Interesting quote from Simon Pegg about Paramount

[Galactus]

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.

“’Avengers Assemble’, which is a pretty nerdy, comic-book, supposedly niche thing, made $1.5bn dollars. ‘Star Trek: Into Darkness’ made half a billion, which is still brilliant.

“But it means that, according to the studio, there’s still $1bn worth of box office that don’t go and see ‘Star Trek’. And they want to know why.”

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?

[Candy Kappa]

Too "Star trek-y"...

oh, lords.

[TheSkeletonMan939]

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

[plastroncafe]

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.

[IndigoErth]

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. 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.)

[Candy Kappa]

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

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

[Sabacooza]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

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.)

I have seen it and I can confirm this.

[TigerClaw]

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.

[IndigoErth]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

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.

[Candy Kappa]

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.

[TigerClaw]

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.

[TrickOrTreater]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

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.

[Commenter 42]

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

[TigerClaw]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

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.

[Shark_Blade]

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.

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.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Shark_Blade

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.

Well, it happens for some of us.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

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.

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.

[Xiewin]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

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.

[Sarigar]

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.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Xiewin

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

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