Home Forum Columns Galleries Archives About

It is currently Sat Sep 20, 2014 10:16 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
PostPosted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:44 pm 
User avatar
Editor Emeritus of SDCC
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 22684
Location: San Diego, California
Starships Clash on the Star Trek Into Darkness IMAX Poster

by SuperHeroHype

April 30, 2013

The IMAX poster for J.J. Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness is now online and it shows off the film's Dreadnought-class warship (mentioned in our CinemaCon writeup) exchanging fire with the U.S.S. Enterprise. Check it out below!

Star Trek Into Darkness opens in IMAX theaters domestically on May 15 before expanding to conventional theaters on May 17. The film also stars Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, Anton Yelchin, Bruce Greenwood, Benedict Cumberbatch, Alice Eve, John Cho and Peter Weller.

In the wake of a shocking act of terror from within their own organization, the crew of The Enterprise is called back home to Earth. In defiance of regulations and with a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads his crew on a manhunt to capture an unstoppable force of destruction and bring those responsible to justice. As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 1:04 pm 
User avatar
Editor Emeritus of SDCC
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 22684
Location: San Diego, California


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2013 5:26 am 
User avatar
Editor Emeritus of SDCC
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 22684
Location: San Diego, California


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 1:41 pm 
User avatar
Editor Emeritus of SDCC
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 22684
Location: San Diego, California
Behind-the-Scenes Look at Carol Marcus and Sulu in Star Trek Into Darkness

by SuperHeroHype

May 07, 2013

The viral marketing site AreYouThe1701.com has revealed two behind-the-scenes looks at Alice Eve's Carol Marcus and John Cho's Mr. Sulu in the upcoming Star Trek Into Darkness. Check out the videos below.

Opening in IMAX theaters on May 15 before expanding to conventional theaters on May 17, the anticipated film stars Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, John Cho, Bruce Greenwood, Simon Pegg, Anton Yelchin, Benedict Cumberbatch, Alice Eve and Peter Weller.





Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 1:18 pm 
User avatar
Editor Emeritus of SDCC
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 22684
Location: San Diego, California
Star Trek Into Darkness Reveals New Stills and a Featurette

by SuperHeroHype

May 08, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness' viral site, AreYouThe1701.com, has revealed two new stills from the upcoming J.J. Abrams sequel along with a featurette that includes insight from Abrams himself. Check it all out below!



Image Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 5:41 pm 
User avatar
Editor Emeritus of SDCC
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 22684
Location: San Diego, California


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 11:31 am 
User avatar
Editor Emeritus of SDCC
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 22684
Location: San Diego, California
Box Office Results: Star Trek into Darkness Opens with $84 Million Domestic

Source: ComingSoon

May 19, 2013

The ComingSoon.net Box Office Report has been updated with studio estimates for the weekend. Click here for the full box office estimates of the top 12 films and then check back on Monday for the final figures based on actual box office.

After opening with $31.7 million internationally last week, J.J. Abrams' sci-fi sequel Star Trek into Darkness, featuring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, John Cho, Simon Pegg and more as the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise and Benedict Cumberbatch as their latest adversary, opened on Thursday in North America. After making roughly $13.5 million in its opening day, it went on to gross an estimated $70.4 million over the weekend. That $83.9 million made over four days is only slightly more than the $79 million the original movie made in its first three days.

That might seem somewhat disconcerting for a movie that at one point was thought to be one of the $100 million openers of the summer, although it's been doing great international business. So far it's grossed $80.5 million international playing in 40 markets which is up almost 80% from the first movie and it's doing 33% better than the reboot with a worldwide total now at $164.5 million. Of its $70.5 million "Star Trek" made this weekend, $13.5 million of that came from 336 IMAX theaters with the draw of Abrams having shot over 30 minutes of footage using IMAX cameras something that's only been done by Christopher Nolan for the "Dark Knight" movies and Brad Bird for Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol.

As has become the tradition for the summer of 2013, Universal Pictures' Fast and Furious 6 opened a week earlier internationally than its domestic release, opening in the UK and Ireland (where the movie takes place) and grossing roughly $13.8 million in 460 theaters, making it Universal's biggest opening in those two territories even over last year's Les Miserables. It opened bigger than last week's Star Trek into Darkness but less than the previous week's Iron Man 3 opening. Fast and Furious 6 opens in North America and 59 other territories this coming Friday.

Marvel Studios' Iron Man 3, starring Robert Downey Jr., crossed the $300 million mark domestically on Thursday and then added another $35.2 million over the weekend, down another 52% from the previous weekend. Then again, it's grossed $337 domestically and it just passed the ONE BILLION mark worldwide. It grossed another $40.2 million internationally where it's generally holding stronger and where the $736.2 million grossed internationally has helped bring it to $1073 million since opening last month.

Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton, Isla Fisher and Jason Clarke, dropped to third place with $23.4 million, down 53% from its impressive opening weekend. It has grossed $90.2 million domestically, Baz's best showing in North America so far.

Only one other movie grossed more than $3 million this weekend and that was Michael Bay's Pain & Gain (Paramount) with $3.1 million, having grossed $46.6 million since opening a month ago.

Basically, the rest of the Top 9 went as follows with DreamWorks Animations' The Croods, the Jackie Robinson biopic 42 (Warner Bros.), Tom Cruise's Oblivion (Universal), Jeff Nichols' Mud (Roadside Attractions) and Peeples all grossing between $2.1 and 2.8 million. You can check out the chart for total grosses.

The Top 10 grossed an estimated $145 million which was up 8% from last year when Peter Berg's Battleship and Sacha Baron Cohen's The Dictator both disappointed with $25.5 million and $17.4 million respectively.

Noah Baumbach's new movie Frances Ha (IFC Films), starring and co-written by Greta Gerwig, opened in four theaters in New York and Los Angeles where it brought in $135 thousand.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 2:15 pm 
User avatar
Santos L. Halper
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 1448
Guys - get off your rear and go see this one! It's brilliant! Absolutely brillant!!

Spoiler: show
Seeing Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan is not necessary, but will enhance the experience!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2013 1:11 am 
there were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 1843
I really liked it too. My two main complaints are

Spoiler: show
The guy they got to play Khan was terrible. There is no way I can believe he is the same character from the original series. Why did they have to go with a white guy? And since when does Khan have a British accent?

The Klingons sucked. Aside from voilating continuity set up by Deep Space Nine and Enterprise the make-up job was outright repulsive. I nearly lost my lunch.

Other than that the movie was great. Leonard Nimoy! Section 31! Mickey Smith! Peter Weller kicking ass in the name of Peter Weller!


By the way the expectations for the movie to do better than it did were ridiculous. Before the first reboot, the highest grossing Trek film (First Contact) did about $140 domestic (I think). And that's peanuts compared to where this film's total will probably wind up being. I think people need to get it out of their heads that a $80 Million opening weekend gross is anything but fantastic for a Trek picture. Because let's face it. It IS a Star Trek picture with a built in ceiling of how many people will see it, whether J.J. Abrams is involved or not.

_________________
"I'm not Smiley! I'm a real cow! Mooooo! Think I'll chew me some cud!" - Smiley Bone a.k.a. The Mystery Cow.

"I knew we'd made a mistake the minute I saw that little bologna loaf in the hospital bassinet." - Calvin's Dad.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2013 5:25 am 
User avatar
Santos L. Halper
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 1448
Fone Bone wrote:
I really liked it too. My two main complaints are

Spoiler: show
The guy they got to play Khan was terrible. There is no way I can believe he is the same character from the original series. Why did they have to go with a white guy? And since when does Khan have a British accent?

The Klingons sucked. Aside from voilating continuity set up by Deep Space Nine and Enterprise the make-up job was outright repulsive. I nearly lost my lunch.

Other than that the movie was great. Leonard Nimoy! Section 31! Mickey Smith! Peter Weller kicking ass in the name of Peter Weller!


By the way the expectations for the movie to do better than it did were ridiculous. Before the first reboot, the highest grossing Trek film (First Contact) did about $140 domestic (I think). And that's peanuts compared to where this film's total will probably wind up being. I think people need to get it out of their heads that a $80 Million opening weekend gross is anything but fantastic for a Trek picture. Because let's face it. It IS a Star Trek picture with a built in ceiling of how many people will see it, whether J.J. Abrams is involved or not.


Fone - two things about your compliants:

Spoiler: show
Your compliants were my only compliants about the movie too.

I agree, Khan should have looked the same as in Space Seed and Wrath of Khan. Obviously, we don't have Ricardo Montalban anymore, but I think a great way around this would have been to show a scene with Marcus finding Khan and CGI Montalban in the tube. Then perhaps Star Fleet altered Khan's face to hide his origin, hence you get the new actor. I think that would have been better continuity wise. Maybe Abrams tried that and there was an issue with Montalban's estate?

Regarding the Klingons, since this is a new alternate reality, perhaps the experiment that caused their deformation occurred a lot sooner in this reality than in the previous one? i agree - it would have been nice to have explained that a little bit. A couple of lines of diaolgue would have sufficed.

Despite this, I still though it was a great movie.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2013 9:38 am 
User avatar
3 3/4"
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:14 am
Posts: 638
Location: The cultural wasteland of Miami, FL
Fone Bone wrote:
I really liked it too. My two main complaints are

Spoiler: show
The guy they got to play Khan was terrible. There is no way I can believe he is the same character from the original series. Why did they have to go with a white guy? And since when does Khan have a British accent?

The Klingons sucked. Aside from voilating continuity set up by Deep Space Nine and Enterprise the make-up job was outright repulsive. I nearly lost my lunch.

Other than that the movie was great. Leonard Nimoy! Section 31! Mickey Smith! Peter Weller kicking ass in the name of Peter Weller!


By the way the expectations for the movie to do better than it did were ridiculous. Before the first reboot, the highest grossing Trek film (First Contact) did about $140 domestic (I think). And that's peanuts compared to where this film's total will probably wind up being. I think people need to get it out of their heads that a $80 Million opening weekend gross is anything but fantastic for a Trek picture. Because let's face it. It IS a Star Trek picture with a built in ceiling of how many people will see it, whether J.J. Abrams is involved or not.


First Contact did $140 million worldwide; domestic take was around $90 million. Don't know what the inflation adjusted numbers are. The first Abrams Trek did have a wider penetration beyond the Trek fans so it was a safe bet it would continue. The movie has good word of mouth so they'll probably equal, or get close, to what the first one did domestically with a much stronger international take. They were hoping for a Batman Begins to Dark Knight-like jump but it was probably unrealistic. There wasn't any additional buzz for the movie like there was for Dark Knight. The movie's doing very well. Trek is still more relevant now than it was. It's fine.

As for your complaints:

Spoiler: show
Since when does Khan have to have a latin accent either? He was supposed to be a Sikh. Benedict Cumberbatch was great for this movie and I don't have too much of a problem with it. Imagine him with a pony tail and a red jumpsuit and all is fine. Ricardo Montalban was pretty white too. Also his accent, while primarily English, was a bit weird. I think he tried to do something with it but he had a great presence. To each their own.

As for the Klingons, I don't think the previous canon ever suggested that ALL Klingons were to be forehead-less. The Enterprise episode never specifically stated that the whole population was affected. DS9 never gave a reason either. I didn't mind the Abrams-verse take.

_________________
When you don't know what you really want, you end up with a lot you don't.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2013 4:42 pm 
there were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 1843
Krypton1976 wrote:
Fone - two things about your compliants:

Spoiler: show
Your compliants were my only compliants about the movie too.

I agree, Khan should have looked the same as in Space Seed and Wrath of Khan. Obviously, we don't have Ricardo Montalban anymore, but I think a great way around this would have been to show a scene with Marcus finding Khan and CGI Montalban in the tube. Then perhaps Star Fleet altered Khan's face to hide his origin, hence you get the new actor. I think that would have been better continuity wise. Maybe Abrams tried that and there was an issue with Montalban's estate?

Regarding the Klingons, since this is a new alternate reality, perhaps the experiment that caused their deformation occurred a lot sooner in this reality than in the previous one? i agree - it would have been nice to have explained that a little bit. A couple of lines of diaolgue would have sufficed.

Despite this, I still though it was a great movie.

Spoiler: show
I don't even think they needed a CGI Khan They could have had a scene where either Kirk of Spock expresses skepticism that this was the real Khan because he looked nothing like history showed and THEN have Khan explain about the cosmetic surgery to hide his real identity. Those couple of extra lines should have been in the scene where Khan tells them who he is.

I don't even know why the Klingons were even in the movie. They added absolutely nothing. If they HAD to be there Abrams should have just made the the human kind or just have them never take off their helmets. Although Uncle Marsellus' explanation makes about as much sense as any it doesn't explain the hideous new make-up that made the Klingon look like a lizard.

_________________
"I'm not Smiley! I'm a real cow! Mooooo! Think I'll chew me some cud!" - Smiley Bone a.k.a. The Mystery Cow.

"I knew we'd made a mistake the minute I saw that little bologna loaf in the hospital bassinet." - Calvin's Dad.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 7:37 pm 
Wonderdog
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 717
Are there no toys for this movie?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2013 2:46 am 
User avatar
Loose, Missing Package
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 10508
Location: Cox's Creek, KY
scottbernard wrote:
Are there no toys for this movie?


Kre-Os seem to be it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Star Trek Into Darkness
PostPosted: Tue May 28, 2013 11:51 am 
Still ahead of Mudd
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 6190
Location: Shelbyville, KY
There are also Fighter Pods and Mini Mates

_________________
Fastest know derailer of threads in the know universe...expanded or otherwise.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Copyright © www.actionfigureinsider.com


[ Time : 0.068s | 10 Queries | GZIP : Off ]