Comments on: M:I:4 Update: Abrams To Co-Produce With Cruise For Possible 2011 Release

By: paul

paul — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:02:32 +0000

why bother with with leonard nimoy lets give martin landau his due he was the spock of mi form start to third season

By: Shadowcat

Shadowcat — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:33:57 +0000

I liked MI 3 much better than MI1 and MI 2.

If they make MI 4, I hope Simon Pegg reprises his role from Mi 3.

By: Closettrekker

Closettrekker — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:15:55 +0000

#35—”Where did you get that figure? BOM has it at $397,850,012, and roughly the reverse of the numbers Trek is likely to get here. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt you were adjusting for inflation. ”

Actually, I was misquoting Anthony from another recent MI article. I should have said “close to $400 million”, rather than “over $400 million”.

But yes, if adjusting for inflation (although that was admittedly not my intent)—that probably puts MI3 above the $400 million mark globally.

As for the likelihood of Trek surpassing those ‘global’ numbers, I don’t think it’s a certainty, but perhaps it is a more reasonable expectation than I was giving it credit for. As you say—-time will tell.

By: Dom

Dom — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:22:54 +0000

I don’t know why people are going on about Paramount ‘prioritising’ anything! Studios can make more than one film at a time! There’s no reason Abrams can’t produce ST2011 and M:I:IV at the same time.

Mission: Impossible and Star Trek are the two great series to come out of Desilu in the 1960s and both deserve our support, especially if Abrams and Cruise take a lesson from ST09 and reboot back to basics with the next M:I film!

By: Jim Nightshade

Jim Nightshade — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 06:00:31 +0000

saw trek for the 6th time today at a matinee and it was the first time the theatre wasnt at least 60% full-only 9 people….

By: RD

RD — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 05:29:45 +0000

31. Closettrekker wrote: MI3 finished with a global gross of over $400million.

Where did you get that figure? BOM has it at $397,850,012, and roughly the reverse of the numbers Trek is likely to get here. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt you were adjusting for inflation.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=mi3.htm

Nevertheless, I believe Trek will clear at least another $30 million in the US before it closes and another $20M foreign. That’s roughly $7M a week for a month, and it doesn’t even need to make that to beat MI:III since it’s likely to be in theaters for over 2 more months if Batman Begins is any litmus test.

Anyway time will tell.

By: Wes

Wes — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:48:55 +0000

Since Paramount and Cruise have a “divorce” with each other, a divorce that has existed since M:I:III came out in 2006, Paramount should consider making “Star Trek XII” their high-priority film for 2011. Since the first one is a monster hit domestically, 2011 should be for Star Trek, not Mission: Impossible. But if Abrams can pull both off, then I wouldn’t mind it. The new Star Trek film has given me a lot of faith in J.J. Abrams and his co-workers of Damon Lindelof, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman for their efforts in turning the eleventh film a great Star Trek movie (way better than Nemesis, thank you!). The new film also gave me what he can do behind the camera to make a great movie of any franchise. So, “Star Trek: Something Something,” should be Paramount’s priority, since they knew that they had a hit before the film came out and wanted a sequel out in two years. As I have said in the past, 2011 will celebrate the 45th anniversary of the Star Trek saga, and I can think of nothing more than to celebrate it with the twelfth film. Both the fourth, sixth and eighth films came on the franchise’s twentieth, twenty-fifth and thirtieth anniversaries. Nemesis came out to celebrate the fifteenth anniversary of TNG, not the franchise. Man up Paramount, and give Star Trek another hit. Mission: Impossible has got three successful sequels, a fourth would probably just derail that entire franchise. 2011 FOR STAR TREK!

By: Spockish

Spockish — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:57:58 +0000

Why not have both Nimoy and Shatner for cameos, Shat could be a buddy of Agent Paris and use to work for Moscow. And have it about a plot to mess up America’s Moon Base outpost.

By: hairytrekker

hairytrekker — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:20:50 +0000

I may be wrong, but didn’t MI III have a stronger international presence than Trek? Might that not effect the decision?

I would hope Trek would take presedence or JJ could manage both, giving priority toTrek, but is the decision his, Cruise’s or the studio’s?

ps.

I took my 12 year old nephew and his friends to see the film on Sunday. They knew nothing about Trek and they loved it.

pps

I’m in the Uk.

By: Closettrekker

Closettrekker — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:34:30 +0000

#26—While you’re right about the US performance of ST09 vs. MI3, the latter performed better globally than the former can reasonably be predicted to finish.

MI3 finished with a global gross of over $400million.

In fairness, I wouldn’t be surprised if a Star Trek sequel (with Abrams as director, of course) did better in its global totals than either ST09 or MI3.

But while we know that (at least for now) JJ Abrams is not going to direct MI4, we don’t know if he is going to direct the next ST feature either. If Abrams is merely producing the Star Trek sequel, will it be as highly anticipated in the general public? Maybe. If it is, that really says alot about the general appeal of this cast in these roles.