Amph JJ Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness

For one, China is pretty important. For another, it hasn't opened in Japan or South Korea yet, which according to Box Office Mojo were two of its biggest markets in 2009. Oh, and France, which again was one of 2009 Trek's biggest markets.

I don't really understand what any of this has to do with you acting like a sexist moron, but okay.

Also, I'm not really arguing anything. I don't actually like arguing at all. I do rather enjoy voicing my thoughts, particularly when those thoughts are otherwise underrepresented. I'm not really trying to convince anyone of anything. And I am doing a bunch of things simultaneously right now and am very much enjoying my day off, actually.

 

The Hobbit was released in the US on December 14, 2012.

STID was released around May 17, 2013.

I wouldn't really call this time travel per se, it's just the usual forward march of time. Which I guess is a form of time travel, but definitely not the sexy kind.

 

The kind where you travel to a time when a Hobbit movie that Cumberbatch actually appears in is released? He did literally one shot of 'look, it's the shape of a person's body!' mocap for An Unexpected Journey. What are you on about? Are you seriously just looking at his IMDB and writing down things he was technically in recently, or are you actually going to comment on the subject of my post, which was to point out that he's not been in anything that would make him at all familiar to a wide US audience? Or more specifically you guys. Seriously, I would love to see you argue how that one shot of mocap you saw of him in The Hobbit gave you such insight into his acting abilities.... WTF.

 

China was 4th behind UK, Germany and Australia. UK is 1/3 of what it was and AU and DE are roughly 60% what they were last time. You'll forgive me if I'm not bullish on China. France was 5th and starting to get into the $6mm USD or less for each "big" market range, which is nickel and diming the studios.

I realistically don't think this "huge overseas bonanza" will be seen by the studio if it barely creaks by the 2009's US domestic total (or falls short) and barely meets or exceeds the foreign total box office, for 30% more upfront cost and... a ton more marketing costs.

I mean, don't get me wrong -- I want Star Trek to do well. But I also want it to be Star Trek; I'm not at all sad that a rehashed "best hits mashup" (as io9 puts it) is doing "lackluster" compared to expectations.

 

Sorry, what? The only numbers boxofficemojo has listed for the UK are its opening weekend numbers. Which were $12.9 million. The 2009 film made $9 million its opening weekend, and $35 million total. We don't know the UK numbers since the opening weekend have been. But it did 40% better the opening weekend, and my guess it it will do better overall than 2009 Trek. For it to wind up making 1/3 of its 2009 total, this film would have had to stop selling a single ticket after the first weekend...

Honestly, I'm not really sure where your number are coming from. China is not a super giant market, though it is a large one, with 2009 Trek doing these numbers overseas:

China: $8.9 million
Japan: $5.8 million
South Korea: $5.7 million
France: $6.9 million

Regardless of whether you consider those nickel and diming, my only point was that these were some of the top markets for 2009 Trek. And it has yet to open in any of them. The only other countries with higher foreign numbers in 2009 were the UK and Australia, hence why I call these "some of the biggest foreign markets for the 2009 film". Australia was $12 million before and this one already has $9 million. Also, it's opening weekend in Australia was $5.7 million vs. $3.5 million in 2009. My point is simply to look at the numbers and the trend of those numbers. And this film is going to do better than 2009 Trek overseas, and better in foreign markets than it will in domestic ones as well. You can argue what those numbers mean, but you can't just give false numbers and/or pretend like some countries aren't amongst 2009 Trek's larger foreign markets because it's just not factually correct.

 

Just to change the subject, went to see the film today and it was freaking awesome. Loved everything about it, especially the score, and Benedict saying "Mr Spock"

 

Okay, from BOM:

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=startrek11.htm

That's the totals for Star Trek 2009.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=startrek12.htm

That's STID.

So it's showing the total gross which in some cases, you're right, isn't as updated as the domestic numbers (and in some cases is now up to two weeks old). I'm happy to revise numbers and estimates once updated numbers are out (or if you know another site to check).

But yes, the top grossing foreign BOs were in 2009:

UK (35.3), Germany (12.7), AU (12.6), then the rest as you've outlined them. We'll see once the numbers get updated how it ends up tallying out and maybe there is the foreign box office bonanza that's been promised. All we know is that suddenly the numbers stopped being updated very quickly; whether that's a bad sign or just a normal function of the foreign BO reporting I can't say (I honestly don't know).

EDIT:

Yes hal, but we already know you don't have a soul!

 

Went to see it yesterday and loved it. It's amazing how Abrams took what we knew about Trek from the Prime Universe and changed a few little details ... and turned everything on its head. Pine, Quinto, and Cumberbatch were stellar in their roles, Cumberbatch especially. Every time he spoke it gave me the shivers to hear his voice. The only thing that bugged me was the prensence of the military style dark gray uniforms; I was completely puzzled at how Starfleet could use uniforms like that only a year (in ST time) after the '09 movie when they didn't appear there.

Random thought: since the name of the Admiral at the Academy from ST:09 was never given onscreen, I was expecting him to be Carol Marcus' father. Silly, I know, but when I heard there was an Admiral Marcus in STID, I immediately thoguht of the Admiral from ST:09.

 

I never said it would be a bonanza. I'm simply trying to point out that the foreign box office trend at the moment is already on pace to earn more than 2009, and that's without some of these other markets having opened (and without the UK tally being up to date). I'm simply saying that a reasonable estimate would indicate that it will do better than the 2009 film overseas, and I think this will make it's overall total similar to what was predicted.

I do think it's interesting that it's done better than 2009 Trek in every other market besides the US. That's curious. I think it definitely is because of it opening in the UK and AUS first. These days, it's really easy for people in the US to hear spoilers and plot details from news outlets and friends in fellow English-speaking countries. So yeah, I have no idea why they did that. It sort of made sense with James Bond because that's such a UK property and it was the 50th anniversary. But it didn't make sense with this film.

Pft, hal, such a fangirl.

 

And proud to be one

 

BINGO....just replace "Sherlock Holmes" with "Hannibal Lecter".

You know what you look like to me, with your good bag and your cheap shoes? You look like a rube. A well scrubbed, hustling rube with a little taste. Good nutrition's given you some length of bone, but you're not more than one generation from poor white trash, are you, Captain Kirk?




That being said....they shoehorned Khan into the movie for the same reason they throw in Tribbles every chance they get: it's instantly recognizable as "something that has to do with Star Trek", even if they have absolutely no clue as to who Ricardo Montalban is.
Think about the plot....the villain's entire plan is to resurrect Khan and hold the other augments hostage, so that Khan will build him the first of a new generation of super warships, despite the fact that Khan has been in cryosleep for 300 years.

1. You wouldn't resurrect Benjamin Franklin in order to make him build you a better iPhone.
2. That was the reason Kirk was able to defeat Khan during the nebula battle: Khan had the drive and the desire, but Kirk had the contemporary know-how. Being a Khansicle for so long was a major handicap he never got over.


And I will also say this: STID makes me even more disheartened at the prospect of JJ Abrams' Star Wars Episode 7.
With his "Throw more **** on the screen because it's Star Wars" approach, he's treading in the same waters as prequel George Lucas.[/quote]

 

Okay... so, this may come as a surprise, but... those plot elements do not not make sense and are easily handwaved / explained. I actually sat and thought about it and, on one level, makes some amount of sense.

1) Khan was a genetically-augemented human. Which meant he was, as he said, "better" -- which meant he possibly really COULD offer advice on design once he got up to speed on technology. Recall: he's been defrosted approximately a year by this point and Spock Prime was curious if he would have reprogrammed the Reliant's console in like a day or two. Which leads to...

2) Spock Prime's line was "he's intelligent but not experienced" -- this led to the two-dimensional thinking in a space battle after a man learned how to fly a starship and engage in three-dimensional combat LIKE FOUR DAYS AGO. He's been defrosted for A YEAR. I'm sure he's caught up on simulators as well to practice to really be better at everything.

The Khansicle was not the issue for his intellect in The Wrath of Khan; it was the fact that he had really no better than a technology level with which he was familiar (300 years out of date) in his exile and never got a chance to learn...

THIS is what frustrates the hell out of me with Khan; if you want to use him there are any number of ways of introducing the character of Khan without attempting any sort of a rehash of The Wrath of Khan while still maintaining a) the reboot and b) new ideas!

 

I rate many movies as being as strong as their villain. Most heroes are much the same, villains usually vary differently in motivation and portrayal and normally require a better kind of actor. Abrams' first Trek while a better overall movie than Into Darkness has an inferior villain, Cumberbatch & Quinto pretty much hold Into Darkness together and if neither of them were as good as they are I doubt it would be as good as it is. The supporting cast are good too, but the interaction between the two main leads and the villain are the focal point of the movie and are what work best.

Whoever the villain is in the next Trek movie, they need to be good.

Difference is though that the Prequels had bad script and poor performances because of it and the lousy direction. Episode VII has a good screenwriter and a director who can actually get good performances out of decent actors. Seems very unlikely it will have the same issues as the PT because steps have clearly been taken to fix what caused those issues.

 

I'd agree. Pretty much any movie nerd knows that the villains make most movies. There are a few examples of heros who are actually themselves unique and captivating enough to be the focus instead of just an avatar for the audience (Indiana Jones comes to mind; he's more interesting than any of his villains or MacGuffins). But yes, for the most part, villains are the characters who have the ability to set a story apart.

That being said, I think Chris Pine is tremendously underrated. I think his theatrical background showed through in some of the heavier stuff he was asked to do in this film. Most of his best moments in the film are not amusing jokes or being cool and charming. They're the silent moments and quieter personal discussions (talking to Pike in the bar, Pike's death, contemplating whether to arrest or kill Khan, confessing to Spock that he doesn't know what he's doing, apologizing to his crew for getting them killed, his death). I think he is underrated because he's a traditionally handsome Hollywood leading man, which we don't even have very many of anymore. But I think he's actually, beneath the charm and charism of a star, a really good actor. I'd love to see him in some more things that perhaps allow him to explore other sides of his talents.

 

Indeed, I didn't rate him much prior to Star Trek since I had only seen him in not-so-good movies like Smokin' Aces .

 

So, I finally watched this movie. It was decent and enjoyable. I felt it lacked somewhat in structure but the cast was great and it had enough twists and turns to keep one interested.

Now back to the mindless arguing and making ourselves miserabe over entertainment.

 

For the record, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek about the characterization, Rachel. I recognize that you think the world of BC's acting ability and I don't exactly call his performance into question. He was quite brilliant in the movie and, as I said, I enjoyed it. But. The character he played was named Khan. He was supposed to be the same Khan that we know in the prime timeline. The guy that I saw on screen was not him. Nothing about him reminded me of that Khan other than the name, intellect, and physical prowess. Naming him Khan was absolutely and utterly irrelevant to the plot of this movie. He could have been any member of the crew of Botany Bay and it would have been the exact same movie with the exact same impact.

My point wasn't that BC should not have been cast to be the villain in this movie and play him precisely the way he did. While it would be my preference to see more diversity in films--both for non-whites and women--I know that's a pipe dream. My point was that if they wanted BC, they should have used another character. Choosing to shoehorn a white character into a brown person's role when the vast majority of roles already go to white characters is an unnecessary slight.

 

Oh, no, I understand that criticism and know it's not a criticism of Cumberbatch. I wasn't trying to defend him; I don't think he needs it. I was simply trying to explain what I fel the POV of the filmmakers probably was in their reasoning for deciding to cast him in this role. And I just don't think race did or should factor into it. You shouldn't just hire a minority if the actor who can best play the role as you've written it happens to be a white guy. Not when his ethnicity doesn't matter to his character.

But I will totally concede that I understand why a lot of you guys think he should have just been named something else. It's obviously a very different interpretation of the character, and I think for me personally I approach it more from the world of comic books where I'm used to there being wildly different incarnations of characters with the same name. It's something I actually really like about adaptation, reiterations, etc. But I can't guarantee I would feel the same if this were my favorite fandom. I fully understand why people like you and Evan would say, "well just say his name is John Harrison and he's a member of the Botany Bay crew".

But I also understand why they went with a recognizable character name. I completely agree that he's pretty much a different character from WoK. He's only similar in his basic attributes of being an engineered super human with superior everything. His actual personality is different. Which is nice, because who would want to see the exact same thing again. I'm not even saying you're wrong from a creative standpoint. But there are simply some practical ones to consider as well. I think at the end of the day, the filmmakers were trying to respond to the criticism of Trekkies that 2009 Trek did not have enough references and relation to Classic Trek by throwing in way more Classic Trek stuff into this one than was probably necessary.

But if you take away the names and preconceived associations with that character and just look at this film for what it is and the characters it presents, it's IMHO a good film with a great villain. So perhaps that's precisely what Abrams should have done - put away the character name so as not to invite that association. It was a misguided attempt to both please fans and try to give the general public something to hold onto in this Trek universe where they probably know almost no character, planet, or alien species names. Were this my favorite fandom, I might have been clamoring for "JUST CALL HIM SOMETHING ELSE". But I'm sure Abrams just assumed everyone would go, "Well obviously this John Harrison guy is just Khan with a different name!" and would feel like he just can't please everyone... which he can't. But since I don't have an attachement to the previous character, it pleased me

I don't know why anyone would think that I'm being made miserable about any of this. I actively avoid all sorts of threads and conversations here that I know will just make me miserable. Whether it's politics (blech), economics (which I know nothing about and therefore hold no opinions on), or most film threads in which I don't think there's anything worth value of discussing and it'll just be a waste of time (TDKR, for instance).

But when there's an actual interesting filmmaking topic to discuss - like HFR or a unique approach to an adaptation/reboot of a series - I'm in. I'm not remotely angry. I just talk a lot Because this is what I love. Imagine if we were having a discussion of one of your favorite physics topics, a theory you had a strong opinion on and found interesting. I don't imagine you'd be made miserable by pages and pages of discussion on the topic. I'm truly not miserable at all. I enjoy these topics, and I have in fact garnered some more insight from Trekkies into a host of specific nuances of their opinions on these films.

Adaptation is one of my favorite areas of screenwriting. So I like this. I would never stay in a thread that makes me miserable. I like spending my free time on things I enjoy. I rarely waste time on things I find pointless. I'm not trying to 'win' or shout down all opposition. I've even conceded a fair number of points to Trekkies and as a writer I like understanding why people respond to films and shows in different ways.

I've got no idea why anyone else is talking about this stuff, though

 

That was not directed towards you, solojones. It was more the "i'm so mad i can barely talk about this" crowd a week earlier.

 

I stand by my original assessment.

 

That's cool, I wasn't necessarily saying it was. Mostly it was just an opportunity for me to counter that misconception some others have put forth on a similar topic.

 

Hey, I've been complaining loudly and thoroughly.

 

This is where you and I disagree. I agree that race may not have factored into it (I don't know any of these people so I don't question their minds or hearts) but it absolutely should. If the character is supposed to be one race and you choose an actor of a different race, that is a conscious choice and it should be one of many things you consider when casting the role. You don't hire a Danny DeVito to play Superman; you don't hire Sean Connery to play Lara Croft; and you don't hire Patrick Stewart to play Shaka Zulu. This has nothing to do with their abilities as actors and everything to do with the fact that they are not physically right for the role. You can no more not notice someone's race than you can not notice that she's fat/short/female/etc. It absolutely should be considered.

Now it is absolutely fair to say that Khan's race/ethnicity is not central or even particularly relevant to his character (any more than Perry White's from the upcoming Man of Steel) and so it's ok to use someone of a different race to play to the role. But to imply that it's unreasonable for us to think that it was a poor choice--especially in light of Hollywood's propensity to whitewash the entire universe--is...well...a bit insulting.

 

Well what I'm saying is, they never stated what this Khan's ethnicity or race was supposed to be. So I would just argue that they're not casting someone in the role that is against what the character is "supposed" to be. I'm not trying to say it's unreasonable for you to think it was a poor choice. What I'm trying to say is that, from my POV, Khan was never Indian and was already played by a white guy (hispanic ethnicity, yes, but to me Spaniards are white.) So I just don't think it was a failure to live up to what the character is supposed to be.

But I wholeheartedly agree that there should be more roles for minorities of all sorts in films. It's a huge problem, though it is one that there are at least some exceptions to. 3 of the top 10 grossing American actors of all time are black (Will Smith, Eddie Murphy, and Samuel L. Jackson). Only one is a woman (Cameron Diaz, and almost all her stuff is from animated films where she doesn't actually appear and where she gets the privilege of voicing a princess...). There just need to be far more such actors, and far more roles that are open to such actors. And, this is important, not just at the top. You can't just start out doing leading roles. Pretty much all black actors have to begin by playing criminals of some kind, which doesn't exactly show your range or give you much to show you can be a leading man. The same thing goes for most hispanics, except those who are white and only get to be leads if they play non-hispanic whites (Martin Sheen, anyone?)

And as I said, on this particular subject, I am really happy about Pacific Rim and really hoping it will mean Idris Elba will be in more Hollywood films in the future. Because I mean, come on. And yes, he got his first look playing a criminal, but Stringer is kind of an exception in that he's a very smart, formidable character that any actor would love to play, not some stereotyped thug. I remember two years ago at the Emmy's none of my fellow seat fillers knew who Elba was, and he was supposed to be steered towards his seat in our section. I hope I don't ever have to point him out to someone again. Fingers crossed.

 

It's not my fault you blend in with the others.