Star Trek XI

[Longdogger_Pete 0]

News out of Comic-Con.

 

Zachary Quinto (Sylar from Heroes) has been cast as young Spock for this movie. Leonard Nimoy will cameo as elder version of Spock. Abrams is in talks to get Shatner into the movie as well. Nobody cast yet for young Kirk.

 

For those that aren't already aware - the next Star Trek movie is set to release December 2008. J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof are co-writing and producing and Abrams will direct.

 

[Guest Smues]

I'm a Star Trek geek, but I've got no interest in this one. I hate prequels. I didn't watch Enterprise, not gonna watch this.

[ZGangsta 0]

Uh, isn't Kirk kinda dead for Shatner to appear in this movie?

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

It's a prequel.

Plus, in one of the ST novels, Kirk comes back from the dead.

[Darthtiki 0]

It's a prequel.

Plus, in one of the ST novels, Kirk comes back from the dead.

 

Not only that, if I remember correctly the Nexus was a place where time has no meaning and one could move about.

[Longdogger_Pete 0]

It's a prequel.

Plus, in one of the ST novels, Kirk comes back from the dead.

 

Shatner wrote the book where Kirk came back. Not only that, but he kept his character alive through six more books, all written by Shatner, all taking place in the TNG era. However, those books aren't considered canonical.

 

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I don't like the idea of a prequel either, but having said that, Quinto is a really good cast for Spock.

[razazteca 0]

Sylar as the pointy ear space elf is going to kick so much ass.

 

This role was made for Britney Spears! "V*ger says this is logical"

[ZGangsta 0]

It's a prequel.

Plus, in one of the ST novels, Kirk comes back from the dead.

I know it's a prequel.

You don't honestly think that they'd use a plot point from a novel in a movie do you?

 

I guess the 'time flows strangely in the nexus' is an explanation they could go with for why Kirk looks way older than when he died.

[Jingus 0]

Yeah, it's Star Trek, just make up some pseudo-scientific bullshit, always worked before.

 

Why are people so excited about this, and about that other "Cloverfield" thing JJ Abrahms is doing? Upon a quick check, it turns out that Abrahms actually has relatively little experience as a director. He directed only two or three episodes each of the various shows he "created". The only movie he's ever done was Mission Impossible III, which lost money at the box office. And he's written some REAL shit in his time: we're talking the Armageddons and Gone Fishings of the world. And then there's Lost, which I've never watched, but even its most hardcore fans seem to all say that it took the biggest nosedive in quality in the second season since Twin Peaks. Why does this guy have such a hot reputation?

[tommytomlin 0]

Yeah, it's Star Trek, just make up some pseudo-scientific bullshit, always worked before.

 

Why are people so excited about this, and about that other "Cloverfield" thing JJ Abrahms is doing? Upon a quick check, it turns out that Abrahms actually has relatively little experience as a director. He directed only two or three episodes each of the various shows he "created". The only movie he's ever done was Mission Impossible III, which lost money at the box office. And he's written some REAL shit in his time: we're talking the Armageddons and Gone Fishings of the world. And then there's Lost, which I've never watched, but even its most hardcore fans seem to all say that it took the biggest nosedive in quality in the second season since Twin Peaks. Why does this guy have such a hot reputation?

 

MI:3 didn't lose money at the box office, it performed quite well. It was just the revenue sharing arrangement between Paramount and Cruise/Wagner productions saw Paramount's share reduced, which is why they ended their partnership with Cruise.

 

As for J.J. - he's created/co-created two decent television hits (Alias and Felicity) and 1 mega-hit (Lost). Season 2 was a let-down, but attributing that blame solely on J.J's shoulders (when his involvement is limited compared to Cuse and Lindelof) is a little rough. You mightn't like Armageddon, but it was a successful genre pic that made a pantload of cash.

 

His reputation is that he's one of Hollywood's most creative talents. People don't consider him a genius director, but he has a way of creating some very well-received and unique stuff.

[ZGangsta 0]

And let's not forget his 'gem' of a Superman script....

[Vanhalen 0]

You guys are being too cynical, we havent even seen a teaser for the film, its impossible to judge right now.

[luke-o 0]

But it's an odd numbered Star Trek film. It's destined for failure.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Yeah, even though I'm a Trekkie, put me on the Don't Care list. Not a prequels fan.

 

EDIT: But Mission Impossible 3 was good!

[Jingus 0]

MI:3 didn't lose money at the box office, it performed quite well.

Why bother with facts when you can just make up bullshit out of thin air?

 

 

From IMDB:

 

Budget

$150,000,000 (estimated)

Gross

$133,382,309

 

 

 

And keep in mind that 150M budget doesn't include advertising and marketing costs. Yeah, once the film was sold overseas and on DVD it finally broke even, but then again it's actually not common for a mainstream movie to completely lose money after all sources of income have been exhausted.

[Sideburnious 0]

Alias gave Abrahms a small cult following but Lost made him an internet "messiah". I think he's a good talent and MI:3 was probably one of my favourite movies last year but I don't think he's one of Hollywoods "most creative talents". If a director other than "the creator of lost" had released the "cloverfield" trailer, I doubt it would get as much internet hype/ love that it does.

 

I hate prequels but this Star Trek movie might not be terrible. I'm not going to shit on it before seeing it at least as I hate it when people do that. Recent examples would be Transformers, Die Hard 4, The Simpson movies etc where people have shit on the by just hearing the idea, and it turns out that they are all really great movies.

I just hope they don't do stupid references to future events. Like show Kirk and Spock going to the Enterprise at the end of the movie. For example: I hated the end to Batman begins with Gordon giving him the Jocker card. Can we not believe that time has past before he jumps right it. For me it just came off as a little corny.

[starvenger 0]

I'm a Star Trek geek, but I've got no interest in this one. I hate prequels. I didn't watch Enterprise, not gonna watch this.

Just DL/watch the Mirror Universe episodes of Enterprise. It was good stuff, I promise you.

 

You guys are being too cynical, we havent even seen a teaser for the film, its impossible to judge right now.

But, but, it's the internet... how will we manage if we're not cynical and snarky?

[LaParkaMarka 0]

I'm a Star Trek geek, but I've got no interest in this one. I hate prequels. I didn't watch Enterprise, not gonna watch this.

Just DL/watch the Mirror Universe episodes of Enterprise. It was good stuff, I promise you.

 

I second this. If they made the mirror universe into a series, I would watch that.

[Vanhalen 0]

But it's an odd numbered Star Trek film. It's destined for failure.

 

 

I wish I could argue with that......but I cant.

[2GOLD 0]

I will only care if it's a plot about the Star Trek crewing going back in time to save koala bears from extinction and to prevent their super powered warships from destroying all the planets in the Federation with their bamboo guns. Everyone can get behind a Star Trek crew out to bring that amount of good to the universe.

 

As for Shatner? He sings the theme song in a tux over the end credits. Or better yet, get everyone from the crew back to sing a rapping theme. I'd pay big money to hear Sulu say young wet bitches again.

 

And yes, I'm serious about all of that.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Nemesis broke the even-odd thing by being an even movie that was absolutely shit AND a complete and utter failure.

[ChrisMWaters 0]

I will only care if it's a plot about the Star Trek crewing going back in time to save koala bears from extinction and to prevent their super powered warships from destroying all the planets in the Federation with their bamboo guns. Everyone can get behind a Star Trek crew out to bring that amount of good to the universe.

 

As for Shatner? He sings the theme song in a tux over the end credits. Or better yet, get everyone from the crew back to sing a rapping theme. I'd pay big money to hear Sulu say young wet bitches again.

 

And yes, I'm serious about all of that.

I'd have agreed to that last part had both DeForrest Kelly and James Doohan not passed on.

[ZGangsta 0]

MI:3 didn't lose money at the box office, it performed quite well.

Why bother with facts when you can just make up bullshit out of thin air?

 

 

From IMDB:

 

Budget

$150,000,000 (estimated)

Gross

$133,382,309

 

 

 

And keep in mind that 150M budget doesn't include advertising and marketing costs. Yeah, once the film was sold overseas and on DVD it finally broke even, but then again it's actually not common for a mainstream movie to completely lose money after all sources of income have been exhausted.

 

from boxofficemojo

 

Domestic: $134,029,801 33.7%

+ Foreign: $263,820,211 66.3%

= Worldwide: $397,850,012

 

but whatever, it's not like that %66.3 of the gross matters...

 

And I'd love to know where this 'the majority of movies out there make a profit in the end' opinion that floats around teh internets comes from because what I've heard from people who work/have worked at studios is the opposite, that most movies make big losses. (not necessarily saying that's correct either though).

[Jingus 0]

Wow. Had no idea it did THAT well internationally, that's unusual, and IMDB doesn't list foreign grosses.

 

It's hard to say sometimes exactly how many movies turn a profit, because the studios are infamous for claiming a profitable movie actually lost money in order to get tax breaks. Billy Crystal even made a joke to that effect during the oscars one time.

[Jingus 0]

::looking around boxofficemojo::

 

Interesting site. Too bad the info is so inconsistent; more than half the new releases don't even have a budget figure.

 

And just numbers of dollars ain't everything. According to the figures on this site, in the Alien series, the movies just keep getting BETTER as time goes on. At least, that's what you'd think from the box office totals. In similar news, Prisoner of Azkaban was apparently the worst Harry Potter movie.

[starvenger 0]

Wow. Had no idea it did THAT well internationally, that's unusual, and IMDB doesn't list foreign grosses.

 

It's hard to say sometimes exactly how many movies turn a profit, because the studios are infamous for claiming a profitable movie actually lost money in order to get tax breaks. Billy Crystal even made a joke to that effect during the oscars one time.

This is also why big stars claim a share of the gross. Claim a share of the net or profits, and the studios will do their best to turn a deficit.

 

Fascinating stuff, what they'll do to make things look bad.

[ZGangsta 0]

It's hard to say sometimes exactly how many movies turn a profit, because the studios are infamous for claiming a profitable movie actually lost money in order to get tax breaks. Billy Crystal even made a joke to that effect during the oscars one time.

Yeah, I think I've heard something like that before too.

 

And I think MI3 would have made a lot more money in North America had Tom Cruise not revealed himself as a complete nutbar before the movie came out, I guess the Europeans and the rest of the global market are more forgiving about that sort of thing. I thought the movie was pretty good aatually, though I agree about Abrams being insanely overated just cause some people have a giant hard on for Lost.

 

And I think the thing with the Alien series is to do with ticket prices rising over the time of the series.

[Jingus 0]

And I think the thing with the Alien series is to do with ticket prices rising over the time of the series.

Absolutely. That's a big problem with Hollywood and its addiction to bragging about big dollar gross numbers: they don't mean shit in regards to history until you adjust them for inflation and the like.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Nemesis broke the even-odd thing by being an even movie that was absolutely shit AND a complete and utter failure.

 

But I liked Star Trek 10. I didn't think it was THAT bad, but then again it doesn't help that 50 minutes of footage was cut from the film that would have touched up on "character moments" with each crew member.

 

Updated Star Trek (2008) roster:

 

Chris Pine as James T. Kirk

Zachary Quinto as Spock

Karl Urban as Leonard McCoy

Simon Pegg as Montgomery Scott

Anton Yelchin as Pavel Chekov

Zoë Saldaña as Uhura

John Cho as Hikaru Sulu

Eric Bana as Nero

 

Oh and

Leonard Nimoy will reprise his role as Spock in the film. Unfortunately, William Shatner will not return as Kirk due to creative differences since his character is dead and they don't want to start a potential creative mess trying to bring him back.