Interesting quote from Simon Pegg about Paramount
 

So the script for Star Trek 3 which Simon Pegg was involved in writing had feedback from Paramount that it was too 'Star Trek-y' he had an interesting thing to say about how Paramount viewed Star Trek: Into Darkness.

Considering that TMNT '14 like Into Darkness grossed under half a billion do you think that Paramount is looking quite deeply about what went "wrong" with TMNT?

To wear my earnest hat for hat for a moment I think expecting either movie to do the same as Avengers is an unrealistic expectation. Avengers had a number of movies preceding made as quasi-commercials to hype people for it. Guardians of the Galaxy tapped into that to some extent also.

But since Paramount view half a billion as underwhelming how will they view TMNT's level of success? I've said before I believe going with a cheaper director known for making the most of a small budget and using a script they were never fully on board with but ended up buying is signs of belt tightening but what will they do about tone?

You might think they'll try and emulate the movies of the Marvel Cinematic Universe which would be better but as I've said a lot of their main selling point lies in their shared universe, something which doesn't really apply to TMNT and I'm not sure they get the other reasons Marvel movies work.

The other possibility is they try and emulate (even more) their own billion dollar movie series Transformers. Even with that series experiencing a commercial decline I can still see them going in that direction. So what do you think?

Too "Star trek-y"...

oh, lords.

Didn't see the Star Trek remake films, but they didn't look "Star Trek-y" at all.

They "looked" Star Trekky, but they weren't actually Star Trek, and honestly...that was the problem.

People are going out in droves to see the new Mad Max, not because there's suddenly a HUGE fanbase for post apocalyptic car movies, but because it's a movie that does what it does, and does it well.

(Or so I'm told, I haven't seen it yet.)

The Star Trek reboots look good, but they don't have a whole lot of soul to them. People aren't die hard Trekkers just because they like space, but because they found something in the characters that resonated with them. There were stories that made them think and view the world around them in a different way.

Avengers at least had that first part going for it, the new Trek Movies...well...they looked good.

If anyone in there has even once thought "too Ninja Turtley," they deserve a boot to the face.

I can't say I know a thing about the financial business of the box office and film making, but if they look at one movie that made 1 billion and another that made 1/2 billion and decide that something went 'wrong,' that it missed a half billion it was owed... they're idiots. Sure, part of their job may be to consider what will get people there to see it and maybe they'll wonder what they can improve to increase sales (and probably choose all very stupid reasons because they know close to zero about the true audience), but people aren't flipping robots that show up to hand you money just because you made a movie. :roll: No one owes you a cent for making a film.

Maybe it's a slow month and people are putting their money elsewhere? Maybe it just has more of a niche audience than another film does. Maybe it has a niche audience and you completely ignored that fact and tried to appeal to people who otherwise aren't usually interested in the general topic/franchise/characters. (Example: you could - to do a reverse of the usual "sex sells" plot - do a Power Rangers movie with a bunch of super hot guys casted in an attempt to draw female viewers... but guess what, I'm not interested in Power Rangers so I'm probably not going to see it.)

I'd imagine the script wasn't dumbed down enough for Paramount's taste. :roll:

The first one was alright, have not seen into darkness, don't plan to either.

I have seen it and I can confirm this.:D

This is interesting because, Paramount wants a piece of that Marvel Studios pie, By hiring a team of writers, To make a Transformers Cinematic Universe of some sort.

They want some of that Marvel level of money.

As for being to Star Trek-y, They want films to cater to the average moviegoer, Not the Star Trek fanbase.

Which is pretty misguided thinking imo. Fail the fanbase to instead try to appeal to people who have no interest in Star Trek and probably won't go.

That's like putting football players (American) in tennis outfits, change the scoring, and making the ball checkered in black and white, because you want to appeal to a wider sports audience.

Or make expensive car brands look cheap, because you think it will appeal to people who buy only cheap cars.

:roll:

I'd imagine a good story mixed with great Vidal would reel in "anyone".

Maybe Paramount just isn't fit to make a Star Trek movie, it's not in their skillset.

The problem with Star Trek is that, Its more suited for TV then the movies, in TV they can do all sorts of things, But at the movies, They are only given 2 hours and 2 hours is not enough to tell a back story, Which is why TV works better, It takes several episodes to tell a whole back story.

With TMNT, The show has a whole lot of back stories for many of the characters, Trying to cram all that into a 2 hour movie is difficult.

You know who needed backstory delved into in BayTurtles?

Not April.

Maybe they should have eschewed making the movie about her and instead focused on, I don't know, Hamato Yoshi/Oroku Saki/The Ninja Turtles.

That might have helped A LOT.

The executives see film as a formula, and think that testing makes things better.

No, paramount wasn't disappointed with Turtles, quite the opposite. They feel like, in-spite of how terrible the film was, it made bank.

It made money in-spite of itself. It told them that the audience that went to see TMNT, were willing to watch anything TMNT, so they should do a second film, give it a little more gas (more money, characters etc), and reap the rewards.

It's changing, but the prevailing attitude in hollywood is that comicbook films are niche, and in order to make them palatable to the wider audience, it needs to be less comic-booky, more filmic.

But we all know this. We all know and say the same things repeatedly, and nothing changes.

This is why it's about time we do something about it.

#haltandcatchfire

Which is why Warner Bros wants there DC comic book movies, to not feel like comic book movies at all.

Which is why they hire directors, and let them do whatever they want with there comic book properties.

So they're aiming for one full billion dollar for TMNT. That's good.

Not sure how they're gonna execute that, hope nothing too drastic. But it's good they're concentrating on the franchise. :tlove:

Offtopic, I'v seen 2 of the reboot Star Trek movies and it isn't really my thing. Spock is entertaining but that Kirk is annoying. Why the heck is that woman suddenly stripping down to her undies in front of Kirk?? xD So out of the blue, no context or anything just wtf. Thank God for Benedict Cumberbatch in the second film, I'm probably biased cause I'm a Sherlock fan. The past Star Trek films and tv shows, I haven't really seen.

Well, it happens for some of us.

What the hell is your point? Suggesting DC knows how to make great comic book movies is the most absurd thing you could have gone with. Paramount didn't compare their New Treks to DC, the compared it to Marvel.

Then again, I'm sure you loved MOS, and Nolan's bunch of crap.

There's no accounting for taste I suppose.

Too bad I liked MOS and both of Nolan's Batman films.

What Marvel does well and what the masses response to is "smart"' fun, action films that are pure escapist entertainment. On top of that, they mostly respect they source material. DC gets whacked by being too dark, right or wrong, because the action isn't " fun" its considered dour. I personally like both. The bottom line is that films that make these piles of money are ACTION films at their heart, EVENT films that swing for the fences, don't any pull punches, etc.The balance between doing that and having a coherent plot and characters you care about is what generates big box office.

A) Nolan made three "batman" films.

B) That's cool you liked those films. I guarantee when you go back and re watch them, in time, you'll see why they don't work.

Reeve>Cavill

Donner>Snyder

Actually, it works that way in reverse with me for Batman Begins and Man of Steel. Those two get better. Seriously. It's the little stuff.

Rises pretty much falls apart, though, I'll admit that. That movie is nowhere near as fun without a packed theater of nerds on opening night. It's kind of a huge mess.

You know I completely disagree with you.

Neither film adheres to the tenants of the central character, and birthright is not a propper defense.

Beyond that, both are very sloppy films, no matter how you slice it.
And now that Nolan fever has subsided, his disciples are slowly sobering up.

You can seriously drive a semi side-ways through the damn plot holes.

Some of the best movies ever made have plot holes. I've watched the Nolan Batman films quite a few times, and if they're a total mess, they're a really consistent and well orchestrated mess.

People rarely like or dislike movies objectively, so you'll have a hard time convincing someone that they don't really like a movie they really like.

Nolan tried to make a good movie, that's the thing. Bay and his producers? They're just in it for the cash cow.

Cameo April in "Captain America-3"? :D:D:D



(sorry, please move to another topic)

Lol she does look like April. :tlol:

ughh
 

The dark night rises is hands down one of the worst films i've ever seen. Almost literally everyone left before the movie was over, but i was like i paid for this ***t i'm gonna watch the whole thing.

People seem to forget that the movie business is a BUSINESS first and formost. Of course they want to make a **** tonne of money. They will try to, and continue to, appeal to the broadest of audiences. And with a franchise such as this with lucritive merchandising and tie-ins, they will do what THEY feel will make them the most money. It's not about US. We will NEVER get the 50mil budgeted arthouse version of the Mirage comic unless it's a fan-made, fan bankrolled film. There's too much money out there for the studio to make otherwise. If anything you're better off wishing the PD movies make them their crap tonne of money so they drive them into the ground and then they can get to work eventual reboot. They know for a fact that quality doesn't equate $$.

TDKR is one of the few movies I have no desire to re-watch. I wouldn't say it's the worst movie ever made, but it definitly gets by on some the merits of the preceeding flicks.

Too Star Trekky...

#1) That sentiment is exactly why I don't allow Abrams to earn one damn penny from me for what he's done to Star Trek. :flaming:
#2) Because 2009 and "Into Darkness" were SO Star Trekky. :flaming:

Probably. Which they should, but not for that reason.

IMO, this is the problem with a lot of Hollywood thinking, which is the same kind of thinking that made a mess of BayTurtles in the first place - totally refusing to see that not every "blockbuster" movie is or should be the same, they don't all have the same audience, or even the same audience size necessarily. They're so busy trying to chase and emulate the current big success story that all of their properties are becoming more generic, getting their edges shaved off to fit neatly into some made-up template they think will make them the most possible money. That's why a Ninja Turtles movie ended up with copied plot elements from The Amazing Spider-Man and a generic Secret Evil Businessman for a villain, cribbed from any number of recent blockbusters. It had no identity and no soul because it was a carbon copy of the current blockbuster landscape.

If instead they owned the strengths of their properties and just tried to make the best movies possible, they'd be way more likely to make a real impression and get some "surprise" hits that get people talking and aren't forgotten about by the general public by the end of the year. That's how you build a brand that lasts. Guardians of the Galaxy did that. Mad Max: Fury Road is doing that. And people are going to remember those movies with love and reverence for decades to come.

I think your belief in thinking that there’s anything in common between the two scenarios is off, TBH. The first Star Trek (2009) was met with glowing reviews and audiences seemed to like it. Paramount had high hopes for the sequel for those very reasons. They had the same director, the same writers and the same stars. The fact that it didn’t make much more than the first film is quite strange, and I’m sure raised a lot of questions. Into Darkness should have made quite a bit more than it did, it’s as simple as that. The overseas takings should have jumped a lot further than they did, although ST has traditionally struggled overseas.

TMNT was different. It was pretty much trashed by critics from the get-go, although audiences seemed to like it. However, TMNT also had a smaller budget. I doubt very much that Paramount will increase the budget for TMNT 2, unlike what they did for Into Darkness, which cost about 50 million more than the first film. Do you think they’ll give the new director, who is completely unproven, a bigger budget than Jonathan Liebesman, who had much more under his belt? So their expectations for TMNT 2’s final gross are probably just a little over the first film, especially the overseas gross. Not by much, though. If it makes pretty much the same I think Paramount will see that as a job well done. Unlike with Into Darkness, I very much doubt they’re going to be expecting a great leap in the final gross.

With TMNT 2 having Bebop and Rocksteady, and possibly Krang, Paramount seems to be throwing more money at it this time.

There's zero proof of that, until we see a confirmed budget.

Liebesman himself said that the reason why there weren't more Turtles stuff in the first movie was because it cost too much.

Even with a Ninja Turtles movie starring Megan Fox, Paramount still made a profit.

That proved to them that the mere promise of cg Turtles being in it was enough to get people into the theater, and it made them a profit.

The budget will be either exactly the same or a little bit more either way. And we'll get more of the same. Concentration on the cheaper to film human characters with occasional cameos from the more expensive to film cg characters.

Like I said, They are throwing in more money so that they can have more CGI characters on screen, Hence why we are getting Bebop, Rocksteady and Krang.

And with that, Maybe a 2 hour runtime.

ehhhhh.... probably not, atleast no more than they 'need' to. I'd love to be proven wrong once the facts roll in. Granted, some savings will come from them already having the tech worked out for the Turtles, but I wouldn't put too much stock into 'they're adding more characters which means bigger budget/longer runtime' until we see something that proves that.

Can't believe I'm agreeing with Trick, but I'm coming around to thinking that the Turtles will probably have even less screen time than the last one. Kinda like the villians in Batman overshadowing the Bat himself. :(

smh gotta love studio execs.. all they know, all they see is $$$$

the Marvel Cinematic Universe is one of a kind.. its based off of several years of comic book storytelling that established a shared universe decades ago..not everyone can just go and pull that off..

you can't just go and combine ET with Back to the Future and Bill and Ted with Waynes World and just say.. oh yeah, we meant to tell you back in 89 that they're all part of a shared universe (dont get me wrong, that'd be kind of amazing) but still..

Oh, if only. She'd be an great April, especially with the "April is the main character" approach PD have done in the first movie.

And then the money is probably also going into them, not the Turtles. Because not only are there the costs to adding them on screen, but there's all the costs of getting them created, etc beforehand.

Add in the Turtles, Splinter, and no doubt Shreddertron... If they thought last time it was too expensive to put the Turtles on screen more, then wtf do they think they're going to do this time.

If the Turtles get more screen time and the film is actually from their perspective it will be a cinematic miracle.

Me, watching this POS, will be a cinematic miracle.

It won't be.