ST Episode VII Box Office Discussion

I agree with all that.

I realized that all the Jurassic Park sequels were all bland remakes of Arthur Conan Doyle's Lost World, when everyone really just wanted to see a real Jurassic Park sequel.

The hook: "What if somebody had been dumb enough not just to build Jurassic Park, but to open it to the public?" That's the only JP sequel anyone ever wanted to see. And now they have it.

TFA doesn't seem to have any hook other than "It's Star Wars, and superficially at least it looks like ANH"

Certainly, that's enough for a big opening weekend in the U.S. It's not enough to carry a movie to the top of the all time box office charts.

 

I think you are right in that Abrams and co have stripped Star Trek of pretty much everything it had, in terms of artistic value/imagination/wit, and have created something equivalent to a McDonalds hamburger. The original Star Trek (and TNG) was hardly Shakespeare, granted... but they were, generally speaking, superior to Abrams version in pretty much every way (IMO). There is some irony that in making Star Trek more accessible, he seems to have made it much more forgettable and less relevant in the market place. That's some feat.

 

I think this is an overstatement as well. The "intellectualism" of Star Trek has been vastly overstated over time, primarily by a segment of its fanbase that has chosen to believe that liking a TV show makes them smarter than other people, even when that TV show(s) have roots in some serious silliness and stupidity. Roddenberry bought into it post-cancellation, and why wouldn't he - a roving band of die-hards consistently deconstructing your work and telling you how ambitious and advanced it was (even when the large majority of its best, most thoughtful episodes, had nothing to do with him and everything to do with writers like Gene Coon, DC Fontana, Harlan Ellison, etc. etc.) is going to work on you at some point. The myth of Star Trek being serious, smart, meaningful television has always had more to do with how the fanbase WANTS it to be percieved rather than what it's actually made of. 2/3rds of it is subpar, and the 1/3rd of it that people revere and enjoy is basic character drama with an action bent.

Abrams didn't strip Star Trek of it's Trekkiness. He reinvigorated the series by adhering/promoting the sort of feeling that the Original Series had before the fanbase calcified it by overdosing on staid reverence and inflexibility. He brought back the iconography and sense of *fun* that got high-schoolers and college kids hooked on the show in the first place.

The best Star Trek show ever was Deep Space Nine, and that's because it also refused to disappear up its own ass for whole seasons at a time. It preferred to deconstruct itself, to pay attention to that character drama, and to really investigate its characters.

I love Star Trek, and what Abrams did with his pseudo-reboot is some of the best stuff to happen to it in a long time. It broke the series out of a terrible, straight-faced rut. Do I wish it was more of an adventure film? Absolutely. Do I want it to at least pay attention to deeper philosophical questions? Yes. Sure. But I don't want it to go back to the ponderous, over-serious, velour-carpeted muse-fest it was for a very long time, repeating boring stories nowhere near as intriguing or insightful as they think they are, starring easily-self-satisfied characters applauding themselves for out-thinking poorly drawn caricatures of real people.

This is way off-topic, by the way. Like super off-topic.

 

09 Trek was indeed one of the very best of the Trek movies, but that's not saying a lot. The Trek movie franchise is probably one of the worst outside schlock horror. Its worst original cast and next gen cast movies are almost as unpleasant as watching a Saw sequel.

It just wasn't all that huge an accomplishment for Abrams to spend $150 million to bring a low quality franchise up to about $385 million worldwide. I don't see why someone gets handed Star Wars for bringing a few third rate franchises up to second rate status.

 

It's not realy a matter of money here, they didn't bring him because he bring million to his films, they did it because he was the Director with the closest style to 70s-80s Star Wars and who had bee inspired by the original trilogy for years. He was a very safe choice for something like this, i myself am just hoping for a good movie that can have a good set-up to be vastly expanded in Episode VIII, which is the Episode i think has better chances of being on the same level as the classic trilogy.

Disney just wants a return to basics in order to get old fans back and hopefuly achieve a similar success as what the original trilogy achieved back in the day, when it was the biggest franchise around. For this job, Abrams is indeed an obvious choice, Star Trek 09 had many similar things to the original Star Wars and from what i see, the audience usualy likes his films. And while i prefer the original series aproach of having various morality tales and pushing the idea of an utopian future, i do think ST built a nice set-up to tell good tales, even though Into Darkness had problems, the potential is still there. Want to also add that the problem in the ST rebooted films was mostly in the scritps, would even argue that J.J.'s Direction saved Into Darkness.

Anyway, who else would have been better to take the reigns? Abrams might not have had any film that pushed past 500 million in the box office, but he's relatively high profile comapred to other Directors and fits the franchise almost like a glove. Directors who have made Billion grossers like Nolan or Whedon have a more unique style of their oun that might not fit the Star Wars episodes, then you have people like Michael Bay, who Lucasfilm would only hire if they were realy desperate. Brad Bird was their other option, and i think he would have fit the franchise too, but his Tomorrowland has been a major disappointment.

Episode VII will be J.J.Abrams's big trial, if it disappoints, it might even destroy his career, but if it's a success, his career will have a major push. This time he's playing with a very high profile franchise, let's see if he's able to connect with the audience.

 

Disney is following some kind of Disney-esque fantasy model about how success is supposed to work. Abrams is just good enough to make a workmanlike large scale movie that doesn't smack of incompetence like the World War Z production, and the Star Wars brand will have to carry the rest of it.

I like what Seinfeld said in his latest Comedians in Cars getting coffee with Bill Maher. "I like that nobody knows how showbusiness works." "Not even the people who are in it." "Especially not the people who are in it."

Universal got lucky this year, and they don't really know why, and they'll never be able to repeat the success of 2015. They hired the director of "Safety Not Guaranteed" to direct Jurassic World. Do they know why? Do they have a reason that makes sense? The writing team had some good credits, true.

 

Powerful Lord- The thing is if the movie is reviewed bad, not only does it destroy his career, but the star wars franchise as a whole will be relegated as star trek fare, making less at the box office in the subsequent movie releases.

Gang lets be realistic, Jurassic World already made over $500 million domestically and over a billion internationally. The movie has been well reviewed and has tremendous effects. I thought Marvel Avengers was good, but this one was even better. Not to mention Fast and the Furious 7, that was another whopper. Three movies this year already went over the billion dollar marker. Star Wars has its work cut out, big time. All I know is that the story better be very good and not re-tread of the 1970's and the special effects better not be so bland or too digital that will crush it.

Some of you will not agree with me, because you look a success of a film by how people like it. This movie, better cross the billion dollar marker internationally quick, and the movie better make north of $450 here domestically, because if it doesn't it will be considered a failure. I know the trailer was tops around the world, but trailer are deceiving and until the final product is out any trailer can sell melons. I remember TPM trailer was good but the movie was a chore for me to watch. The line-up that is coming out in 2016 and 2017 alone is dangerous. The stuff that is coming out is new and fresh and people are anxious, with star wars, well while people want to see what this new stuff is, parts of the star wars universe has more negativity riding on it than positive. (Not everyone accepts the new EU over the old, or like the fact that the stories were chucked for unknown new ones). Some of the people I have talked to can't wait to see Captain America: The Civil War, Ghostbusters 3, Independence Day 3, Pacific Rim 2, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, along with other projects that are coming out from Marvel and soon DC. Even now there is going to be a new trilogy of movies done in J.K. Rowlings Harry Potter Universe. Laugh it up, but several of those movies get another theatrical re-release and they cross the billion dollar marker. I am not trying to be negative, but, star wars better deliver and the change of movieshowing in 2017 from the winter to the summer doesn't give it an automatic victory......sorry, AOTC proved that. It lost to Spiderman worldwide and the Two Towers movie. I wish I can say more, but I can't, I just keep watching all these new movies that are starting to go into development that will be fresh and interesting for today's generation. My only big concern is that star wars is a thing of the past and the last trilogy was not well liked. TPM maybe the only star wars movie unadjusted to get to the billion dollar marker, but it is considered the worst out of the entire 22 movie frame that have crossed that marker.

You don't have to agree, but TPM is not better than Avatar, Titanic, both Marvel Avengers movies, Fast and the Furious 7, Frozen, and of course now both Jurassic Parks (first and fourth movie). It just ain't

 

Oh ye of little faith.

Some of you cats seem to have gone into the tree and kept your sabers.

 

I really do think that there's potential for great success with this. SW still has a great deal of cultural capital that it can capitalise on. Not as much as it did 20 years ago, but still plenty. If this film starts well and is well reviewed out of the blocks, it could log some big numbers. The thing I don't see happening, which may have happened in the past, is repeat viewing, irrespective of how well it's received. In the case of the PT, there are plenty of people I know who weren't impressed initially but still went to see it multiple times just because they thought that because it was SW, it must be good, and maybe they were just missing something. Lol.

 

I think you need to point that critical analysis of the original films at Nu Trek. The originals (both OS and TNG) were far from perfect, and I clearly stated that they were hardly Shakspeare, but they were so much more than what Abrams delivered... and were achieved with much less budget.

The best of Abrams Trek is so inferior to the best of the original films, by a long stretch, IMO. And worse than that, Nu Trek just seems to be designed as pastiche of both Star Trek and Star Wars. It's highly polished, it has good production values... but very little artistic merit or worth. I'm not sure the new ones work as a "jumping on point", well no more than say Terminator Genisys would get someone into the original film or Man of Steel would generate interest in the Christopher Reeve series. It's basically reflective of an industry that is now, more than ever, over reliant on expensive looking sequels and remakes to pique interest in any given theatrical season. It's not something I particularly celebrate... and indeed I find it quite depressing to even have to try and defend the original films over these highly manufactured and unimaginative imitations... but as I stated before, that's just my opinion.

 

09 Trek is incoherent as an action movie, and that's one of the things that worries me most about the box office potential of The Force Awakens. Jurassic World and Furious 7 may have cartoonish action set pieces, but I imagine they tell their visual stories pretty well (haven't seen either, so can't really speak to that). But I do know for sure that Abrams doesn't seem to know much about visual storytelling.

 

Trying to address this to box office relevance too. But i think its harsh to say Abrams do not know a lot about visual storytelling. I don`t really think, KK on the advice of George Lucas, well known visual storyteller btw, would risk him for Star Wars. Is JJ Stanley Kubrick? Probably not. But that opening shot from teaser 2 contains more visual information than most trailers i have seen lately, and it builds real context to its broader story.

Lets pretend Furious 7 and JW are really stupid movies with the simplest of plots. Because, you know what? They are! And i hope for the sake of Nien Nunb`s dirty underwear, that TFA will have more to offer than those two. Furious 7 director James Wan started out making "Saw", he have clearly developed over the years, but its not like he is an auteur yet either, he is the new cool boy in town obviously and he made a lot of money for Universal, on a slick, big, cartoonish action blockbuster. Back to box office: As as wrote in my earlier post, i agree with this, Abrams must show up some classy, cool and epic shots for the next trailer. I think he will. If that is enough to fire up action hungry Chinese audience, we`ll see about that. I still believe the christmas opening schedule is perfect for bringing in a more mature audience, also attracting more females with its supposedly "emotional stakes" .

 

I will agree that ST09 could get a little incoherent visualy, but i didn't have the same problem with Super 8 or Star Trek Into Darkness, i got the impression that Abram's improving as a Director. I think Super 8 connected well, even if it has some problems here and there, if Force Awakens has the kind of character moments that film had, i think it can connect with the audiences well.

Jurassic World was straightforward with the storytelling, while the film was nothing extraordinary, i don't think there were many dull moments, msot of the time i was interested in the plot. Furious 7 was more incoherent, had some good moments but i don't think the pacing was as good, i remember the final fight in the city lasting forever.

 

You may be the first person in this thread to openly state that you hope The Force Awakens isn't dumb enough to make $1.5 billion worldwide. I kind of agree with that. I hope it's a lot less infantile/puerile than Age of Ultron (an incredibly dumb movie). I haven't seen JW or F7, so I only know how dumb the trailers make them look. Terminator: Genisys may actually be the dumbest looking movie of 2015 so far, so I guess it will do pretty well worldwide.

 

Terminator Genisys won't do pretty well worldwide, dumb movies can make a lot of money, but not terrible ones where the trailers and nonsensical and the CGI is crap.
Film's like Avengers: Age of Ultron aren't very inteligent, but let's be fair, there's clearly a lot of hard work put in that film and Whedon shows he wanted to take some risks, the film shows a lot of passion and the embracement of comic booky visuals. I think the extended cut will shine a new light on the subject, it seems like the studio might have cut some personal interaction scenes. Genisys looks as awful as the products released by Platinum Dunes, there's a roof at what something this bad looking can do. I'm sorry for the long rant, but i just think there's a night an day different between A-box office blockbusters that aren't very smart but have imense entertainment value and a decently executed story, and ***** that fails on almost every level like Terminator Genisys, G.I.Joe, etc.

 

Terminator Age of Extinction got 18% on RT and still made $245 million in the US and a billion worldwide.

Of course that's coming off the heels of 3 movies in a row that made ove $300 million. Terminator doesn't have that luxury.

 

I know but it's a completely different case, all 3 Transformers movies were extremely popular and delivered some very impressive effects and set pieces, even if the plot left a lot to be desired. TF 3 had gone past the Billion mark already. Now let's take a look at Terminator, Salvation had a relatively big marketing but realy underperformed, now Genisys looks way worse and the franchise has long lost its momentum, and unlike the Transformers movies, the CGI looks like ****, when a film has enough of a "wow factor", it can easily pull in a lot of money, even if it's bad, look at Transformers, 2012, etc. Terminator isn't realy getting any points in that, i don't see anyone getting excited for the movie, it seems to be heading to be one of the worst films of the year, considering how terrible the trailers and posters have been at making it look decent, it realy looks like the type of film that massively underperforms.

 

I would extend that many times over to the original six Star Wars films.

The thought, care and intelligence that went into those films (which BTW are not based on books, comics or video games) overwhelms ANYTHING that has been happening or going to happen anytime in recents decades and very likely anything in upcoming decades including the Star Wars ones.

I have met people who still watch them over and over again and obviously we know lots of people who don't love them to the be all and end all like the OT (or at least ANH and TESB) but still enjoy them.

The new movies could very well be in a different bracket of viewing. Like I said Star Wars is going to become more like Trek in that it's going to be overexposed eventually (might take some time). Sort of Trek done right one would hope but there is going to be so much eventually in movies, animation and you'd think live action TV eventually (why there isn't a new Trek on TV I have no idea..Oh wait Paramount are morons!)

I think the ST in particular will have great goodwill because of it's connection to the OT and PT. That will be special. The Anthologies? Who knows? Any main series movies past IX? Who knows that will depend far more on the ST itself.

Are they going to actually finish it with an "ending" to the 3x3 trilogies then X will be a actual new direction or will suddenly it all get stretched out and it's actually going to need another trilogy to "finish it off"?

I wouldn't put it in the top 5 for sure. Probably the top 10 but I'd have to think about it first! I mean by default it is because of Nemesis which is rather dire as I recall but that was their STID as though I like the movie overall I have only seen it a couple of times so would have to want to examine it more.

I notice that when it comes to franchise movies you don't seem to care for any of them much generally anyway.

 

In comparison to what exactly? David Lynch, Mad Men, Breaking Bad? I'm certainly sure the Jar Jar poopy jokes were given a lot of care by Lucas in order to coincide witht he droid jokes in Return of the Jedi...

 

You guys are right when you said the JJ did inject a bit more life into the somewhat stale Star Trek universe.

However he is a much better choice to direct a Star Wars flick, in my opinion. I expect this to be quite good. Hope you all enjoy it too.

 

I'm not saying JJ Abrams can't make a decent movie, just that he hasn't yet done so. If he can find a way to not be like himself, then maybe The Force Awakens will be a smash hit. He probably can't keep Star Wars from turning a profit, but he can prevent it from making much more than $1 billion worldwide. And if he really gets to do the things he usually does, he might be able to cap it below $1 billion.

 

Why are you talking about TV?

I was talking about movies.

Either way it's no matter as the statement still stands.

It's very evident that in terms of character and story on every level Lucas carefully crafted his movies.

It's a very odd and disturbing thing now that Mike Klimo has cracked the ring structure of the movies that rather than celebrating it and being amazed at it some fans are bizarrely trying to turn it to to a negative.

Once again IT'S NOT ANYONE'S story but Lucas. They are the reality. They are not going anywhere so accept that truth and find out what he is telling you.

The thing about science-fiction fans and "Star Wars" fans is they're very independent-thinking people. They all think outside the box, but they all have very strong ideas about what should happen, and they think it should be their way, which is fine, except I'm making the movies, so I should have it my way.

This is not going to happen again. I hope the ST and new Star Wars movies do as best they can to measure up to what Lucas has left them but the fact is that ultimately all Disney cares about is making money (it's what they do) so whatever the plans are a certain box office result they don't like can change plans drastically. That is the difference between an independent film-maker series and a corporate franchise series.

That is possible of course and as I say over and over again the thing that ultimately sells a movie is the movie itself and the word of mouth. I asked someone who just saw JW what it was like and he said it was awesome. So there you go.

 

Jurassic World could make it to $600 million in less than 40 days.

 

Exactly right. I'd argue it's one of the most powerful and iconic images in ANY of the Star Wars films. I almost wish they hadn't shown it.

I think JJ has the visuals nailed, and the film appears supremely well-cast. Thank heavens JW is still with us, so it's safe to say that aspect of the film is secure. It's all going to come down to the writing, and whether or not the Kasdan/JJ collaboration will yield a satisfying story.

Some here seem to think it's nearly a foregone conclusion that they won't, based on what people have heard from MSW and others about the plot. Having tried to steer clear of as much of that as possible, what I have heard -- that they repeat many of the story beats from ANH, that Luke has minimal screen time, that one of the main characters may not survive to the next film, that there's a flashback, that Luke's lightsaber is something of a McGuffin, etc. etc... None of that troubles me a great deal. If you're going to take a story arc to use as the spine of your film, you could do a whole lot worse than crib ANH. It's all in the execution and the chemistry of the cast. If the screenplay has heart and real humor, it won't matter that it's Yet Another Hero's Journey Although This Time the Hero Is Female And By The Way She May Be So-and-So's Daughter.

Just for giggles I re-read Kasdan's entry on IMDB. These are just his writing credits:

Untitled Star Wars Anthology Project (screenplay) (announced)

2015​

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (screenplay) (post-production)

2012​

Darling Companion (written by)

2003​

Dreamcatcher (screenplay)

1999​

Mumford (written by)

1996​

Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire (Video Game) (story)

1994​

Wyatt Earp (written by)

1992​

The Bodyguard (written by)

1991​

Grand Canyon (written by)

1989​

Raiders of the Lost Ark: The Adaptation (Video)

1988​

The Accidental Tourist (screenplay)

1985​

Silverado (written by)

1983​

The Big Chill (written by)

1983​

Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (screenplay)

1981​

Body Heat (written by)

1981​

Continental Divide (written by)

1981​

Raiders of the Lost Ark (screenplay)

1980​

Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (screenplay)

I know Hollywood is a "what have you done for me lately" kinda town, and some of those entries are dated now, but I'm hoping Kasdan has a good story or two in him left to tell. I think he gets action pictures, I think he gets dialog, I think he gets richly drawn characters, I think he gets structure, and most importantly, I daresay think he gets the GFFA.

 

The Prequels "rhyming" with the originals doesn't make them good, just like a poem rhyming doesn't make it a good poem. Even that Jar Jar steping on a poop was used in the theory as a paralel for a scene in Return of the Jedi, so now it has an actual purpose and was absolutely needed due to some master work by Lucas?

Saying the Prequels are an unparaleled work of genius is a huge disservice to the hundreds of films released every year that are leaps and bounds above those things, you make it look as if Lucas was Kubryck, when the truth is that he was just making up stuff as he went along, which is why Jar Jar himself was toned down in Episodes II and III, and the clone wars wasn't made up of Lando clones (at once he thought about that).

The Prequels don't have the reputation they have or such passionate haters due to fans having written the films in their oun head before they watched them, it's because to a lot of us the writting left a lot to be desired and the characterization was sub-par.

The science fiction genre has various strange ideas and fans of the genre are usualy very open minded imao, Ex Machina and Under the Skin for example deal with themes far ahead what the Prequels could ever offer. Anyway, Star Wars was never realy about those types of complex themes, it has always been about the hero journey and adventure, which is why the original one worked so well in 77, Star Wars isn't as "intelectual" as the likes of Barry Lyndon or even Drive, but it's as good due to how the simple narrative complements the world, presentation and characters so well. The original trilogy followed the hero's journey, and it worked very well, on the other hand, the Prequels tried to introduce politics, but it was barely expanded upon, it tried to show that evil isn't one sided, but Nute Gunray, Grievous and even Dooku were moustache twirling villains, and it tried showing a hero becoming evil, but they failed hard imao. I know you're probably not going to agree with that, but the way the Prequels handled Anakin's fall left a lot to be desired, The Godfather and Breaking Bad handled that type of story perfectly, i don't think the Prequels did, even though there were some neat ideas here and there.

Anyway, this is realy off-topic, there are threads specificaly made to discuss all of this.