Sony To Release 3D Spider-man movie 4 days after Star Trek sequel – Will Trek go 3D too? | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Sony To Release 3D Spider-man movie 4 days after Star Trek sequel – Will Trek go 3D too? February 10, 2010

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: CBS/Paramount,Sci-Fi,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

Last month, on the same day that Paramount announced they picked the release date of June 29th, 2012 for the Star Trek sequel, Sony announced they were rebooting the Spider-man franchise for 2012. Today Sony announced they want to take on Trek by picking July 3rd, 2012 as their release date. They also announced the next Spider-man will be in 3D. Will Star Trek follow in the 3-D Trek?

 

Spidey takes on Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise — 4th of July week 2012

In 2012 the 4th of July holiday falls on a Wednesday. Last month Paramount picked Friday June 29th for the release date of the Star Trek sequel to take advantage of the holiday. Well Sony wants in on the action and so today announced Tuesday July 3rd to release their reboot of the Spider-man franchise. After talks broke down for a fourth Spidey film with director Sam Raimi and star Tobey Maguire, Sony decided to reboot the franchise. Spider-man 3 was the #1 domestic box office earner in 2007, with $336 million. The previous two Spidey films were also mega-blockbusters, with all three bringing in a total of just under $2.5 billion worldwide.

However, according to The Hollywood Reporter, this new Spidey film is "very different from the big movies that went before it". The film is said to have a much smaller budget (around $80M) and will be "pared down to center on a high school kid who is dealing with the knowledge that his uncle died even though the teen had the power to stop it". The focus will be more in line with the recent "Ultimate Spider-Man" comics where  "villain-fighting took a back seat to the high school angst."

Regardless, It is interesting that Sony has taken such a step. As of now there are quite a few open weekends in the Summer of 2012. In fact, before this announcement the only June or July date that had been set was for the Star Trek sequel. Sony could have picked plenty of open weekends, but instead chose to launch their Spider-man four days after Paramount’s second Star Trek. That being said, it is not unusual for multiple big movies to vie for that weekend. This year three big movies are opening on the July 4th weekend, with The Twilight Saga: Eclipse opening June 30th and the Tom Cruise film Knight & Day and The Last Airbender opening July 2nd.

Of course, headed into May 2009 there was lots of Talk about Trek not being able to take on Wolverine, Angels & Demons Night at the Museum 2, and Terminator Salvation, but in the end the new Star Trek beat all of those films at the domestic box office and all but Angels & Demons for total global box office

Paramount now has a decision to make. Will they stick with the current plan and go head to head with Spider-man, or pick one of the other open weekends in June or July 2012.

Spidey goes 3-D, is Trek next?

Sony also announced the new Spider-man will be in 3D, and it is just the latest film that seems to be headed that way in the post-Avatar world. A number of other upcoming big movies will be in 3D, including the next entries from the Transformers and Harry Potter franchises. It is unknown if the Star Trek sequel will follow suit, but there is a distinct possibility. Producer JJ Abrams spoke about 3D Trek last October, at the Star Trek DVD press conference:

Question: Any chance of you shooting the next Star Trek film in 3-D?

JJ Abrams: It is funny. Paramount talked to me about doing the first one in 3-D and, having it only be my second film, I was petrified just at the addition–I thought it would be another dimension of pain-in-the-ass. I thought I would be like, "oh my god, I just want to make a decent 2-D movie.” I was so worried that, instead of being a decent 2-D movie, it would have been a bad 3-D one. So I’m open to looking at it because now I feel a little bit more comfortable and, if I, in fact, direct the sequel to our Star Trek film, 3-D could be really fun, so I’m open to it. What I’ve seen of Avatar makes me want to do it, because it’s so crazy-cool looking.

Interestingly, a recent poll here at TrekMovie showed that fans were split on the notion, but a plurality was against it. Here are the results

Should Star Trek sequel be in 3D?

* Yes (34%)
* Unsure (23%)
* No (43%)

My bet (not based on any sources) is that the next Trek will be 3D. If Abrams was talking positively about it three months ago, it can only be stronger now in the post-Avatar world. Plus if Paramount wanted the first Trek in 3D, they are likely to really want the second one to be 3D. Especially if they have to go head to head with a 3D Spidey.

 

Comments

1. Federali Aundy - February 10, 2010

I hate Sony

2. CmdrR - February 10, 2010

Trek in 3D would be awesome. I’ve never been a fan of the processes of the past, but the one used for Avatar was wonderful. The glasses were comfortable. The ViewMaster effect felt organic, not like Monster Chiller Horror Theatre’s ‘Dr. Tongue’s House of Wax in 3D.’
Done with care, 3D appears to be coming of age… and after only 60 years or so…

3. Hugh Hoyland - February 10, 2010

I suspect it will be in 3-D, its the natural progession.

4. Sci-Fi Guy - February 10, 2010

Trek 3D would be great. The format has NO impact on the content of the movie AND you would still have the option of seeing it non-3D in theaters at the same time — just as is the case with Avatar now.

It would be…the best of both worlds.

Bring it. There’s not a single reason not to do it!

5. Sci-Fi Guy - February 10, 2010

Forgot to say — they should call the next Spiderman — Spiderman R.I.P. because 3D or not I have zip zero nada interest in Spiderman without either Sam Raimi or James Cameron at the helm or the actors we’ve come to accept in these roles.

6. Trek Lady - February 10, 2010

Arg! I totally dislike 3-D films. They give me migraines – I find it annoyingly distracting – and wearing the “all size fits all” glasses (which really don’t fit small heads like mine) over my own glasses is a pain (They slide down my nose constantly) – and tickets are more expensive so I won’t be going to see it more than once – and it increases the cost of filming so that other important things might get cut or shorted (like music, costumes, sets, etc.)

All so we can have more bells and whistles and “cool” effects… and more temptation just to put in additional “cool” effects that do nothing to improve the overall film.

Please, forget the “COOL” factor and focus on things that actually matter – like a great plot and characters we care about. Make a good film and you don’t NEED 3-D to get people into the theater….

I think the big wigs might be surprised to find out how many people really DO NOT LIKE 3-D and have trouble being able to watch films in which 3-D is a feature.

7. James Cawley - February 10, 2010

Don’t kid yourself. Spidey has the potential to be huge. A new take, for a younger demographic. This will be a HUGE holiday weekend if both these films make their debut.

8. Mattyhugh - February 10, 2010

To me there is a big difference in conventional 3D and what Cameron did with Avatar. I have a feeling that most of this 3D surge will be more the former and not the latter.

9. Anti-ChiCom - February 10, 2010

“Arg! I totally dislike 3-D films. They give me migraines – I find it annoyingly distracting – and wearing the “all size fits all” glasses”

Then don’t go to it…walk yourself to the theater room #3 (where they’d show it in 2D) instead of say, theater #2 (where they’d be showing in 3D).

Why is this concept so hard for people to understand? It’s the same as those opposed to Remastered Trek…if you don’t like it, don’t watch it! Watch your old DVDs or watch the old ones that are included in the Blu-Ray set…it’s not an either-or. ::rolls eyes::

Anyway, nobody would be forcing you to see Trek in 3D anymore than I’d be forced to see a Raimi-less Spiderman movie.

I would simply choose not to go see it — even if it broke Avatar’s record, I have no interest in a Raimi-less Spiderman. For one, I’m more of a Sam Raimi fan than a Spiderman fan and, two…I don’t like the way SONY Pictures treated a great director!

So, I don’t care if it makes ten dollars or ten billion…SONY won’t be getting my money.

10. somethoughts - February 10, 2010

You are going down Sony, Kirk is gonna punch your new whinny young Peter Parker back to grade school.

11. Ian B - February 10, 2010

Seems like a silly gimmick to me. It probably helps something like Avatar, which is all style and no substance, but I can’t see what advantage it will bring to a movie with some depth- which hopefully Star Trek will continue to be.

Humans in real life perceive most of the world in 2D. We get most of our depth perception from cues like scaling; stereoscopic vision only comes into play at close quarters. I see little advantage to being given the illiusion that Spock’s head is twenty feet tall and three feet away, especially if, as it seems from #6, it’s going to trigger one of my migraines.

12. CmdrR - February 10, 2010

James, you may well prove to be right. Still, it’s too much fun to jeer at the prospect of “High School Spidermusical IV,” starring Zach and Cody.

13. Guy from Berlin - February 10, 2010

I love Sony !!!

14. Third Remata'Klan - February 10, 2010

Okay, I’m pissed at Sony for dicking around with Raimi. And yeah…this is going to be serious competition for Trek.

I’d hate to see Spidey go down, but in this case, I hope Trek kicks his web-slingin’ @$$.

Meanwhile, I was not taken by Avatar’s 3-D. I don’t think I want more 3-D in movies…but it’s inevitable.

15. SIMular - February 10, 2010

Now that films can be made 3-D post production and some older films like ghostbusters will be re-released 3-D, how about TWOK? I would love to see Enterprise come up from under Reliant in 3-D. For that matter First Contact would be excellent in 3-D.

16. somethoughts - February 10, 2010

I would love to see a substance movie like Star Trek go with 3D. The special effects of the ships and the consoles/planets would be so awesome. Just nothing gimicky where stuff starts flying off at you and you have to hide, as long as it is done to showcase the Enterprise and add depth, I am for it.

17. The Chad - February 10, 2010

The only thing that may appeal to me in a 3-D Trek would be an epic space battle. But see…..J.J.’s style involves a lot of moving and shaking of the camera and would be hard to track in 3-D. I have the same fears about Transformers 3 being in 3-D.

I agree that I have the option to see it 2-D or 3-D in the theater, but I also agree that it would increase budget cost that can go into other places….like special effects.

18. Drewton - February 10, 2010

I’d be pro-3D Trek except for one reason…the lens flares. To be 3D it would be shot on digital, not film with an anamorphic lens. So it would make a difference to 2D viewing.

19. The Chad - February 10, 2010

Oh, and I’m not sold on post-production 3-D. Seems like they would make it look like 3-D cardboard cut outs than have true depth of field…..but I’ve yet to see a movie that was done that way, so I’ll hold off on my judgement.

20. The Chad - February 10, 2010

“I’d be pro-3D Trek except for one reason…the lens flares. To be 3D it would be shot on digital, not film with an anamorphic lens. So it would make a difference to 2D viewing.”

VERY good point. J.J. loves realism…and not shooting conventional may take that away.

21. P Technobabble - February 10, 2010

I think just as there has always been an audience for the various comics versions of Superman, Batman and Spiderman, etc., there will always be an audience for film versions of these characters. No doubt, the 3d aspect of Spiderman will be part of what, I imagine, the studio will use to lure the audience back to Spidey.
IMO, the first Spiderman film was pretty good, while 2 and 3 were just trying too hard. The problem, I think, is that it is too soon to re-do Spiderman. We have to go through the “how he became Spiderman” story all over again? I hope not, but that was the impression I got.
As for 3d, it’s pretty cool, but I honestly think it should be reserved for “specialty” kinds of shows, rather than just churn out one 3d film after another… and then 3d ceases to be “cool,” after it’s been done to death. I agree with #14 (Third R), it seems inevitable that more and more films will be done in 3d. I don’t have anything against 3d — or Star Trek being done in 3d — but it’s a gimmick I believe will get old, and then it will be back to the “retro” look of 2d films. How many audiophiles still prefer good ole fashioned vinyl?

22. The Chad - February 10, 2010

One more thought……..not every movie theater is going to want to show a bunch of movies in BOTH 2-D and 3-D. Not enough screens. Especially if there are multiple movies out at the time.

23. Weerd1 - February 10, 2010

I did not like the 3D of Avatar. Things I wanted to focus on were blurred by the process. I realize I can just go see the 2D version, but I am letting @boborci and crew know; don’t 3D for me.

Unless Jolene Blalock plays T’Pring. Then I want 3D.

24. Anti-ChiCom - February 10, 2010

If they only make one 3D Trek film as a novelty — explain how it can get old? I don’t think they should ALL be in 3D.

25. Danno - February 10, 2010

Spider Man without Rami will be a schumaker Batman level mistake!

26. Anti-ChiCom - February 10, 2010

#22 — They may not, but most towns have more than one theater. LOL!!!

See…I can justify 3D umpteen jillion ways! LOL!!!

27. Thorny - February 10, 2010

I don’t know about anyone else, but “Avatar” in 3D gave me a headache that didn’t go away for two days. Never again 3D for me.

Spider-Man Re-Reboot will probably be big, but the combination of a third movie that nobody really loved and a messy change in cast and director will definitely give Star Trek 2012 a chance of beating it.

28. Anti-ChiCom - February 10, 2010

#23 — LMAO!! Yes, indeed! If Jolene is in the film — it’s a must that it be in 3D!

3D for the Double D! LOL!!!

They could call it Star Trek: 3D for Double D

29. Red Skirt - February 10, 2010

#8, Good point. Cameron redefined 3D. I have never enjoyed the effect so much, which simply became another dimension of the film, like sound, color, and occasionally was used to good effect without pulling me out of the movie.

But I’ve no doubt Star Trek will be 3D (Avatar saw to that), and likely a little more conventional. As Avatar, Up and Night at the Museum (which beat Trek at the international box office BTW) showed us, audiences have overwhelmingly embraced 3D and are more than willing to pay top dollar if it is a good film (and even if it isn’t according to some critics).

Sadly for the few who can’t tolerate it, the profit offset will most likely make their attendance moot – though I do expect by 2012, 3D will be enough of the norm that the cost will be offset somewhat by sheer numbers. And there will always be a few 2D theaters playing it, or they can wait for the DVD.

Hope Abrams hires himself a good DP. At least this way the shakey camera and lens flares will likely go away (unless he figures out a revolutionary way to add them effectively to 3D LOL).

30. Christine - February 10, 2010

Even if it comes out in 3D I doubt I’d see it in that format. I’d probably opt for the cheaper, non-migraine-causing 2D format.

It’s up to you guys, Abrams and friends, but the most fabulous movies have been made without 3D. It’s okay. I won’t mind if it’s made in 2D!

31. Anti-ChiCom - February 10, 2010

And…I saw UP in 2D and it didn’t lose a thing! So, the film can be released in both formats for people to choose which version they want to see.

32. Trek Lady - February 10, 2010

“Then don’t go to it…walk yourself to the theater room #3 (where they’d show it in 2D) instead of say, theater #2 (where they’d be showing in 3D).”

Except in my town, Avatar was ONLY shown in 3-D in our one theater. If I wanted to see it in 2-D I would have had to drive 45 minutes away… so it isn’t quite that simple.

And this still does not address the additional COST of 3-D production – cost that means something else gets shafted.

33. Red Skirt - February 10, 2010

#21. “it’s a gimmick I believe will get old, and then it will be back to the “retro” look of 2d films. How many audiophiles still prefer good ole fashioned vinyl?”

No, 3D is an evolving dimension of film – it is an integral part of vision and it will just keep getting better and better. Just like Black & White photography still has a place in photography, so too will 2D films. But by and large the Summer popcorn films will likely all be told in 3D because of the added element with which to thrill audiences. And Star Trek is a Summer popcorn franchise now.

As for your vinyl analogy, yeah, those audiophiles and their vinyl are really driving the record business. Just look at Apple’s iVinyl store! That vinyl is really raking in the big bucks! LOL Yup, comparison DOA.

34. Trek Lady - February 10, 2010

“Sadly for the few who can’t tolerate it, the profit offset will most likely make their attendance moot…”

I am not sure it is just ” a few”…. this discussion has come up in other forums before, and almost half the respondants had trouble viewing 3-D films… I suspect the numbers may be higher, but many people have yet to SEE a 3-D film.

35. MvRojo - February 10, 2010

Paramount should move Trek. Say all you want about how Trek XI did really well against some big movies, but none of those were even close to the juggernaut that the Spider-man franchise is. SM3 opened with $151 million over three days (the #2 movie that weekend made $5.8 million).

36. Anti-ChiCom - February 10, 2010

#32 — Oh…that sucks. You should have freedom of choice baybee yeah!

And so should I! Mwahahahaha!!!!

37. Mel - February 10, 2010

In the “overseas” market Terminator and Wolverine was much better than Star Trek. I think Spiderman will be even more attractive to people than those other films. So if Star Trek and Spiderman will also start shortly after each other outside of the USA, Star Trek will be only the second choice for most people.

And if both movies are in 3D, cinema operators must often decide which of those movies to show in 3D and which only in 2D. There are many cinemas with only one hall, which has 3D. And as Spider Man is in most countries more popular than Star Trek, Star Trek would be again at a disadvantage.

Star Trek is only on place 21 in the overseas total yearly box office list.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/weekend/yearly/

That is really bad for an expensive blockbuster. With Spider Man as a competitor, I don’t think they can improve those numbers much.

38. Chadwick is pissed at NASA...WHERE IS THE PROPULSION??? - February 10, 2010

It would be kinda cool, but I don’t think star trek has to fall under that fad, but considering all the bloody media hype, Hollywood, Madison Ave….its inevitable. Great it was fun seeing Avatar in 3D but it was not a big deal. I am not going to every buy a 3D TV where I have to wear glasses to watch something….no thanks. I am happy with my Plasma, Blu-ray, and surround sound…Star Trek looks soooo great. I am looking forward to an OLED TV way before I would give a darn about 3D. 3D is quaint, thats about it.

39. Anthony Pascale - February 10, 2010

I think some people are assuming they will be forced to see movies in 3D, Avatar is available in 2D. I suspect that if Star Trek sequel is in 3D, there will still be a 2D version available.

40. Ian B - February 10, 2010

33-

Just like Black & White photography still has a place in photography, so too will 2D films.

The difference being, looking at a colour photograph never involved having to wear a silly pair of special glasses that make some peoples’ eyes go funny.

And, as I sort of said above, stereoscopy is a subtle effect people aren’t normally aware of. If the world around you suddenly went monochrome, you’d really notice. Now shut one of your eyes. Does the world look drastically different? No, it doesn’t. You treat your vision as a 2D panorama, and the stereoscopic effect is only really useful for interacting with it. It’s handy when you’re threading a needle. But it’s not something you experience; it’s at a lower level.

So to produce a 3D effect that’s worthwhile in a movie, you have to keep flinging things at the viewer to remind them the awesome effect is there. Which is fine if you’re making vapid eye candy like Avatar, but isn’t going to be any use in movies where you’re not trying to distract people from the inanity of the script.

41. garen - February 10, 2010

#35 I’m kind of agreeing with you. I think moving Star Trek’s release date should at least be considered. And im sure some people here will disagree thinking that Trek can kick spidey’s butt. But think about this. Even if Trek can withstand Spidey’s release and remain #1 thourgh that weekend….there is NO doubt that Spiderman will cut into Trek’s box office take CONSIDERABLY!

So lets just move star trek away from spiderman and claim what is rightfully ours…another HUGE stay at the box office!!

42. Gary A. Neumann - February 10, 2010

Dirty Spider-Trash :-(

43. CJS - February 10, 2010

That should give the Star Trek writers an idea for the film’s antagonist. Kirk and Co. should go up against the Tholians. Smash the web before they smash the webslinger.

44. garen - February 10, 2010

also…for the record…Avatar was only available in 3D at BOTH of my local theaters.

And so what if it was available in 3d AND 2d. The 3d version is going to get shown in the best room, with the best sound, the biggest screen and the best projector. if i want to see the 2d version…i’ll get to see it on one of the smaller screens in the house.

yay. sure…thats fair.

45. Jorg Sacul - February 10, 2010

ooh.. Tholian web being wrapped around the ship in 3D. that would be cool!

46. Red Skirt - February 10, 2010

#34. “I suspect the numbers may be higher, but many people have yet to SEE a 3-D film.”

Yes, I think it’s important that those who have a problem make their voices heard.

All I’m saying is given the fact that 3D films represent 1/3 of the top 12 domestic box office grossers (and 1/4 of the top 20 worldwide) of 2009, they did OK without you and others who have problems. Which says to me they don’t need you to make enormous profits. Do I think that’s right? No. But Hollywood is a business and they will always cater to the greatest common denominator to the exclusion of all others. It seems only laws force corporations to treat people with any kind disability as equals if they don’t make up a significant majority so as to otherwise cut into their profits. Sad but true.

47. jonboc - February 10, 2010

I hope not. I hate how the process dims the picture by the necessity of having to wear those glasses. 3D has had revivals since the 50’s, but I think any lasting popularly will be the exception rather than the rule.

48. Daniel Broadway - February 10, 2010

Oh man, Star Trek is going to get it’s ass handed to it if a Spider-man flick comes out at the same time. Yikes. :(

Not that Star Trek won’t be good, but Spider-Man has a much larger general audience I would think.

49. OLLEY OLLEY OLLEY - February 10, 2010

as Trek fans we have been used to sucking on below par acting and scripts and budgets and effects and story and it’s no wonder that we are a laughing stock!

now its up to Paramount to protect their golden goose by handing over the cash to address the situation!
We have no continuing series and this is our only entertainment.
Give TREK XII the right budget to kick SONY’s direct to DVD spiderman out of the park!

HOW IS WITH ME?

50. OLLEY OLLEY OLLEY - February 10, 2010

HOW was suppose to be WHO,
but I got caught up in the William Wallace moment lol

51. Red Skirt - February 10, 2010

#40 “So to produce a 3D effect that’s worthwhile in a movie, you have to keep flinging things at the viewer to remind them the awesome effect is there.”

No you don’t. I don’t believe Avatar did that. In fact ONLY the few times when Avatar did that did I become aware of the 3D. 3D is a dimension, subtle or not. It adds to the reality of film. And yes the distinction is as great as color & monochrome. Ask any kid who’s ever experienced a Viewmaster. Or, more importantly ask a one-eyed person just how big a difference they think stereo vision is, especially when trying to drive a car. Just like color and sound, it is just as much a creative part of the process, but like anything in a film, it must be used correctly and effectively, which Avatar did mostly brilliantly.

“Which is fine if you’re making vapid eye candy like Avatar, but isn’t going to be any use in movies where you’re not trying to distract people from the inanity of the script.”

Well, that describes Star Trek to a T for me. Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoyed the film but the shakey cameras, lens flares, fast moving story all conspired to cover a weak story IMO. Only after the movie was over did I start to question a lot of plot problems and inconsistencies that have been debated around here. So for me, your definition will suit Star Trek perfectly (and I have already said I don’t think the 3D in Star Trek will be done nearly as well as it was in Avatar, I fully expect lots of things to be literally flung at me next time).

52. TrekMD - February 10, 2010

Star Trek in 3D would be amazing…if it is done properly. I can just imagine a battle scene in space enhanced with 3D effects!

53. Daoud - February 10, 2010

Star Trek 3D, yes, it could work if there were KLINGON ships in it! Imagine a frontal assault by D-7 or K’t’inga class ships… cool! Warp effect should be fascinating. I’m sure ILM would love to meet the challenges of Trekkian space effects in 3D.

Rura Penthe lends itself well scriptwise to 3D, based on the topography seen in STVI. Also, Iceland would be a great shooting location to finally use! In 3D it would be marvelous. Too bad they blew up Vulcan: it would have been grand in 3D too. I’m sure that any number of Trek planets would suffice. But let’s hope T’Pring Lives!

If only they hadn’t just used time travel as an effect: I’d say use time and make it Star Trek 4D !

@12 High School Spidermusical IV. Good one!

I still think it’s more likely going to be The Secret Life of the American Spiderteen. Peter Parker (Effron) impregnates his high school gal pal MJ (Vanessa Hudgens), and she gives birth to Spiderbaby. (The talking baby from E*Trade commercials).

Frankly, if he’s a young high school kid, he’s Spiderboy, not Spider-Man.

54. Ian B - February 10, 2010

3D is a dimension, subtle or not. It adds to the reality of film. And yes the distinction is as great as color & monochrome.

I disagree. It’s virtually apples and oranges.

Ask any kid who’s ever experienced a Viewmaster.

From what I remember of Viewmaster, it was not only underwhelming but used very exaggerated stereoscopy to create “3D” when in the real world you wouldn’t see it or notice it.

Or, more importantly ask a one-eyed person just how big a difference they think stereo vision is, especially when trying to drive a car.

As I said, stereoscopy is used by the brain to interact with the world, by giving depth cues as you navigate it. But you aren’t generally aware of it when passively observing. The driver needs it to drive, but the passenger doesn’t.

Just like color and sound, it is just as much a creative part of the process, but like anything in a film, it must be used correctly and effectively, which Avatar did mostly brilliantly.

It’s a gimmick. Bet you any money a few years from now it’s forgotten again after the fad passes.

Well, that describes Star Trek to a T for me. Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoyed the film but the shakey cameras, lens flares, fast moving story all conspired to cover a weak story IMO.

Well, I didn’t think the story was weak; but even if it was, at least it wasn’t racist garbage. Cameron is undoubtedly a talented filmmaker who can persuasively sell a political message; but then, so was Leni Riefenstahl.

55. Red Skirt - February 10, 2010

#47. jonboc, I agree 3D has been around for a long time, but like so many aspects of its production, Avatar raised the bar significantly. The only reason 3D never advanced before is because the technology was not there to do it. The current digital technology has been almost a decade in coming to enough theaters to even make Avatar’s 3D possible. It will only continue to improve as systems are in development to eliminate glasses completely, and more and more directors learn how to use it as more than just a gimmick.

Also, I saw Avatar 3 times, once in 2D and twice in 3D. The first theater I saw it at in 3D I was disappointed by how dark it looked. Then I saw it in 2D at another theater and it looked dark too. Then I saw it in another 3D theater and it was as bright as any film I had seen. No question the polarized glasses dim anything viewed through them, but it’s really a problem with the infrastructure and the theater owners. Just like THX and Dolby Digital, the theaters have to invest in the best equipment for the best results and that simply is not the case universally. But they are certainly not complaining about the box office business that the 3D films have brought them and that will in turn allow for improvements.

56. Bucky - February 10, 2010

Arbams visual style doesn’t fit 3D films. Avatar is lots of long, steady shots that let you appreciate it. Abrams has a close-up handheld intimacy that doesn’t let you appreciate it if it was in 3D. The whole point of the documentary style is the you-are-there immediacy. A 3D film is supposed to be slower so you can appreciate it. Right now, Abrams is a great visual director but a great stylist meant for 3D movies, he is not.

Move Star Trek 2 weeks ahead of Spidey. We get it earlier and it doesn’t get squashed.

57. Drij - February 10, 2010

spiderman reboot is so lame. way to milk it sony.

58. philpot - February 10, 2010

summer 2012 is starting to look just as crowded as 2011

Star Trek 2, The Avengers, Spidey 4, all locked

Ghostbusters 3 (probably), Wolverine in Japan (probably), Batman 3 (probably), Superman reboot (maybe), Indiana 5 (maybe), Bryan Singers’ Battlestar Galactica or X Men First Class (maybes)

59. Jeyl - February 10, 2010

Mmm……. 3D Tholian Webs…. That’d be awesome……

60. Kirk, James T. - February 10, 2010

i am assuming Spider-Man will do as big a business as X-Men: Wolverine did and Star Trek wiped the floor with Jackman’s mutton chops then so one can only imagine what it might do to a geek in spandex. Serious competition perhaps, but i think the sequel to one of if not the best films of 2009 is going to be like putting a revival of Fantastic Four up against the Dark Knight. Trek 2 – if all the pieces of the puzzle fit perfectly (story/production/post production/merchandising/advertising etc) will be HUGE, like FUCKIN MASSIVE.

$80 million? pared down? i doubt even 3D will be able to save Spider-man. As for Star Trek in 3D – 3D IMAX – hell yes – JJ Abrams is more than capable of making a decent movie in all dimensions.

61. Rebecca - February 10, 2010

Joe Jonas should so definitely play The Man of Steel and Clark Kent in the Superman reboot! THAT WOULD BE SO TOTALLY AWESOME AND COOL AND KICK-ASS! He’ll look really commanding and heroic in the red-and blue
outfit!

62. Red Skirt - February 10, 2010

#54 – sounds like you are the perfect candidate for donating one of your eyes for the blind. ;-)

I can’t make you appreciate depth perception and the difference between looking at the Grand Canyon in the on-site Imax theatre, then walking to rim and seeing it in 3D.

That is the goal of any entertainment medium, to immerse the participant into it. 3D is not perfect, but Avatar showed me it could be done effectively and far more impressively than any 3D I have ever seen before. It was artistic.

If what you suggest is true, then there’s no reason to develop holographic entertainment either, and the whole concept of bringing the images “to life” is just a gimmick as well, and the stuff of sci-fi wet dreams.

Let’s just stick with the tried and true then. But then that keeps changing too. At first it was sound, which many said wouldn’t fly. Then it was color, which many said was unnecessary. Then it was widescreen, then HD, then THX (3D sound), IMAX, CGI … Now it’s 3D. If you really believe 3D has no future then I’m not gonna change your mind. I see it completely differently. So there we are.

Nevertheless, if this was only the latest in revivals, it was the most successful and longest revival of 3D ever seen in the business. Tell me the last time 2 3D films were nominated for an academy award, or the last time they earned over $100 million? Box Office Mojo has a chart that puts it into perspective: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=3d.htm

If it’s a fad, then it’s a pretty lucrative one that’s got a lot good people fooled. Heck, 3D TVs already have a strong market and they aren’t even out yet! Either way, it’s guaranteed to be going strong through the Sumemr of 2011 and that likely includes at least one Star Trek film.

63. Kirk, James T. - February 10, 2010

I’ve just been looking over some of the people who are worrying about Spider-man beating Star Trek at the box office…

In all seriousness i feel that by the time Star Trek 2 comes our way a lot of people would have been won over by seeing and liking the first one – the only worrying thing is that Star Trek has to perform overseas in a much bigger way this time around – if not then we could be looking at Paramount slashing it’s budget for the possible third film.

Again though since Star Trek was well received by critics and the people who did go and see it – word of mouth could once again play a massive part in the success of the 2nd movie. That being said however, Paramount and the Supreme Court must be under no illusion that word of mouth alone will ensure Star Trek’s success – i’ve said this before but Paramount need to put together a far bigger international ad campaign together for it to even get noticed – also putting more action and exciting monsters, large robots would probably help – you think I’m joking – I’m not unfortunately – Paramount should know by now after the first movie that by adding more action and cool stuff into a movie will get more people through the doors – I am by no means saying that story should be compromised – far from it but it needs to be bigger, faster, stronger and include far more exciting aliens. This was the risk of taking Star Trek to the mainstream – that it would have to pad out a story with action and excitement all driven at warp speed.

This is part of the reason 3D has taken off – people want to loose themselves in the moment and the make-believe and when you have them in that sense of amazement the story as demonstrated by Avatar doesn’t really need to be anything of any substance or even that original.

I would love for Star Trek to be meaningful, powerful, a moralistic play similar to District 9 – but that is not what has been laid out for it by the studio – and if Paramount are serious about turning it into a mainstream cash cow to stand alongside Star Wars, Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean, Batman then it’s going to have to become far bigger than it has ever been before. Lets hope that JJ Abrams and his team can put together a film that will rival the box office takings of The Dark Knight and perhaps Avatar.

64. Kirk, James T. - February 10, 2010

to add – Spider-Man/child should be the least of it’s worries – Star Trek has to have staying power within a global mainstream audience.

65. SarahJM - February 10, 2010

# 12 “Still, it’s too much fun to jeer at the prospect of “High School Spidermusical IV,” starring Zach and Cody.”

I shouldn’t be talking about comics books really, since my favorite was always Archie, but when I was a kid we did have a lot of Spider-man comics (my dad liked them), so I read them. In the years since, I haven’t read a single Spider-man comic, and for all I know much has changed in the spider-world and Peter Parker has aged. All I know is that in the comics of the early 70s, Peter Parker *was* a teenager.

You are not jeering at the prospect of some fictional “High School Spidermusical IV”, you are jeering at the ACTUAL SOURCE MATERIAL.

I guess some will jeer no matter what.

66. DJT - February 10, 2010

I still haven’t seen Avatar. No amount of 3-D can make me go see a movie alone. That being said, I have been hearing really good things about the movie from co-workers and friends, which is more of an influence on me than the damn 3D gimmick. So in the end, I might still see it.

Do I want a 3D Star Trek? Not really. I’d rather they do a really good 2-D movie than a corny, half ass Captain Eo 3-D movie. After all, I won’t be going to see it for the 3-D. I will be going to see it for the Star Trek magic, which was so perfectly captured in ST2009.

In regards to competition – Spidey, sans Toby or Sam Raimi, can kiss my ###. I think Sony dropped the ball on that one. Toby was very much like Christopher Reeves in the 80’s , in the sense that his portrayal of Peter Parker was the epitome of ‘all American’. Whoever they choose to replace Tony will come off very much like Brandon Routh did in Superman Returns – as doppleganger. In addition, if Sony chooses to steer the Spidey franchise in the direction of the Dark Knight, I think they might as well have him wear a cape and cane, because it will no longer be the Spidey we’ve come to love. Also, the Hulk movies got rebooted after only one movie, and while I think The Incredible Hulk was a better movie than the first, I don’t see a sequel anywhere in the pipeline. Spiderman 3 might have had its flaws, but the franchise didn’t need a total reboot like Hulk did.

Nuff said.

67. Crispie38 - February 10, 2010

I don’t get it. What can $80m get you these days and especially with 3D, and what’s the point of 3D if the film is to concentrate on ‘teen angst’, are we going to see Peter Parker’s 3D boner of Mary Jane?? Lamo!!

68. Trek Ahead - February 10, 2010

@ #7 James Cawley,
I have been viewing and reviewing your episodes, as well as the re-mastered TOS dvds just to get the imagery of that JJ Abrahms abomination out of my head!
I really would like to see Paramount give you the funding for a Trek movie. I am certain you would give it (as you already have with Phase 2) the reverence it deserves.

I’ve taken a lot of flack from the fans who like the movie. And there a many of you no doubt! But just because many people like it doesn’t mean I ever will!
And now they want to throw JJ Abrahms another one to do in 3D!
He knew virtually nothing about Trek before, and he knows nothing about 3D!
Let’s not dumb it down again just so mainstream public will show some interest! How about hiring a GOOD director, and GOOD writers to make a great movie? I refuse to say I like crap!

69. VOODOO - February 10, 2010

I truly couldn’t care less if ST XII is is 3D or not. While I thought “Avatar” was great, I also think still that 3D is somewhat of a gimmick at this point.

I’m far more interested in the head to head matchup of Star Trek vs Spiderman.

While this isn’t a direct sequel to the three films that have gone before it the Spiderman franchise has a huge mainstream following. Is it wise to go head to head with Spiderman?

Granted I was totally wrong in saying that ST should not go up against Wolverine, T4, Angels and Demons and UP, but the marketing team is going to think long and hard about going facing off vs Spiderman.

P.S. I do think that the concept for the new Spiderman film sounds weak and the franchise did lose some steam after the last film which has horrible.

70. Negotiator - February 10, 2010

Maybe Sony execs will put down the pot they appear to be smoking long enough to realize what a big mistake they’re doing with the Spidey franchise.

80 mil budget? less crime fighting? more teen age high school crap?

And all this in glorious 3D?

The more I read about this project the more I know I’ll be waiting for the DVD to come out so I can rent it.

71. VOODOO - February 10, 2010

#68 Trek Ahead

I think Abrams and Cawley both honor the Star Trek legacy.

72. Scotty - February 10, 2010

Star Trek should bump up the release date to a May 2012 release. They can dominate the box office prior to the Spiderman flick, just like they did last year prior to Transformers 2.

73. somethoughts - February 10, 2010

#70

They also hired a director that never made a summer popcorn movie and only claim to fame is a average romantic comedy in non linear format.

Marc Webb (500 days of summer, romantic drama comedy/yawn) is no different than the guy they got to do Quantum of Suck directed by Marc Forster, who’s only claim to fame was a kite movie (worst bond ever).

Would SONY/studios ever learn not to trust artsy type smucks with film franchises? SONY=FAIL

74. Trek Ahead - February 10, 2010

# 71 VOODOO

No offense, but I have to disagree.

James Cawley is a lifelong fan and has honored Gene Roddenberry’s legacy of Star Trek.

JJ Abrahms is not a fan, is just out to make money, and doesn’t care about the Star Trek legacy.

And it shows.

75. somethoughts - February 10, 2010

#74

I am happy JJ is in charge and not Rick Berman or Stuart Bird rofl gtfo

76. Chris Fawkes - February 10, 2010

I’m sure the next spiderman will do well just because people like spiderman. However it hink they are making a mistake and the film just won’t be much chop.

If they do a restart story for spiderman it will just bomb. The audience has just seen that and done well.

The problem Sony has is they think it was their input into the last film that resulted in the $$$. I would think the last one made so much money because the anticipation from the first two movies was so high.

Losing Raimi is a huge mistake and ego is more important than sound business decisions here.

I may have to eat my words of course but that is how i see things right now.

Trek will be aimed at pulling dollars so will need a decent story. They already have the team to do that, It will walk all over the next spiderman film

77. ryanhuyton - February 10, 2010

#74

You are a wrong. While J.J Abrams wasn’t a Star Trek fan before he got the directing gig, he became one after meeting Leonard Nimoy and after watching the dvds. He has said a number of times that he “fell in love” with the original characters. In fact, it is quite remarkable how quickly he understood the characters considering the fact that just a couple of years ago he was mainly a Star Wars guy. And judging by the unqualified success of the movie, he was the right hire. I think it is quite obvious that J.J cares about the legacy. You are completely out of line to calling the new movie “crap”. YOU don’t like the movie, but I and a vast MAJORITY think it was great, despite some flaws.

78. Alvin Banks - February 10, 2010

I think that if Trek wants to be in the same league as LOTR, Star Wars,Avatar it’s wow factor is going to have to go way up. 09 Trek had some nice I candy shots in it but to me STTMP’s shots of the Enterprise are still ahead of the game.09 Kirk on his bike looked like he was looking at a painting of the Big E. Unlike the real look the models gave us in STTMP. I will never say go back to the physical use of models but they did look more real. After the first movie ( which had a very poor script and no time to finish it ) Trek has relied on it’s story telling and cast to get only fans in the theater seats. What would happen if Trek had a great story and a budget like Avatar to do the visuals that Star Wars had?
I know 09 Trek cost more than any S.wars movie now days but inflation has gone up quite a bit from 05. Star Wars-Episode 3-Revenge of the Sith probably couldn’t be made today on it’s $113m. budget and maybe not even on 09 Trek’s budget of $150m. I think Paramount has finally realized that Trek can’t compete with the above mention movies looking like an extended TV episode and so we have 09 Trek. A step in the right direction. Now please take it much farther.

79. EFFeX - February 10, 2010

I just hope it’s not about “how many 3D elements can we fit into one scene?”

I want a solid story first and foremost. Please no gimmicks.

80. Allen Williams - February 10, 2010

3d is lame. Come up with a method where you don’t have glasses and i’ll give it another shot. Until then screw the uncomfortable glasses. Screw the migrane caused by the 3d image.

81. Pyork (JE) Productions - February 10, 2010

They should adapt all the Trek films into 3D and have a big 3 month comeback screening to hype up the next film

82. Charles Trotter - February 10, 2010

Spider-Man will need to find a new release date. Sorry, Sony, Trek had the 4th of July week first. If you wanted it, you should have called it first.

Paramount, hold on to that date. Sony will move their movie, they’ll have to. Or you can move the movie to May 25th. You know what, I’m good with either one. :-P

And Paramount, no 3D please. I’ve had enough 3D, effective three years ago. It’s an overused gimmick designed to take audience’s mind off a movie’s shortcomings. ‘Avatar’ is a prime example.

Bob, Alex, J.J., Damon — do what you can to make sure the Trek sequel is not in 3D. Making it 3D will make it appear that the movie has significant weaknesses to hide. So, no 3D. We’ll very much appreciate it, thank you.

83. tman - February 10, 2010

I do think that Avatar was an amazing use of 3D, the same way that Sin City was a great way to show what could be done with limited budget in a film. The 300- thing is now so overdone with the Spartacus TV show and all the History Channel specials that it is getting tired. I can imagine the same thing happening with 3D, regardless of how much TV manufacturers see it as the next reason to move your LCD to a guest room and but a new bigger one.

Is glass-less 3D really a reality down the road? I can imagine a facial recognition camera guiding a set of MEMS mirrors to shoots images at each eyeball in a living room but somehow doing that effectively in a movie theatre seems like a stretch. Right now I got impression the studios have to subsidize somewhat the glasses with the expectation that if the format catches on, we’ll each be shelling out $30-300 for our own name brand or off-brand glasses to carry around to the movies with us. I think that’s a funny thought, though when a coke and popcorn is already $15, paying $30 for a new set of glasses to replace the scratched ones you left in the car from time to time may not phase Americans…

I don’t see people being patient with anything like a passive prism on the screen where you have to stand in the right position and have your eyes the right distance apart to avoid color effects like a laser-made hologram…

84. Mark from Germany - February 10, 2010

3D… Don’t, Don’t, Don’t….. Please

85. Dennis Bailey - February 10, 2010

If they don’t go 3D with this one they’re putting a ceiling on their earnings and basically setting themselves up for commercial disappointment.

I expect that Paramount’s executives will *insist* that the next Trek movie be 3D.

86. Bill Peters - February 10, 2010

Funny Fans may not in large like 3-D Trek but if Paramount wants it it will do it because Paramount gets what it wants with it’s Big money Franchises, I don’t personally have a problem with a 3-D Trek as long as the Story is good and the Character Development is good!

87. boborci - February 10, 2010

Well, it seems the consensus is clear;)

88. Charles Trotter - February 10, 2010

86. Bill Peters — I agree, I can deal with the 3D so long as the story and characters are in good shape. I would just prefer the movie not be in 3D; it’s an overused gimmick used to mask a film’s weaknesses. That said, as long as they offer the movie in both 2D and 3D formats, I won’t have a problem.

89. captain_neill - February 10, 2010

I would be against the idea of doing it in 3D because it means the film will feel gimmicky.

So no

90. Charles Trotter - February 10, 2010

#88 — I should have said it’s used as a gimmick *in an attempt* to mask a film’s weaknesses. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. In the case of ‘Avatar,’ it seems to have worked very well considering many are hailing it as one of the greatest movies ever made. In truth, though, without the visuals, it’s just an average ‘Dances with Wolves’ knock-off with a weak script and lackluster characters.

91. Anthony Pascale - February 10, 2010

As usual Bob, Trek fan opinion is clear as mud

I do worry about Lens Flares in 3D…the movie might need to come with a warning

92. R. F. Crowson - February 11, 2010

All for 3D! — I can’t believe they’re redoing spider man. it hasn’t even been a decade since the first movie came out for god sakes! Star Trek and Batman clearly needed reboots but Spider man is a well-developed and generally well received series as it is. If they’re not down to do more with the current cast and crew, then just stop making more of them. That’s enough ranting about that though

@91 Anthony – lol agreed. In all seriousness though, 3D lens flares might be kind of cool… as long as they’re not too bright. ;-)

93. Charla - February 11, 2010

3D does seem “gimicky” to me, it did make me curious enough that I did go see Avatar in 3-D. The special effects were beautiful. If it weren’t for that, Avatar wouldn’t have held my attention beyond that.

As for Star Trek 3D, if they do it, I will see it in both 3D and 2D. (Bring on the flares! Loved them!) I just love Trek and what it has blossomed into. I don’t know if 3D will add to the experience, but am open to the possibilties.

If they don’t do it in 3D, I will be just as happy as long as the movie is as good as ST09. Quality and delivery of the story is of the utmost importance before the 3D experience in my opinion. That is where Avatar lacked.

94. Kirks Nipples - February 11, 2010

I have to agree-3d is not a fad-its the next step-camerons use of 3d was more immersive than gimmicky n he proved it can work if done right-Would jj be smart enuf to use 3d to make the movie better? Probably–to those who said the 3d gave them headaches-funny if that was true u think that would have been a factor with avatar n read about it–i know the older 3d strained yer eyes-maybee if u didnt see it at a well equipped theatre-as anguess, too dark could cause eyestrain not related to the 3d—Hey i finally saw the mostly not very funny land of the lodt movie-in the middle of it i heard spock primes voice n i was right-nimoy is listed as the voice of the zorn warning about enik the evil sleestack–i didnt know he was in it–

95. Christoph - February 11, 2010

Please, no 3D. While the technology has vastly improved, the technology still dictates too many parameters for a movie to work in 3D. Certain Angles just don’t work. Too fast editing doesn’t work (very well) and dissolves don’t work at all – And I seriosly doubt that space battles would work properly in 3D – too wide angles . I left Avatar 3D with the feeling that 85 % worked really great and 15% just didn’t at all – I wouldn’t like to have that experience with a trek experience.

And regardless of 3D or not, Digital or not, THERE WILL BE LENS FLARES… ;-)

96. Kirks Nipples - February 11, 2010

opps land of the lost—

also imagine jj doing 3d lens flares–ouch–every three seconds another one stabs out at you in 3d–

97. S. John Ross - February 11, 2010

Spider-Man will be more about teen angst … and in 3-D.

Teen angst … in 3-D.

Um.

Spider-Man slinging above the streets of New York City and fighting the Goblin zipping around behind him, in 3-D … that would at least make a kind of sense.

Peter Parker weeping at his locker … in 3-D … Peter Parker moping in his bedroom … in 3-D … Aunt May looking sad and careworn and still strong despite it all … in 3-D.

Buh huh wha then?

98. Chris Fawkes - February 11, 2010

@97

You totally nailed it.

99. Charles Trotter - February 11, 2010

97. S. John Ross — Couldn’t have put it better myself.

100. Chris M - February 11, 2010

Vote NO to Trek in 3-D, it’s fine as a gimmick or a one off such as Avatar where 3-D really brough out the planet of Pandora but this 3-D thing is going too far already!! People might be sick of it by 2012 and having Star Trek: Something Something in 3-D could hurt the film, who know by 2012 people might be sick of the whole 3-D thing and come running to Trek in 2-D! Plus having to wear the 3-D glasses every time I go to the movies would get very annoying very fast!!

101. captain_neill - February 11, 2010

But 3D was a craze in the 50s and it will oprobeably just be a fa d again.

102. captain_neill - February 11, 2010

I would be open to it in 3D but prefer if they did not, it could be too gimicky

103. Flake - February 11, 2010

Of course it will be 3D! They can charge more for 3D tickets! Money, Money, Money.

I of course will watch it many times in 3D and then many more times in 2D!

104. Author of The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers - February 11, 2010

I don’t care if they do 3D, but I’ll still see it EVEN THOUGH its still 2.5 years away. Now, I must say that the notion of a 3D realization of the Enterprise is appealing, although I’d rather have had such a rendering of the TMP-era Enterprise.

If they do it based on fan interest, don’t do it for me. Just bring me a good movie. .

105. "Check the Circuit!" - February 11, 2010

Yikes! Going up against Spidey isn’t like going up against Wolverine, Terminator and Angels & Demons. It is a PROVEN franchise. (Even the last movie…which was pretty bad…made more the TREK is ever likely to…unfortunately.) This is the first announcement I’ve heard that makes me nervous.

A couple of suggestions from the AVATAR playbook:

Even though it means our wait will be longer, hold off until mid-December. Take advantage of your opening weekend and the two subsequent holiday weekends. And the blockbuster slate gets much lighter that time of year. (Now…I’d much rather see Paramount and JJs team show a sense of urgency with Trek and fast track the development for December 2011.)

3D is the way of the future. James Cameron proved its not a gimmick anymore. It can enhance the entire movie experience. Avatar’s 3D technology was so organic, I often forgot I was wearing the glasses and found myself ducking when debris was “knocked my way.” Incredible!

106. jas_montreal - February 11, 2010

Avatar’s 3-D was OK. I can’t say it changed my viewing experience. I did not take the movie as seriously as i would like to have… because the 3d GIMMICK is just sad and boring. Please , don’t force this b.s tech on the viewers. OMG, WOW…. A GUY JUST POPPED OUT OF THE SCREEN…. Its horrible…. the glasses ruins everything !

WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ALREADY WEAR GLASSES ??!?!?!?! ITS NOT FAIR ! Damn you 3d technology and 3d glasses !

107. Buzz Cagney - February 11, 2010

I think this Spiderman news will help concentrate minds! lol

108. Julie - February 11, 2010

Trek in 3D would be okay as long as they also released a version in 2D like “Avatar.” A lot of people can’t watch 3D because of seizure issues.

109. earthclanbootstrap - February 11, 2010

@95. Christoph said “And regardless of 3D or not, Digital or not,
THERE WILL BE LENS FLARES… ;-)”

Should we take this as your certainty that Javier Bardem is playing Khan? ;-)

110. earthclanbootstrap - February 11, 2010

@ 109. earthclanbootstrap – February 11, 2010

OOPS! Sorry everybody. Wrong film. Double dumbass on me. I’ll just blame it on lack of morning caffeine.

111. Charles Trotter - February 11, 2010

105. “Check the Circuit!” — The previous ‘Spider-Man’ series was a proven franchise. This ‘Spider-Man’ is a reboot that will focus more on teenage angst than web-slinging. That, plus the stigma from ‘Spider-Man 3,’ will likely result in fewer tickets sold.

If Paramount decides to move Trek’s release date, they will probably move it to May 28th to take advantage of the Memorial Day weekend box office. However, I think that date would be more suitable for this new, lower-profile ‘Spider-Man’ flick; if I were Sony, I would move the new Spider-Man to May and let Trek have the 4th of July week.

And trust me, the last thing anyone wants is for the filmmakers to show any urgency and fast-track anything. A fast-tracked movie almost always results in a lower-quality product. And 3D isn’t the way of the future, it’s the way of the past — it’s been around since before the 1950s. And Cameron didn’t exactly prove it’s not a gimmick, since the 3D in ‘Avatar’ was used to hide the significant story and character flaws in the film. In other words, it did exactly what it’s been doing for the past 60 years — distracting audiences from how bad, mediocre, or average a movie really is.

3D was “innovative” in the 1950s. Over the years, it’s made several short-lived resurgences, but has died out like any fad. Now it’s just an overused Hollywood gimmick. Cameron did little to nothing to change that fact.

112. Gary Ecans - February 11, 2010

@Anthony!

I agree – the LENS FLARE and overlighting was the biggest issue I had with JJ’s movie. I did NOT like some story elements but that is a matter of preference by me – not a fatal flaw in the movie!

113. P Technobabble - February 11, 2010

33. Red

“… 3d is an evolving dimension of film…”
Yeh, I agree. Technology keeps growing in leaps and bounds, I can’t argue with that. But, I question whether or not 3d is the wave of the future, or if it will appeal only to a limited segment of movie-goers (and, as some have mentioned, there are people who cannot watch 3d). I’ve seen several movies in 3d, including Avatar, and I thought, at times, the effect wasn’t so effective. Yeh, that’s how it was for me, I’m not speaking for the entire planet. So, for me (and judging by the posts in this thread, a few others), are not so gung-ho about 3d. Once in a while is enough for me…

“..yeah, those audiophiles and their vinyl are really driving the record business…”
You sure can be narrow-minded, at times, Red. I wasn’t trying to make such a claim. There isn’t much driving the record industry these days, anyway. Cd sales are way down, and shelf space for cd’s in places like Wal-Mart are dwindling. Downloads are doing better, but no artist really wants to record a cd of 14 songs and have only 2 songs get downloaded because those are the only 2 songs that got airplay. Anyway, I digress… You may not agree with my analogy, but it was only an analogy. Some people are going to prefer 2d films, in spite of the technological advances of 3d. That is all I was trying to point to in my analogy. And, if I may, good ole fashioned vinyl still offers the warmest, truest reproduction of sound, as compared to cd’s that cannot reproduce the same dynamic range as vinyl. And mp3’s still sound like mud. Sometimes technological advance does not necessarily mean “better,” and that is all I was trying to say.

114. Someone - February 11, 2010

Who asked for 3D anyway? I don’t remember hearing many people, several years ago, sitting around saying “gee, movies have sure grown stale, if only they could all be in 3D!” I wish I lived in an alternate universe where Nero caused the death of whoever decided to try and shove it down the public’s throat. As long as it didn’t also mean I was dating Dr. Pulaski.

115. earthclanbootstrap - February 11, 2010

@ 114. Someone said-“As long as it didn’t also mean I was dating Dr. Pulaski.”

Maybe not, but I’d sure date Dr. Ann Mulhall or Dr. Miranda Jones!!!!

116. captain_neill - February 11, 2010

3D will be a fad once again, its nothing new

117. Michael - February 11, 2010

Just a another merchandising ploy to FORCE the public to BUY another tv and bluray player for 3D effects. Many went dragging their heels last xmas and ditched their analog tv and standard dvd players for HD/BD only to have it obsolete in less than 6 months?????????????? WTF?
I say NO to Trek in 3D, or make it avail in theaters in both formats.
Damn Paramount trying to get it’s fan base to YET AGAIN reinvest in Trek, from vhs, to CDI to dvd, to bluray to 3D! It was expensive for me to buy an HD tv, surround sound system and bluray player. Who can afford to pitch all that in a landfill by spring/fall to yet again buy the latest technology again…just to see a movie in 3D????????????????

118. Red Skirt - February 11, 2010

#111. “3D isn’t the way of the future, it’s the way of the past — it’s been around since before the 1950s. And Cameron didn’t exactly prove it’s not a gimmick, since the 3D in ‘Avatar’ was used to hide the significant story and character flaws in the film. In other words, it did exactly what it’s been doing for the past 60 years — distracting audiences from how bad, mediocre, or average a movie really is.”

Trotter, If all you want to do is bash Avatar, then just come right out and do it. Don’t couch your criticism in debate about the merits of a particular technology. LOL

UP certainly was not a bad, mediocre, or average movie and audiences saw it mostly in 3D. As for your criticism against Avatar, and 3D, then it is perfectly suited for Star Trek, assuming the next one has as many plot holes as the last one. If you think the MTV editing, lens flares and shaky handheld camera work was any less a distraction than you think 3D is, then Abrams did his job well, because you clearly missed any of Star Trek’s obvious story and character flaws, however entertaining I and many others think it is.

Clearly you brought your own biases against 3D into the the theater with you.

“3D was “innovative” in the 1950s. Over the years, it’s made several short-lived resurgences, but has died out like any fad. Now it’s just an overused Hollywood gimmick. Cameron did little to nothing to change that fact.”

3D was innovative in the 30s. But the technology was never there to make it a viable commercial application. In the 50s, 3D was ONLY a gimmick. Like widescreen movies, it was used to pull people back into theaters. The commercial technology was in its infancy and it lasted a mere 3 years, primarily due to inadequate technology that made screening less than trouble-free.

But most of the movies ever produced in 3D until the last decade purely exploited the gimmick and were otherwise unwatchable without the novelty. Today audiences are far more sophisticated than that. They simply will not sit through a movie with glasses on their face unless the story is worth it and the technology seamless. That’s why 3D has lasted a decade and is stronger than ever, not in decline. It is evolving as a legitimate voice in film making. Now the directing technique needs to catch up with the technology.

Will it still be used as a gimmick? Yeah you betcha and there’s a place for that. But it was hardly that in Avatar. I’ve seen the film in 3D & 2D and the story, characters and storytelling holds up just as well, but not as immersive or as rich as the 3D experience – it literally adds another dimension. If you didn’t like the story, that’s another matter. But you can’t credit 3D alone for it’s $2.2 billion success.

I have not yet weighed in on whether I want to see Star Trek in 3D, merely that I expect it will be. But all things considered, I wouldn’t really care to see it that way as I do expect it will be mostly gimmick to take the place of all the other Abrams’ “distraction” techniques. I shudder to think about Abrams directing such a film. On the other hand if it is used like Avatar, bring it on!

119. Jane - February 11, 2010

AAAHHH
No! NO! NNOOOO!
Star Trek must beat spiderman!

All Trek fans, listen to me! Boycott Spiderman! Boycott anything else! Spend your money on Star Trek!! I am so not going to see spiderman because of this! Star Trek is going to push Spiderman in the food processor! Down with Spidey!!!!!!!!!

Oh, yeah, and…spideramn in 3D? what?

And I don’t think Star Trek should be in 3D, it will give people headaches, and be hard for people with glasses, oh my gosh, and not to mension… IT WILL RUIN IT!!!!

I haven’t seen Avatar yet, though, so I might not know what I’m talking about, but I saw a conmercial, and everything looked very CG and stomach-turning…and not that appealing

Yet again, as someone said before, a 3D klingon attack would be very cool

but as for the rest of the move, no, ew, and ouch!

120. Mr Phil - February 11, 2010

If I had a vote, it would be for glorious 2-D, shot on film in scope. It has the most cinematic, and for me, realistic feel for a film, and has worked visually for the all of the Trek movies to date (barring ST6 which was Super 35).
Shooting on digital for me removes much of the realism, and can often just look plain ugly (Superman Returns – urgh). Of course, if it adds to the story it can work OK, and certainly at the moment is giving a good reason for punters to see a film on a big screen rather than a laptop. Avatar is the best thing I’ve seen so far in 3-D and shot digital, but then, you’d hope so given the cost!
There will be a barrage of poor films jumping on the 3-D bandwagon in the next few years, few of which I imagine will be up to the technical quality of Avatar. By 2012, I would think the audience at large will be more wary of 3-D films as it will not be a guarantee of quality film-making, and will probably not have the box office draw it is having today.

A lesson to be learned from the 2nd coming of 3-D in the 80’s – watch a film called “Treasure of the Four Crowns”. The ultimate example of bad 3-D, and why we should all be wary ;-)

121. ShadyGinzo - February 11, 2010

my personal opinion of the first Abrams trek is that it was refreshing, “sexy” and overly fun, things which attract an audience and things which the franchise had lost (no personal objections to nemesis or it’s predecessors, I particularly liked Nemesis – don’t hate me!)

with it’s revitalised youth however came a number of plot holes and weaknesses, the story and characters were fun to watch, but flawed. I hold the film in high merit for it’s achievement and straight forward grin inducing fun, but would like to see the second film capitalise on this. I want to see this new trek accelerate in every regard, to put the first to shame, cause however much you may love the first film (like I DO) i doubt they will get away with more of the same. certainly avoid laboring it with lore as the original 30 year run did, but the next does need more artistic merit.

in this spirit of acceleration, upping the game, like the dark knight to batman begins, 3D can only help that, so long as the foundations are completely solid.

using the dark knight example, and HOPEFULLY agreeing with what Red Skirt said (sorry if i’m drawing the wrong concusions from your post!) The Dark Knight is generally accepted as a great sequel and a powerful film, and 3D could only have pushed it into further greatness. now think of Quantum of Solace, generally considered a poor sequel to Casino Royale (no criticism of my reviews here please I accept you may not agree!! – purely example only) 3D would have been perceved as a gimmick and probably would have helped disguise some of that film’s problems.

at the end of the day I think it comes down to 3D’s evolving credibility. Avatar showed it in a new light, one which could have artisit merit, but as will all cinematic tools, the talent with which they are weilded is ultimately it’s defining factor.

122. Captain Hackett - February 11, 2010

Trek 3D? Lets do it!

Imagine that the photon torpedo or phaser fire is coming to your jaw-dropping faces!

123. Red Skirt - February 11, 2010

#113, I prefer the term irascible ;-) And I agree with you. But as long as 3D makes top money at the box office, that’s what the studios will give us. If vinyl were still embraced by the larger music buying audience, then record companies would still be loading the shelves with it. And they had vinyl singles, so don’t pin it on being forced to buy and entire album to get 2 songs. I also agree that MP3s are totally inferior. But that’s what sells. For all the complaining record companies do about how poorly the business is doing because of the digital revolution, they aren’t exactly turning their backs on the technology. The business model is simply changing and moving towards live concerts. Oh if the same thing were to happen in film and live theater would make a similar resurgence!

Of course 2D will always have a place as an art form, but in terms of the top money makers, it is likely to go the way of vinyl and be utilized for critical art films which only gain recognition through the Oscars – for better or worse.

And for the record, I don’t think Avatar’s 3D was perfect by any means, and nobody has to agree to like the technique universally. However, I maintain Cameron’s use of it was a game-changer for the technology and we will only see more and better implementation of it. I don’t think anybody has to worry about a movie being released in 3D only in the coming years, but one day, 3D will likely be the standard, like HD, and even the evening news will have depth to it – for better or worse.

124. Mr Phil - February 11, 2010

#121 “The Dark Knight”…

Thing with the Dark Knight, they went ooooold school with that film and partially shot with 65mm – and those sequences, even when seen on 35mm looked fantastic – arguably better than anything seen in recent years. No mean feat for the production team (poor camera op must still be getting physio) and not cheap by any means, but surely the ultimate in visual quality and realism.
Whether this added anything to the box office, or the enjoyment of the general audience I have no idea, but it’s a different direction to the 3-D digital craze currently grabbing headlines.

Now, shooting 65/70mm 3-D, now we’re talking…

125. Red Skirt - February 11, 2010

#123 “even the evening news will have depth to it – for better or worse.”

Like the 1954 Jane Russell 3D film “The French Line”, I expect watching the 3D television weather girl will “knock both your eyes out!” LOL

126. S. John Ross - February 11, 2010

#119: “Star Trek must beat spiderman!”

Why? Specifically? Many (perhaps most) of us here are general sci-fi fantasy fans who include Star Trek among our many geek-loves, so it could be hard for us to understand why anyone would suggest that any one franchise’s tie-in movie “must beat” another one, especially when **neither film has yet been made.*** What would this achieve, specifically, for us?

“All Trek fans, listen to me! Boycott Spiderman! Boycott anything else!”

Why? This isn’t a team sport. The ideal is that all the films are good and everybody “wins.”

“I might not know what I’m talking about”

It’s worth considering :/

127. Damian - February 11, 2010

I remember the days when people used to complain about sequels, wondering what happened to originality. Now we have reboots, remakes, and sequels to the reboots and remakes. Where has originality gone. The first Spiderman movie was not that long ago, and we are already restarting it. How about Superman. Superman Returns was only a few years ago, and we are rebooting it yet again. Me, I’ll take a sequel over a reboot anyday. Reboots make it very difficulty to follow a series. Say you are a fan of Spiderman through Spiderman III. Now everything you have come to love about that series is gone. Does not apply. DOA. The only reboot I did not mind so much was James Bond, but only because the Bond movies were largely self contained stories anyway, not sequels.

Star Trek (2009) has been called a reboot, but I considered it more of a sequel. The plot line did originate from a time period after Nemesis and was still tied to the previous movies and shows. They definitely muddied the waters as to what to consider it. Is it a prequel, sequel, reboot, reimaging? I guess it is a little of everything. But I was able to accept it because it did not simply throw everything away and hit restart.

128. Red Skirt - February 11, 2010

#126, if I had to guess, I would think it has to do with the audience draw. My casual analysis of Star Trek is that it opened in the clear to extremely good reviews and word of mouth. As a result of having little or no competition, X-Men had already proved a disappointment to movie goers, and Angels and Demons was a different crowd, Star Trek was able to pull in a wide general audience and make most of its money in its first two weeks, further boosting its reputation and giving it long legs.

Had Star Trek opened against Avatar for instance, perhaps it would not have done as well. More than likely it would not have made close to the same money, nor would it have been seen by as wide a general audience. I think that’s the fear with Spiderman. If it pulls the majority of the general audience leaving only the existing fanbase for Star Trek, it may not do as well as it might otherwise, especially if it is framed by the preceding weekend and following weekends by other successful films. Everyone is anticipating Star Trek will follow the Batman Begins/Dark Knight model. But if it fails to open as big as the last film, then it is unlikely to achieve that goal, or even match its current record.

I don’t necessarily see this as a problem as long as it’s a good film and makes the fans happy. But it might be a big disappointment for Paramount and affect future films if it fails to attract an even larger general crowd, which is the whole point after all, to reboot and expand a dying franchise. All the more reason Paramount will likely push for 3D to ensure it doesn’t fall victim to its potential appeal in Spiderman and reduce Trek’s box office attraction in comparison.

Besides, what an amazing marketing hook: the first Star Trek in 3D – you’ve never seen the future like this before.

129. P Technobabble - February 11, 2010

123. Red

I confess “narrow-minded” may have sounded a bit strong. I’m conceding to grant you “irascible.” :-)

I will add, however, that I believe if the record industry were still pushing vinyl, that’s what we’d all be buying. It’s the technology that moves us into particular directions, and not necessarily so much what we WANT that moves us, y’see?
As someone above mentioned, over the past year, or so, many people have finally broken down and bought wide-screen HD tvs and blue-ray players, and there’s already talk about new kinds of tvs, players, etc., which means, at some point, we’ll all be upgrading. We may go the way of technology bitching about it, but we usually do go. Of all the people I know personally, only 2 people don’t have cable tv, and only one of them does not have internet. They are the real hold-outs, but how many of us hold-out for very long? As for the manufacturers, it’s definitely all about the $$$. What else do they have to live for? ;-)

130. Charles Trotter - February 11, 2010

118. Red Skirt

“Trotter, If all you want to do is bash Avatar, then just come right out and do it. Don’t couch your criticism in debate about the merits of a particular technology. LOL”

I thought I have been coming out and doing it, I’ve already pointed out the movie is fairly weak without the visuals. ;) That said, it’s far from a terrible movie, but it’s hardly the outstanding movie everyone is proclaiming it to be. It’s an average sci-fi outing wrapped in brilliant visuals. Star Trek may have had a weak plot that borrowed elements from other sources, but at least it’s entire storyline wasn’t a direct rip-off of prior movies. And ‘Trek’ actually *did* something with its story, while ‘Avatar’ just sort of, i dunno… sat there most of the time. Basically, ‘Trek’ was fast-paced and exciting, ‘Avatar’ was slow and usually boring.

You provide a very good argument there in support of 3D. I guess 3D is much less gimmicky now than it was between the 50s and the 80s. However, it is still fairly cumbersome to watch a movie in 3D, and almost always not even worth it. And now more and more movies are doing it, and I’m just not liking it at all. With so many movies being filmed or presented in 3D, the technology is definitely becoming an exploited gimmick again. As long as they still offer the movie in 2D, though, I’m fine with it.

As for ‘Avatar,’ my main issue with that movie is not just that it was in 3D, it’s that they spent so much time creating these incredible effects and designs and tinkering with high-end technology that they neglected to make an equally amazing script. Without the incredible visuals and immersive environments created through the use of CGI and 3D technology, then ‘Avatar’ would have almost nothing going for it: the story is fairly dull and derivative and the characters relatively weak and one-note. I mean, I guess it was relatively well-executed, it did have heart, and it was great to look at… but almost everything else about it was just plain weak.

Why, then, is the movie such a monumental hit? Because the average moviegoer doesn’t care about what’s come before; they don’t care if the story has been told 10 times or even 1,000 times. If it’s well-executed and if it looks good (and, indeed, it does), they will love it. I can even understand why it’s so loved, it is a pretty grand movie experience overall. But the script and characterizations really kept this movie from being an absolute winner for me. Like I said, it’s not that the movie is bad, I just don’t think it’s as great as everyone thinks it is. I don’t even think it’s worthy of a Best Picture nomination, but then, The Blind Side was far less deserving on that front.

131. rogue_alice - February 11, 2010

Star Trek should step out ahead of the crowd and be….4D.

132. Red Skirt - February 11, 2010

#129, and cents. But it is fair to say corporations have more dollars than cents. ;-)

At the risk of belaboring the point, Vinyl and CDs co-existed for a very long time. If consumers had not embraced CDs, they would have gone the way of the 8-track tape. Same with the far superior beta vs. VHS. Technology alone does not necessarily force people in a particular direction. Nobody makes audiences buy tickets for 3D. All the top grossing 3D movies were released in 2D & 3D, yet the 3D had the highest attendance, closing the poorly earning 2D screens early. Clearly there is a preference for seeing it that way. The more audiences chose 3D over 2D the more studios are encouraged to invest in it. Same with CDs and vinyl. In the beginning, record companies were reluctant to put a lot of titles on CD (mostly classical at first) because they thought consumers wouldn’t pay extra for the technology. And they were wrong and it took them a while to catch up with the demand leaving a lot of vinyl sitting in the warehouses. Some things are less clear, and it becomes a chicken/egg kind of thing. But 3D isn’t one of them. Nor is digital music. These are clear cases of consumers dictating how they want their entertainment served up to them and embracing the technology that makes it possible.

133. somethoughts - February 11, 2010

#133

We all now porn and adult entertainment is what drives technology.

134. somethoughts - February 11, 2010

*know

135. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - February 11, 2010

3D is terrible… It gave me a headache and mad my girl friend sick! I want to ENJOY the movie not want to leave it due to illness.

136. S. John Ross - February 11, 2010

#127: “Where has originality gone.”

Originality is out there – there’s more of it than ANY of us will have time in our lives to enjoy – just don’t look for it in a cineplex blockbuster, is all. Big-budget eye-candy movies are made with big-budget timidity, most of the time … and the bigger the stakes, the more the suits want their products to be nice and safe, nice and safe, nice and … zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz[snort]zzz.

But there I go ragging on ST09 again. [slaps own wrist]

Zzzzzzzzz[rolls over, hugs his wooby].

137. Jim Nightshade - February 11, 2010

Borg was already done in 4-D At the Star Trek Experience in Vegas heheh…

I sure do read a lot of comments from people saying the 3d hid lousy story etc in Avatar…

I totally disagree….the 3d made the story more immersive, more like actually visiting another planet perhaps for the first time in a movie….

And the story…cmon…even the familar elements of it are classics, Dances with Wolves anyone? I think since nothing is unique anymoe that Cameron crafted an excellent moving emotional resonant story on how man can use and abuse planets….and each other….

and let us experience what it would be like for a man who cannot walk to regain his body and much more thru an avatar, and learn and become one with nature, planet and a people….

the Joy he felt at running and jumping for the first time really showed in Avatar…and Zoe was wonderful in her portrayal of a strong woman warrior….
I hope the new Trek can have a story about something, Like Avatar was…

138. PJays - February 11, 2010

I don’t mind a 3D movie but I hope they don’t over do the 3D stile of things being thrown at the screen over and over so people think something is going to hit them. I find too much of that looks really silly once it goes to 2D. If they are doing it for the visual and depth, then I am sure it will be fine. Just my opinion thou!

139. Titan2010 - February 11, 2010

This new Spidey movie is going to suck…

140. jas_montreal - February 11, 2010

@ 126. S. John Ross

I think people are specifically downplaying Spiderman, because if it eats away at Trek’s profits… then we won’t have a Trek 3 or wtv anytime soon. I personally believe that Spiderman may eat away at Trek’s profits considerably. Consider Spiderman 3 made about 800-900 million and it was a horrible film. If a good Trek 2 comes out… gets good reviews… its still going to have a hard time to face off with spiderman. Spiderman attracts large massive crowds of all ages. It might not be a easy task for Trek 2. Maybe Paramount should reconsider and move it to a later or before date.

I’d personally love the idea of both films living harmoniously together, but this is a competition of some sort, for profit. I hate considering competition between art pieces, but its the reality of it all.

141. Eli - February 11, 2010

The new Spidey movie is going to suck more balls with every more thing I hear about it. But at this point, Trek is going to have to do 3D to get over the box office hump. Otherwise it’s probably not going to break the bank especially with the other big movies most likely going 3D after Avatar. With the economy the way it is, the battle for the rare trip to the movie theatre is getting more and more competitive and gimmicks like 3D are going to make the difference opening weekend.

142. somethoughts - February 11, 2010

#141

I agree, 3D will get the average joe to come out and watch Star Trek, not that they haven’t converted a bunch of average joes in ST09 but there is still a big piece of movie goers oversees who will see the next Star Trek if it promises to be something of a visual. Imagine the effects of Avatar with the story potential and character tapestry of Star Trek all rolled into one.

I would love to see a Star Trek movie hit the billion dollar figure world wide.
2D can be viewed for the traditionalists while the 3D can be viewed for the movie goer looking for something that screams must see.

143. Red Skirt - February 11, 2010

#133, “We all now porn and adult entertainment is what drives technology.”

Exactly. All the more reason we’ll have 3D and holograms as soon as technology makes it economically feasible. ;-)

#126, S. John Ross, consider this if you will – if the next Star Trek is in 3D, you can be assured it will have some depth. ;-)

144. Jim - February 11, 2010

3d = Massive headache for me, it screws my eyes up, took me an hour before I could really watch avatar. Ruined the whole movie experience for me.

145. Mitch - February 11, 2010

3D, while pretty cool, is ultimately irrelevant. If he DOES go 3D, they have to worry about making the audience sick. I heard that was a problem in Cloverfield, and that wasn’t even 3D. People who saw Avatar did get nauseus.

But ultimately, worry about the story first. The effects are secondary. Oh, and sign Shatner please.

146. Brian Kirsch - February 11, 2010

I don’t understand all the trepidation of Trek v. Spidey. Read the blurb about Spidey 4 (or Spidey reboot 2):

“However, according to The Hollywood Reporter, this new Spidey film is “very different from the big movies that went before it”. The film is said to have a much smaller budget (around $80M) and will be “pared down to center on a high school kid who is dealing with the knowledge that his uncle died even though the teen had the power to stop it”. The focus will be more in line with the recent “Ultimate Spider-Man” comics where “villain-fighting took a back seat to the high school angst.”

Meh.

Sounds like Peter Parker moves to Smallville to me. A story we already saw very well done in Spiderman 1, but now on a bare-bones budget. Less action, more “teen-angst”, with the 3-D thrown in as a gimmick. Think of it as Disney does Spiderman, with one of the Jonas’ bros as Peter and Myley Cyrus as Mary Jane. You keep expecting them to break out into song at any minute! UGH! Does that strike fear into your heart, Trek fan?? Not me!!

Any comparison to the previous 3 Spidey movies can be thrown out the window, along with the past cast and director, and the box office grosses. This whole project sounds like “Spiderman Lite” for the teenage girl crowd. I think Sony is playing poker, hoping Paramount will call their bluff. I expect Paramount to “call”, and Sony to “fold” to a different release date.

147. Brian Kirsch - February 11, 2010

^
I meant to say “hoping Paramount WON’T call their bluff”

148. YARN - February 11, 2010

I dunno, all that lens flare in 3D might blind us.

And all that virtual dust on the virtual camera lens could get distracting too.

149. Brian Kirsch - February 11, 2010

BTW, I remember when Raimi was jettisoned along with the cast there was talk of a script written by someone (sorry don’t remember his name) for Spidey 4, who had also done a treatment for 3 & 4 that was rejected. Why did they choose to reboot (again), on the cheap, for such a successful franchise? Why not find a new cast and new director and continue? At the time I found it hard to believe that money issues killed Raimi’s Spidey 4, considering what a cash cow it was. Is Sony that cheap, or that cash strapped?

150. somethoughts - February 11, 2010

#146

I agree, Sony should be afraid of Paramount. Sony is thinking, “I hope our poor mans reboot of spiderman meets miley cryus is successful.”

They should have let Raimi do his Vulture part 4 and then do a reboot 10 yrs later, too soon for a spidey reboot. Heads will roll if Spidey fails.

Spiderman will flop like how Quantum of Solace did.

151. somethoughts - February 11, 2010

#149

Sony execs think they know more about Spiderman and what the public wants than Sam Raimi. They argued in during the creation of part 3 with the Sony being adament about Venom being in the film, the result was a poorly balanced story.

Sony didn’t like the Vulture idea, Raimi had enough and walked, as did Tobey. Creative differences, simple case of too many chefs in the kitchen and egos.

152. dmduncan - February 11, 2010

142: ” Imagine the effects of Avatar with the story potential and character tapestry of Star Trek all rolled into one.

I would love to see a Star Trek movie hit the billion dollar figure world wide.”

It’ll never happen for Star Trek. Cameron figured out a formula for successfully stimulating the herd instinct in people. There was really never a chance of an Avatar failure no matter how much of a Frankenstein’s monster the stitched together plot of Avatar had been, because it was an event to be seen by the sheer stupendous magnitude of the visual sorcery on display in it, which has captivated all but a few people. God help him, but even St. John Ross chose the BLUE pill.

Star Trek will never induce the kinds of stampede you see happening around the world for Avatar. Even WITH 3D.

Even though the SC brought it roaring back to life, Star Trek — as a whole — is just not stampede worthy. Perhaps it’s just a touch too complex for the impulsive, those who are merely greedy for sensory experience, who want stimulation of a less cerebral kind and who want it now damnit.

TOS certainly didn’t capture its audience because it had 3D and the most amazing special effects ever. No. It had something else. It didn’t have a NASA sized budget, but it did have character and interesting ideas.

153. somethoughts - February 11, 2010

#152

That is why I said, would love to see a Star Trek movie hit the billion dollar figure, not suggesting it will happen. It could very well be a pipe dream, but I think it all depends on the story and execution of the project. If the next Star Trek brought something technologically new ie. liquid metal/bullet time, anything is possible.

Masses like the new and cool.

154. dmduncan - February 11, 2010

You know, I’m just happy Star Trek is back. Some people want the coolest car, the hottest girl, the most money.

I just want what I love.

155. Brian Kirsch - February 11, 2010

As for the 3-D debate, I freely admit I’m completely in the dark. I’m no techno-head. I resisted CD’s until I had no choice. I resisted DVD’s until I had no choice. I continue to resist BR until I have no choice.

Maybe it’s just me, but every time something becomes “more digital” it becomes “less real”. To my eyes and ears at least. Human beings are not digital creatures, we’re not wired that way. We prefer real images, real sounds. But we can be fooled, over time, that digital is better. Nonsense!

Give me music recorded on tape and pressed on vinyl. Give me movies filmed with a real camera, with real lenses, on real fim. Anyone raised prior to the digital generation knows where I’m coming from.

Enough of that rant, though. I could go on and on about physical model effects v. digital effects, but I won’t right now. (anybody seen “Moon” ?)

To me, it comes down to one question: Do you need to use digital cameras to produce a 3-D movie? If so, I’m out. If you can produce a 3-D movie using conventional cameras, real lenses, and real film, and possibly, real models, I’m in.

156. S. John Ross - February 11, 2010

#152: “God help him, but even St. John Ross chose the BLUE pill.”

I mistook them for Andorians. By the time I realized my error, it was too late.

And I’m still no saint.

157. yamihoole' - February 11, 2010

I’d rather it wasnt in 3D but its certainly the fad right now so theres not much I can do to change it if it is. I’ll go see the 2D version because its cheaper and I’m not a fan of wearing those glasses either. Not to mention I wear glasses, so I have to choose between trying to fit 3D glasses over my regular ones or take my regular glasses off and watch a movie that will look blurry to me anyway. I probably will see the 3D if it comes out that way at least once just to see what its like, but I dont get a whole lot extra out of it. It doesnt add anything for me really

158. S. John Ross - February 11, 2010

#140: “I’d personally love the idea of both films living harmoniously together, but this is a competition of some sort, for profit. I hate considering competition between art pieces, but its the reality of it all.”

Only among the suits. There’s no reasons for it to be so among the fans. And since neither film exists yet, there’s no _sane_ way to pick sides even if the world went upside-down and we suddenly had to (franchise loyalty sight-unseen is _not_ an example of sanity).

#143: “S. John Ross, consider this if you will – if the next Star Trek is in 3D, you can be assured it will have some depth. ;-)”

Zing! You rock so hard the the plaster’s flying, Red Skirt :)

159. Spockette - February 11, 2010

Star Trek would have been great in 3D. Whether I totally like the idea of a 3D Star Trek sequel

160. Spockette - February 11, 2010

Star Trek would have been great in 3D. Whether Spidey’s a problem or not, I totally like the idea of a 3D Star Trek sequel

161. dmduncan - February 11, 2010

158: “franchise loyalty sight-unseen is _not_ an example of sanity”

But it is an example of loyalty.

162. VZX - February 11, 2010

Star Trek almost HAS to be in 3-D just to keep up. I am worried about the Spider-man thing the same week. BUT: I also think that $80 mill is far too little for a super-hero movie, added to the fact that they are playing up the Twilight-like teen angst crap as opposed to battling villains makes me think that this latest Spidey movie will be BORING! Which will be good for Trek!

163. braxus - February 11, 2010

I say if they got to make it in 3D, then shoot it in IMAX 3D to make it worth while. But don’t forget there was supposed to be an IMAX 3D Star Trek that was cancelled part way through the planning stage, so I hope this isn’t how the new film would end up.

164. ryanhuyton - February 12, 2010

I think it is safe to say the sequel will be in 3D. It just makes too much sense from the studio’s point of view. And I think that after J.J saw “Avatar”
he was “won” over. Anyway, 3-D or not, I am so stoked for the sequel.

To 3D or not to 3D, that is the question.

165. S. John Ross - February 12, 2010

@161: Yes, franchise loyalty is an example of loyalty. And franchise loyalty is an example of things involving franchises. And this sentence is an example of a sentence.

@ People Worried about 3D Films On Medical/Dizzyness Grounds: I don’t believe there’s been a recent 3D film that wasn’t _also_ screened in 2D, so it shouldn’t matter either way. I didn’t see Avatar in 3D until my third viewing, and didn’t see UP in 3D until my second.

166. Anthony Pascale - February 12, 2010

Although much is said about movie competition in the summer, for the most part all the movies do well. Sure you get a clunker like Speed Racer or Land of the Lost, but in general every weekend a new ‘big’ movie opens up, often with a semi-big counterprogramming movie (a comedy or family film).

With all the talk about Star Trek beating the other movies in May, all the may movies are likely to get sequels.

The one wrinkle here is that Spidey Reboot is opening four days after Trek 2012, instead of 7 days. But if both films are good, both can do well.

If this was the first Trek film going up against Raimi’s Spidey 4, I would say move Trek to another open weekend. But this is a stronger Trek going up against a weakened Spider-man. I think both can do well, and Trek could end up beating Spidey, especially if it is a cast of unknowns.

I also think that the Trek sequel should have an A-Lister on board in a guest role, like Tom Hanks, Tom Cruise, Wil Smith, etc. Someone who can put people into the seats overseas, which is Trek’s weakest link.

167. Mel - February 12, 2010

“I also think that the Trek sequel should have an A-Lister on board in a guest role, like Tom Hanks, Tom Cruise, Wil Smith, etc. Someone who can put people into the seats overseas, which is Trek’s weakest link.”

I don’t think that it will be so easy. It will still “only” be a Star Trek movie and not the next Tom Hanks, Tom Cruise or Will Smith movie. The franchise just isn’t so popular.

I think the only way, that Star Trek can be really successful worldwide, is if they avoid strong competition and promote it properly. February, March, April would have been better months for a premiere.

168. philpot - February 12, 2010

Harrison Ford – Decker
Russel Crowe – Kruge
No 1 – Megan Fox
Klingon emporer – Arnie
Tom Cruise – Captain Garth
Mel Gibson – Captain Tracey
Tom Hanks – Captain Merrik
Will Smith – Dr Datstrom
Reese Witherspoon – Carol Marcus
Javier Barhem/Antonio Banderous – Khan

Scott Bakula – Admiral Archer
Michael Dorn – Colonel Worf
Shatner – Kirk Prime
Patrick Stewart – Picard

169. Charles Trotter - February 12, 2010

167. Mel

Actually, having an A-lister in the next Trek movie is not really that far-fetched. 2009’s Trek nearly got Matt Damon to appear as George Kirk, and Russell Crowe was approached to play Nero. Tom Hanks is a die-hard Trek fan (he was considered for the role of Zefram Cochrane in ST: First Contact), so I’m sure he would jump at the chance to take part in a Trek film. Damon, as I recall, is also a Trek fan. Since the first movie was a hit, there is a good chance of having more higher-profile actors appear in the sequel.

And promotion was not the reason for Trek’s disappointing (though happily accepted) international box office. Trek was never a big seller overseas, and a new Trek movie just did not appear to many. Great word-of-mouth allowed it to earn more than any previous Treks, but many were still hesitant so it didn’t do outstanding business. That will (or, at least, should) change with the sequel. Since the DVD/Blu-ray release, many more people have finally seen it for the first time and should be willing to see the sequel in theaters.

As for the timing of its release, statistics and box office history shows that May, June, July, November, and December are the best months for a movie’s release. Regardless when it was released, Trek wouldn’t earn much more than it already did either in the US or overseas.

170. captain_neill - February 12, 2010

Trek XII will do great at the box office.

I always liked how Trek went with good actors over A list movie stars.

I would not want Tom Cruise in a Trek movie. I would love Tom Hanks to be in a Trek movie though but Tom Hanks is a much better actor.

Irony is this Trek made more money than past movies, is this not good?

171. dmduncan - February 12, 2010

165: “Yes, franchise loyalty is an example of loyalty. And franchise loyalty is an example of things involving franchises. And this sentence is an example of a sentence.”

Excuse me while I adjust my elevation; that one struck a bit high, I admit.

Loyalty is a trust. If you need to see first and be loyal later, then that’s no loyalty at all, in which case the words “franchise loyalty sight-unseen” are oxymoronic, and the implied remedy, “franchise loyalty is not an example of sanity” an equal abortion of logic. It’s not an example of insanity either. Or an example of a billion other things I could put you to sleep to list.

Franchise loyalty is…well, what you have or do not have. It isn’t anything ELSE.

@166: Yeah, I’m not sure where this idea of movies competing against one another as if we all only have $10 and can only see ONE great summer movie so make it count baby comes from.

I’m sure there’s a few people in that category. But enough to make a difference? I don’t think so. I’m not worried about Star Trek not doing well because it’s opening against some other potential blockbuster.

And if they follow James Cameron’s formula of a simple story with simple emotions told on a grand scale, they could well cause a box office stampede. That word of mouth will be important. I haven’t seen an Avatar commercial since the opening week, yet the lines are still forming behind the rope for it. What’s doing that? Great word of mouth I think.

172. captain_neill - February 12, 2010

I hate the term franchise when it comes to our favourite show, feels too business like and less creative.

A true term in Hollywood but its not a term I prefer to use.

173. Dennis Bailey - February 12, 2010

People talking about digital 3D as a “gimmick” are lost in trying to sound wise.

3D is here, for reasons of commerce as much or more than any creative reasons, and in five years every summer blockbuster and every action film with any kind of budget will be in 3D.

And yeah, many of the earliest in this new wave of 3D cinema will struggle with the technology and some will fail at it. A “talkie” in 1931 was not THX, but they had to come first.

174. captain_neill - February 12, 2010

personally I don’t think going 3D is going to add anything to the cinema experience

Unless the scripts are getting so dire these days that they are using 3D to get more bums on seat. This is the sad reality of it.

175. Dennis Bailey - February 12, 2010

“This is the sad reality of it.”

No, that’s just your opinion.

Real actors don’t need words; they can pantomine and project meaning with their faces and actions. Hang all this “talkie” stuff – it’s unfair to people who are hard of hearing, and it’s just plain lazy.

176. pock speared - February 12, 2010

well don’t let’s forget imax 3D. there is nothing so visually astounding as a vulcan tooth the size of a mattress, with a raised eyebrow that actually seems to “rub you” right in your seat.

spiderman: muppet baby is to blamed on twilight (and yeah, smallville) i think. the kiddies buy the seats and then suckface through the gooey parts. new sci-fi has to bring in the teenage girls to make big bucks…

dennis bailey makes a point here (he always does): “star trek: mime” (“enemy mime”?) is a great idea. why pay for force field CGFX when the character can marcel marceau around an imaginary wall? come to think of it, shatner & co. did a lot of that in TOS.

177. dmduncan - February 12, 2010

Gimmicks are associated with sales tactics, and 3D has sales written all over it. If it weren’t for the money you wouldn’t be seeing it. There’s a handful of people pushing 3D and one of them isn’t Jim Jarmusch. One of them, and a big one, does happen to be Jeffrey Katzenberg, who’s less interested in art than ka-ching. Specifically, the demonstrable increase in sales that 3D does bring, and the difficulty of pirating 3D movies, which also translates into mo money, mo money, mo money.

So whether you like it or not 3D fits the textbook definition of gimmick.

178. Mr Phil - February 12, 2010

I think you could pop in Matt Damon as Kirk’s older brother – the likeness is workable.
Though I’d rather see Tim Honks, sorry, Tom Hanks in a big Federation guy-gone-bad type role. And he must be up for some fun material after working on Pacific – however I suspect his diary is already chocca for the next few years…

179. Red Skirt - February 12, 2010

#169. “2009’s Trek nearly got Matt Damon to appear as George Kirk, and Russell Crowe was approached to play Nero. Tom Hanks is a die-hard Trek fan (he was considered for the role of Zefram Cochrane in ST: First Contact), so I’m sure he would jump at the chance to take part in a Trek film.”

Trotter, “nearly”, “approached” and “considered” might as well be a million light years from “staring in” when it comes to Hollywood. There is absolutely nothing to this particular argument that would convince me an “A” list star would appear in a supporting role in Star Trek. Any such actor would have to take second billing to Chris Pine, which is a major shake-up. They would have to be a huge fan with nothing else going on during the time they were needed.

But who knows, perhaps Abrams is going to work on Cruise during MI:4, though I add my voice to others in saying I would not care to see Cruise in a Star Trek film in any capacity. Christian Slater’s cameo was bad enough in Star Trek VI.

Personally I think Star Trek works best with a non-main stream cast. I think it allows the characters to speak for themselves rather than through the filter of an “A” list actor’s personality.


“And promotion was not the reason for Trek’s disappointing (though happily accepted) international box office.”

Not sure about this one either. It has been widely reported both here and elsewhere that even Star Trek fans had trouble finding out about this film in certain foreign territories. Though anecdotal, it seems likely that Paramount was focusing on building the more important US audience, given Star Trek’s previous performance overseas and may put more into building the foreign audiences next time around, now that the US market seems to be secured. While Star Trek may end up 7th or 8th in the US, it’ll be 13th or 14th internationally. To be the franchise Paramount want’s it to be, it needs to clear $400 million worldwide to justify ever increasing budgets and the only way to do that is boost the foreign interest, which is hopefully not sociological, but promotional.


“Since the DVD/Blu-ray release, many more people have finally seen it for the first time and should be willing to see the sequel in theaters.”

And the jury is still out on that for me. With the-numbers only reporting 6 million units sold domestically, that doesn’t really inspire confidence if the DVD was marketed as poorly in international markets. 6 million units sounds like the base number of Star Trek fans who would buy the DVD regardless. While that doesn’t include Blu-ray, Blue-ray only likely accounts for another 15%, Star Trek may have been slightly higher, but that’s still only about another million units. So, 7 million units domestically, lets say generously another 4 million internationally, I’m just not so sure how many new viewers saw it that did not see it in the theaters, or were not already fans.

Now pay-per-view and rentals is a different story. Those figures would go a long way toward understanding how effective Star Trek will be at attracting new viewers to the next movie, especially internationally.

180. captain_neill - February 12, 2010

the steepest part about 3D is will double the price of your cinema ticket

181. Red Skirt - February 12, 2010

#176. “well don’t let’s forget imax 3D. there is nothing so visually astounding as a vulcan tooth the size of a mattress, with a raised eyebrow that actually seems to “rub you” right in your seat.”

LOL, pock speared, I have no idea where you stand on this issue by that comment. Perhaps you are a dentist, or merely have a fetish for being rubbed by giant eyebrows? LOL

But hopefully any 3D director would avoid the temptation to make such choices. Raised eyebrows should stay well beyond the 3D threshold where they become intrusive. I recall reading of a 3D love-scene where the actor’s nose kept popping out into the audience (which is why porn would likely be so popular in 3D ;-) But. that kind of thing is mainly why 3D is considered nothing more than a gimmick.

For better or worse, Cameron has raised the bar on 3D so that more film makers will now likely consider it as legitimate a tool as adding a colored filter to the lens.

182. Anthony Pascale - February 12, 2010

RE: Blu-ray / dvd data
We already reported that Star Trek sold very well on blu-ray and home theater reported it accounted for something like 40%+ of the home market sales of trek. I expect the numbers data is not accurate, from everyone i talk to, they are very happy with home video sales for trek

RE: Int’l
It is Trek’s biggest challenge (and has been). Trek has never done well outside the english speaking world (except Germany), most likely because the show and movies were so ‘talky’. I do think that a modern franchise (sorry but that is what it is) needs to get at least close to parity for intl sales. ST09 was at about 65%. That is why I feel strongly they need some kind of intl start to help. In fact the first time i met JJ at a party at comic con back in 2007 I told him that Intl was the biggest challenge if they wanted to turn trek into a modern tent-pole. I brought this up again in my interview with him at the DVD party and he agreed they have work to do, and was open to a big star to help. he also expressed the hope that home video is helping
http://trekmovie.com/2009/11/18/exclusive-video-interview-jj-abrams-talks-star-trek-sequel/

183. dmduncan - February 12, 2010

179: “With the-numbers only reporting 6 million units sold domestically, that doesn’t really inspire confidence if the DVD was marketed as poorly in international markets. 6 million units sounds like the base number of Star Trek fans who would buy the DVD regardless.”

I would expect dvd SALES to come mostly from people who saw it and liked it, not from people who didn’t see it and wanted to see it.

I expect the real story to come from the entire rental market including all digital rentals for the year 2010 since ST.09 came out in November.

Netflix currently rates Star Trek in the # 2 position on the 25 most popular SF movies list, behind Transformers in # 1 and ahead of ROTF in # 3.

Star Trek is currently # 31 on Apple’s top movie RENTALS which covers all categories, not just SF.

It’s on Blockbuster’s top 100 rentals and in BB’s top downloads charts.

It’s in Amazon.com On Demand’s most popular lists (and I believe these are all strictly rentals with no option to buy as in iTunes):

#5 in Science Fiction & Fantasy
#6 in Action & Adventure
#10 in Drama

184. dmduncan - February 12, 2010

It would be nice to see an analysis on Trekmovie of how well ST.09 is doing in the entire rental market between dvds and digital rentals.

185. Red Skirt - February 12, 2010

#182, Anthony thanks for that clarification. Do you know if that 40% is domestic only or does that include international sales numbers as well. I did wonder about The Numbers’ data as well since 6 million DVD sounded awfully low, even for just the core domestic fans base. Even wIth 40% Blu-ray though, that number is still only about 10 million units conservatively, which is still pretty low considering the size of the fan base, unless that does not include international numbers as well.

As I stated earlier in my post #179, for me, the more interesting numbers are going to be the rentals and PPV. That to me seems like a much more accurate indicator of new audiences who are seeking out the film they may not have seen in theaters, particularly if that data represents worldwide sales, not just domestic.

In any event, I’m quite sure Paramount is thrilled with Star Trek’s performance, which is good by any benchmark. But as you point out, I’m more interested in how international audiences and new fans may develop following its availability in home media, as should Paramount.

186. S. John Ross - February 12, 2010

165: “If you need to see first and be loyal later, then that’s no loyalty at all”

Oh my. :)

As you say, loyalty is a trust, and like any other trust, it has degrees _other_ than all-encompassing total fanaticism at one end (which is, by the way, insane, regardless of the object of trust) and absolute lack at the other. To cite just two of many possible relevant examples, there are trusts with specific entities which overlap with others … and there are also trusts which are weakened and must be re-earned. These are not “no loyalty at all,” but rather “no fanaticism at all.”

Further, your conflation fails to address the core point, which is that many of us here love – and are, by varying degrees, loyal to – multiple geek franchises.

If you believe that only fanatic, unquestioning, unreserved loyalty counts as “loyalty,” then congratulations, you’re a True Fan. But also: get help … because you’re a True Fan :)

187. S. John Ross - February 12, 2010

#179: “I add my voice to others in saying I would not care to see Cruise in a Star Trek film in any capacity. ”

Likewise. Or any other kind of film, come to that.

“Christian Slater’s cameo was bad enough in Star Trek VI.”

And of course the bad news is that a mere cameo (and that one WAS jarring, eek) wouldn’t satisfy the need to get foreign audiences lined up to be wowed by Star Power … the guest a-lister would need something approaching a substantive role, or at least a meaty enough cameo to make it _look_ substantive in the trailer :)

188. dmduncan - February 12, 2010

186: “As you say, loyalty is a trust, and like any other trust, it has degrees _other_ than all-encompassing total fanaticism at one end (which is, by the way, insane, regardless of the object of trust) and absolute lack at the other.”

Brilliant! Nonnumquam Fidelis!

Even “fanatical” Star Trek fans are largely fanatical in the loose, kindly sense (and it is probably the case that the more fanatical fans of Star Trek would be worse human beings without having it, so that it actually does some good in their lives), so I find pathological expressions of loyalty in a discussion about Star Trek, while possible, irrelevant. You can just assume that what I said applies to the average sorts of enthusiastic but sane loyalty which fans demonstrate toward their fanchises (and franchoices), and which are not pathological.

Where the consequences of ill given loyalty are tragic or dangerous, you may have a case, but with regards to a TV/movie entertainment franchise where neither life nor limb, but corner of wallet instead, is endangered, it’s just a measure of one’s skepticism.

It’s the nature of loyalty NOT to know first, so when you must know first it’s because loyalty (trust) is missing. You might as well demand your chute to open before you jump out of the plane — just to be sure that your loyalty isn’t misplaced.

Luckily, Star Trek does not demand so much from us.

“Further, your conflation fails to address the core point, which is that many of us here love – and are, by varying degrees, loyal to – multiple geek franchises.”

What’s to address? You can take my silence as agreement. I also love Star Wars. And Dune. And Ringworld. And Aliens and Predators. And I’ll always go see Indiana Jones even if George and Steven never figure out why the sequels haven’t been as brilliant as the original.

189. tman - February 12, 2010

Rather than casting an A-Lister for A-Lister’s sake, I think they have much better chance building bigger stars out of the actors they have before the next films start. There’s no reason I can see that Chris Pine isn’t A-Listing within 1-2 years. They need to support him to get there and help MAKE Star Trek a tentpole.

I do think that they should choose a really good and talented character actor to play the villain but alot of A-listers are so familiar to the audience that it will distract. Tom Hanks can act, but from Private Ryan to his plane-wreck film to Forest Gump and You’ve Got Mail there’s so much of Tom Hanks in his roles that putting that in a Klingon would just look wierd. It would hurt the film. You have to worry about that as well.

Regarding International Markets, I think they really have to look at how they market this. It doesn’t have the budget of Avatar, so even if it’s 3D how well will it do in Asia and Europe among a sea of other 3D films?

190. Red Skirt - February 12, 2010

#173 “People talking about digital 3D as a “gimmick” are lost in trying to sound wise.” “many of the earliest in this new wave of 3D cinema will struggle with the technology and some will fail at it. A “talkie” in 1931 was not THX, but they had to come first.”

Dennis, Agreed!

Interestingly, many gimmicks have become the standard for the movies:

Sound was a “gimmick” to attract audiences to one movie over another. Many audiences considered it a novelty and rejected it because it was buggy, could drift out of sync and offered poor fidelity (very similarly to 3D’s early problems) and took several years to catch on.

Color was a way to attract audiences over black & white films. Again early audiences saw it as a novelty since the quality was poor and seen as unnecessary and distracting to telling stories. Filmmakers hated it and most films continued to be made in black & white until the 50s, when it was a needed “gimmick” to combat TV.

Air conditioning was installed in many early theaters as a “gimmick” to draw in Summer crowds, who would buy a ticket to see anything just to get out of the heat.

Stereo sound was a “gimmick” added in the 50s to lure audiences away from their TV’s and into theaters.

3D was a “gimmick” added to films, but mostly rejected by audiences because of technological problems with the complex projection systems.

CInemascope and Panavision were “gimmicks” designed specifically to draw audiences back into movie theaters faced with the threat of free television. Filmmakers again rejected the format, and audiences were unimpressed with seams in the screens from early projection methods.

THX and surround sound were “gimmicks” designed to attract audiences back into theaters after the advent of VCRs to provide a theater experience unavailable in the home.

CGI animation was originally a novelty allowing animators and filmmakers to “do things never before possible” and became a marketing “gimmick”.

There is simply no innovation that has not been exploited as a “gimmick” with which to draw larger box office for the film industry, including “moving pictures” themselves, which once only existed as a novelty in penny arcades, viewed by one individual at a time. And almost all of them were not immediately embraced by audiences and filmmakers alike. Yet, over time, they have come and gone and ultimately remained as part of the experience of the movies and an audiences expectations.

191. ryanhuyton - February 12, 2010

Better get used to it folks, 3D is here to stay. Even 3D t.v may be the wave of the future, though I am not sure it will take off for another several years due to the fact that people are just beginning to upgrade their tvs plus 3D sets would be thousands of dollars for the first few years on the market.

192. dmduncan - February 12, 2010

The relevant difference between 3D and the move from silent to sound, from black and white to color, is that there have been no ARTISTIC innovations using 3D since it’s inception.

The technology has improved vastly, but the trick is still the same. There is no difference in how 3D is being used now from how it has been used since the 50’s. In fact, the best 3D movie experience I ever had wasn’t at Avatar, but at the Kennedy Space Center when a robot in a movie short opened a can of pop that sprayed the audience, and the visual spray was perfectly timed with sprinklers in the ceiling to get you wet.

I saw The Book of Eli. I was curious about it, but had my doubts. Best movie I’ve seen this year so far. Beautiful use of color, nearly monochromatic at times, creating a tone poem feel. And compare that to Avatar without the 3D and you see a wonderfully wide range of feelings you can evoke with color, whether it’s lots of color or very little.

Now film stock obviously doesn’t have the same range that a painter’s palette has, but over the years a combination of talented cinematographers using different stocks and special techniques have been able to make different films LOOK different in color.

But 3D is just there. It has no latitude. And though I can see a way to use it wonderfully, the technology to do what I can see just isn’t here yet.

So the issue isn’t the right guy coming along to use the current state of 3D differently. It’s more like realizing you’ve got a little red wagon, and giving up this dream of turning it into an Indy race car. It just doesn’t have that potential. And no matter how many times you point out the shift from black and white to color, from silent to sound, you aren’t going to magically give it that potential.

So 3D may be here to stay. I don’t really know, to tell you the truth. It all depends on its continued success.

But that’s neither here nor there. It might be the greatest financial success in the history of movies. And still be artistically flat.

3D will have its day, and when the tech becomes available to plug your brain into a virtual reality movie so that you experience events through the eyes of the characters, then that’s the next logical step the fans of “immersive experience movies” will do, and 3D movies will be sooo old hat.

The market will give you what you want. And the choice what to do with what it offers you is yours. What’s your pleasure? Red pill or blue?

: )

193. Mel - February 12, 2010

169. Charles Trotter

“Actually, having an A-lister in the next Trek movie is not really that far-fetched. ”

I don’t doubt that they could get an A-list star. I only doubt that it will help to attract more viewers overseas. People go in a Will Smith movie, because they expect a good quality movie. If they hear that he only has a supporting part in a movie, it won’t have the same effect, especially if it is a Star Trek movie. The bad reputation of Star Trek will overshadow the good reputation of Will Smith. Just because an A-list actor plays a supporting role, doesn’t mean people will think that the new Star Trek movie must be good! I think it brings nothing to have a prominent guest star. They should rather engaged a cheap unknown actor and put more money into promotion.

“And promotion was not the reason for Trek’s disappointing (though happily accepted) international box office. ”

The promotion was pathetic, even in Germany and we at least got a premiere in Berlin and a few small 15 second spots during commercials, which were so short and badly made, that you could barely get an impression of the movie. Other European countries and a lot of other countries worldwide got not even that. It would have helped for example, if an actor would have made promotion in a TV show, but no one did that, while there were TONS of interviews with them in the USA.

“Since the DVD/Blu-ray release, many more people have finally seen it for the first time and should be willing to see the sequel in theaters. ”

That could help, but don’t overestimate the effect. If so many people thought that the movie was great, there would have been more people in the cinemas around the world. But I didn’t notice any big mouth to mouth effect then. Star Trek was in many countries only for a very short time in the cinemas.

“Great word-of-mouth allowed it to earn more than any previous Treks,… ”

Maybe in the USA, where it earned 67 % of what it made worldwide. It made only 33 % of it gross overseas. And you can’t ignore higher average ticket prices and inflation. I really doubt that it was so much more popular than older Star Trek movies in other countries.

I have the numbers of viewers in Germany for all Star Trek movies and Germany was usually the only non English speaking country, where Star Trek did relative well. Nevertheless the current Star Trek movie is only on place 35 in the charts from 2009.

Star Trek 1: 1.100.000 viewers + 835.000 East Germany
Star Trek 2: 500.000
Star Trek 3: 322.887
Star Trek 4: 509.933
Star Trek 5: 183.531
Star Trek 6: 532.132
Star Trek 7: 1.806.592
Star Trek 8: 2.415.883
Star Trek 9: 2.430.844
Star Trek 10: 1.274.837
Star Trek 11: 1.274.704

Star Trek 1 was the only Star Trek movie they showed in the cinemas of East Germany and there not until 1986. So the numbers for the other movies before reunification are only for West Germany.

All in all the new Star Trek movie got less viewers than five older Star Trek movies in Germany, even Nemesis was a tiny bit more successful! On the 7.February 2010 the viewers record of all movies which got in the cinemas in Germany in 2009, has by the way Ice Age 3 with 8.7 million viewers. Avatar had then 8.1 million viewers and has a good chance to surpass Ice Age 3. So much more viewers are possible in Germany. Even the movie on place 19 in the charts of 2009, got more than 2 million viewers.

Despite that pathetic numbers of viewers in Germany, Star Trek made 10 % of its foreign grosses alone in Germany.

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

Total foreign grosses: $128 million
UK + Ireland: 35 million
Australia: 12 million

Star Trek did very well in those three countries. All other foreign countries contributed together with $ 80 million to the total gross of Star Trek. For comparison Ice Age 3 made in Germany alone $ 82 million.

I think they really have to increase their promotion! A big blockbuster movie should do MUCH better.

171. dmduncan

“Yeah, I’m not sure where this idea of movies competing against one another as if we all only have $10 and can only see ONE great summer movie so make it count baby comes from.”

If you want to watch a movie at the weekend in 3D and if you buy a drink and popcorn, you have to pay at least in Germany much more than $ 10.

But I think the bigger problem is time. Most people don’t go tons of times to the cinema in a year, even if they like a lot of movies. They don’t have the time to do it or they simply don’t have the desire to go two times in the cinema in a short amount of time. There are a lot of people, who go in the cinema and then wait a month, two or more until they go again. There are a lot of other things you can undertake with friends. And it is not like they have to wait long until you can borrow the DVD. And a lot of people don’t mind to wait until they can watch it on TV. Most people are just not desperate to see a specific movie in the cinema.

So I think there is really a problem if too many good movies are in the cinemas at the same time. That doesn’t that Star Trek will be unsuccessful against Spider Man. But it could mean that it would have more success with weaker competition.

194. S. John Ross - February 12, 2010

#188 (and more): “You can just assume that what I said applies to the average sorts of enthusiastic but sane loyalty which fans demonstrate toward their fanchises (and franchoices), and which are not pathological.”

If so, then you described it incorrectly.

“It’s the nature of loyalty NOT to know first, so when you must know first it’s because loyalty (trust) is missing.”

That’s both incorrect and virtually a repeat of your prior error. It further (again) refuses to address the core point. Refer to my earlier post. Repeat as necessary.

“What’s to address? You can take my silence as agreement.”

That wouldn’t make much sense in context.

“The relevant difference between 3D and the move from silent to sound, from black and white to color, is that there have been no ARTISTIC innovations using 3D since it’s inception.”

This is officially the funniest thing on the Internet today, just barely edging out that video with the cat in.

195. pock speared - February 12, 2010

#193 mel
“People go in a Will Smith movie, because they expect a good quality movie.”

the wild wild west.

“people” will fall all over themselves to watch a train wreck. quality means nothing in ticket sales. i’ll spare you the examples.
A-list is an old concept. youtube has more stars than hollywood, you just don’t hear about them because you are OLD, like me.

196. dmduncan - February 12, 2010

@194: “You wrong me right” is not much of a counterargument to answer. I prefer facts, or at least a reasonable interpretation of what you perceive them to be.

“That’s both incorrect and virtually a repeat of your prior error.”

Great! I love it when someone can point out a mistake I made and teach me something I missed. Don’t leave me hanging bro! What’s the mistake?

“It further (again) refuses to address the core point.”

Oh no. I didn’t refuse to address it. I’m not interested in your “core” point. I was addressing a peripheral assertion for reasons which would TRULY be pointless to mention now.

“This is officially the funniest thing on the Internet today, just barely edging out that video with the cat in.”

Why is it funny? Better yet, please point out counter examples. I can point out examples showing the artistic evolution in the use of color. In fact I did. All you have to do is point out the same thing for the use of 3D.

One might be tempted to point out the advancement of polarized lenses over red and blue lenses, or the advancement of color over the weird bichromatic experience of watching The Creature From The Black Lagoon in 3D, which advancements are worthy of note, but which are more technical than artistic. No, I mean examples where some film MAKER has used that third dimension BY DESIGN in a way distinguishing from how it has been used before in the same way that films like Tucker (Coppola), The New World (Malick), and The Book of Eli (Hughes Bros.) are all in color and yet startlingly and INTENTIONALLY different from each other in how they look and in how that personal look that the filmmaker goes for affects us. That’s the difference between the use of film and the improvement of a technology.

3D by comparison is an off the shelf item. No custom alterations allowed. What is this 3D film messiah, whose imminent arrival some are awaiting, going to do with 3D that has never been done before to express his unique vision? Shove a spear in our faces further than one has ever been shoved before? Are we going to see a remake of No Country For Old Men with Javier Bardem’s replacement shooting a bolt from his terrible air gun straight at our faces?

197. dmduncan - February 12, 2010

And I emphasized the words BY DESIGN and INTENTIONALLY to distinguish between technologies sufficiently advance to permit artistic flexibility by different directors, from those technologies which are simply stuck at a certain level of development and which the directors have no power to change, i.e., the weird look of Creature From The Black Lagoon in 3D.

Just in case sumbudy was thinnin of misundastandin me.

198. dmduncan - February 12, 2010

And please, no tiresome confusions between James Cameron’s obviously wonderful and well funded imagination and how the 3D itself was used in Avatar. Because if the CGI wasn’t so good, the 3D wouldn’t have made it any better.

199. S. John Ross - February 12, 2010

@196: ““You wrong me right” is not much of a counterargument to answer.”

Likewise, hence my prior instruction that you “repeat as necessary.” This saves us both the tedium of re-exploring the circle. My prior posts contain a complete response outlining your error in explicit detail; revisit them as you like, or not, as you like.

“I’m not interested in your “core” point.”

Then don’t compound your intellectual dishonesty by addressing your posts to me.

200. Mel - February 12, 2010

195. pock speared

I meant “quality” in the sense that a movie is entertaining. And even Wild Wild West made $ 222 million, despite all its faults. And of course sometimes expectations can also be disappointed.

But there is a way to attract some new viewers, who otherwise often wouldn’t watch Star Trek. They just have to give someone a small guest role, who has a lot of fanatical fans who aren’t missing anything of their idol. For example Miley Cyrus, young actors from Twilight, High School Musical, Harry Potter or Bill Kaulitz from Tokio Hotel (has a lot of young fans in Europe). The problem of course could be, that people who don’t like them, could be discourage from watching Star Trek.

201. Captain Rickover - February 13, 2010

Don’t worry, Paramount.

Without Raimi and Maguire Spiderman 4 will be no danger for Trek.

202. Kirk, James T. - February 13, 2010

it’s pretty simple really – overseas, Star Trek still had a stigma, in the US Star Trek is part of the culture – Spock and Kirk are house-hold names. Like Doctor Who is for the UK, Star Trek is for the US – that being said – Star Trek is a multi-billion dollar franchise, it’s a business and should be doing as well if not better over-seas than in the US and Paramount should accept no less than success in foreign markets – Star Trek overseas was NOT a success story for the kind of movie it was.

Now weather or not the first movie has changed anything, i doubt it’s changed things enough for the sequel to do as well as a summer blockbuster should do.

the answer, simple – Star Wars – look at how that has now been embedded into a global culture – that is the dream for Star Trek and a dream that should become a reality!!!

203. pock speared - February 13, 2010

#200 mel

oddly, i did sort of enjoy WWW in a cringey way. but i’m all steampunk at heart. i meant that A-listers carry their own baggage and can derail a script for some. i just can’t look at will smith without seeing, uh, just will smith anymore. face fatigue, or something. i cease to entertained by characters who play themselves (like shatner has become, btw.).

and yes on your other point. i guess there is a new lower case a-list that works that way, and in fact it’s not unlike what j.j. has always done. cast the up&coming, etc.

dmduncan: have you considered consolidating your posts into a nice little book of trekmusings? your pov remains compelling, and you manage the sharks better than i can… cheers.

204. dmduncan - February 13, 2010

199: “Then don’t compound your intellectual dishonesty by addressing your posts to me.”

Ha! I’m a liar! If you want total control over who responds to what, of all the things you say, then you’d better create a forum populated entirely by avatars of yourself.

“My prior posts contain a complete response outlining your error in explicit detail; revisit them as you like, or not, as you like.”

Me like. 97, 126, 136, 156, 158, 165, 186, 187, 194. I’ve revisited them several times, and there’s nothing particularly hard to understand in any of them. There’s also nothing in them that outlines this vague error of mine you keep mentioning in “explicit detail.” That is, I do see a few claims that I am in error, but with no explanation following the claims. Now I can “repeat as necessary” as you suggest, but that would be as productive as a bald man washing his hair, i.e., the fifth washing will be no more “necessary” than the first.

I mean I HOPE you are not suggesting either that I don’t know what a continuum of loyalty is, or that my loyalties — if you will — are divided between two mutually exclusive alternative ideas, i.e., between a range of possibilities and an either or with nothing in between.

205. dmduncan - February 13, 2010

@203: Thanks Pock Speared. Much appreciated. Some only acknowledge my existence in here by refusing to acknowledge my existence after I’ve said something they don’t have a coherent response to. Thanks.

206. Anthony Pascale - February 13, 2010

RE: Overseas
It is an over simplification to say that Star Trek did well in the US, but poorly everywhere else. Firstly Domestic=USA and Canada, and it did well in both. It also did well in the other English speaking countries: UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. In all those markets, Star Trek could be considered a ‘hit’ movie, and performance was close if not the same in the USA relative to other films.

see this article for more:
http://trekmovie.com/2009/10/05/star-trek-finishes-theatrical-run-with-385m-full-box-office-analysis/

With the exception of Germany, Trek’s traditional weakness has the non English-speaking world. That being said a modest improvement in continental Europe, Asia and/or Latin America could easily have pushed ST2009 over the $400M mark or even the $500m mark. Abrams and Paramount are hoping that people in these markets who discounted Trek first time around will see it before 2012 (rented or possibly on TV) and it will change their preconceived notions.

207. Matt - February 14, 2010

Why would a majority not want the next Trek in 3D? There’s no downside to it, it’s something new for Star Trek and it can only help the film make more money, thus ensuring even more films.

I for one am sure they are going to do it. After Avatar, they know they want it.

208. somethoughts - February 14, 2010

#207

I agree, can see them using Avatars technology for creating future earth, vulcan or another alien home worl and even perhaps aliens.

For the traditionalists there will always be the normal 2D version and for the folks who don’t mind spending a few more dollars and wearing glasses in a theatre, it’s a win win.

209. Red Skirt - February 14, 2010

There seems to be some fundamental confusion about the purpose of sound and color in film. And further what constitutes artistry.

Sound and color were_not_added to film as a form of artistic expression. Can they be? Sure, as almost anything we take for granted in the world can be artistically manipulated.

But, sound was added to film, so we could hear what was happening, to bring it closer to reality, where we hear the things we see. In fact “artists” wanted nothing to do with the “novelty” of sound as they feared all that dialogue would distract from the visual artistry. Likewise for color. The world is in color. Why wouldn’t we want our movies to be? The artists again complained it detracted from the composition of light and shadow and rejected it because it made films too “real”. Then, only 30 years after sound was added to film, somebody got the bright idea to add stereo, because we hear in stereo and things sound better that way. And so it only took 60 years to get popular dramatic entertainment back to the same sight and sound experience stage plays were at the turn of the 20th century. Oh, but wait, that’s not the same. There’s no depth. Wonder how they’ll tackle that one? Oh, right 3D. So it’s only taken 100 years to get back to the same basic sensory experience people have had since they began dramatically entertaining each other – stereophonic sound synchronized with stereoscopic color images.

But simply because someone doesn’t necessarily see any artistry in 3D doesn’t mean there can’t be, or isn’t. Hollywood has produced more films that merely posses sound and color than those which actually make an artistic statement with them. But so what? One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. If no one ever does anything “artistic” with 3D, that does not negate it as a valid aspect of film making, any more than failing to exploit sound and color “artistically” within a film.

Besides, what constitutes an artistic choice is highly subjective. One could argue that in sound mixing, deciding what ambient noises to place in the background of a scene is art, even if it is only to re-create the noise that was present when the scene was actually recorded. How then, is deciding which objects are to penetrate the 3D threshold any less artistic? Why is colorizing a coat red in Schindler’s List so “artistic”, and not a “gimmick” then? Or for that matter simply slapping a red filter over a lens and shooting an entire movie that way? Moreover, why does 3D only have to launch objects from the screen? That’s just an uninspired imagination. More can, and has been done with it.

I’m just not sure what the objection here is to 3D as a legitimate part of filmmaking. Its evolution is certainly in line with historical technical developments of the other basic properties of film, and certainly has been used artistically, and has undeniable artistic potential. Whether the uses to date fit an individual’s perceptions of art is irrelevant. It fits the definition. Moreover, there is historical precedent of the desire to create and view images in 3D all the way back to early 1900s with the advent of photography. If history is any indication, 3D is not going to go away. If anything, like the other elements of cinema, the technology will continue to improve and filmmakers will continue to explore its potential until all but the “art” films will be in 3D. Like it or not. And like it or not, Cameron seems to be the director who has turned that corner, whether one appreciates his artistry or not.

210. Kirk, James T. - February 14, 2010

206: Anthony, RE Overseas,

Whilst i agree with what you have said for the most part, i hope that Paramount do more than pray for the non-english speaking countries to watch Star Trek before 2012 – even if they do watch it, theres nothing to say that they’ll like it.

I was talking to a mate of mine who’s a huge Marvel fan and come hell or high water will go see Spidey at the cinema – even if it’s crap – i think it will all come down to who has the bigger fan-base, SPider-Man or Star Trek; if Trek is knocked off the top spot with 4 days then that will be quite a bit of a disaster for Trek’s long term reputation with the fickle mainstream audience.

211. John in Canada, eh? - February 15, 2010

So… new Spiderman film focuses not on ‘villain fighting,’ but on ‘teenage angst’. And for that they break out the 3-D. Yay.

Trek will win this Box Office showdown.

212. dmduncan - February 15, 2010

209: “Hollywood has produced more films that merely posses sound and color than those which actually make an artistic statement with them.”

That is very true. Most films do not. However, the point is not how a particular filmmaker decides to use sound and color but the creative possibilities that sound and color offer and which I am suggesting are not as available for (current) 3D. Whether any given director chooses to explore those possibilities is a different question from whether they have possibilities to explore.

I won’t say 3D has no possibilities because I can imagine using it in limited ways, but ways which current technology will not yet allow.

But if we get to the point of plugging into 4D virtual realities, all bets are off. That would probably be more powerful and more prone to abuse than any drug on the planet, and movies, 3D or 2D, probably won’t matter much to people obsessed with full immersion experiences then.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.