans and increase the change some crucial story elements may be leaked. This won't effect the quality of the movie, but it will effect the box office and the immediate perceptions.

NEOWatcher
2008-Mar-28, 01:42 PM
NOOOO... Don't scare me like that.

Tom Cruise joining ‘Star Trek’ cast? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23831305/)
I don't care if the title does have a question mark on it... It's still to scary to think of.


Unfortunately for Cruise fans, the visit to the “Star Trek” set was just a social call — Cruise and Abrams are friends, and apparently, Cruise is a fan of the television series and in particular, Dr. Spock.

...and fortunately for Trek fans.

Doctor spock?

Swift
2008-Mar-28, 02:11 PM
Doctor spock?
Sure, he wrote all those books on how to raise Vulcan children. :D

Jason
2008-Mar-28, 04:03 PM
Tom Cruise can't be a friend of Dr. Spock. Dr. Spock was a child psychologist, and we all know how Scientologists feel about psychologists.

DataCable
2008-Mar-28, 05:18 PM
Doctor spock?He's dead, Jim.

Doodler
2008-Mar-29, 01:09 PM
NOOOO... Don't scare me like that.

Tom Cruise joining ‘Star Trek’ cast? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23831305/)
I don't care if the title does have a question mark on it... It's still to scary to think of.

Cripes, that rumor was old in pre-production... JJ needs to put a disclaimer in the credits that no couches were harmed in the production of his movie...

Neverfly
2008-Mar-31, 10:19 AM
From NeoWatchers link- Bold Mine:


Tom Cruise reportedly is a big fan of the “Star Trek” television series and of Dr. Spock in particular.

That's an interesting typographical error....:think:


ETA: Riiiiiiiiiight...

I REALLY should READ a thread before responding...:doh:

Now don't I feel Foolish...?
http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/9.gifhttp://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/9.gifhttp://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/9.gif