Sweet mother of all that's holy:
http://www.cinescape.com/0/editoria...tion=page&type_id=&cat_id=270338&obj_id=51139
:banned:
http://www.cinescape.com/0/editoria...tion=page&type_id=&cat_id=270338&obj_id=51139
:banned:
Affleck -- as Kirk?
- Thread starter David Jimerson
- Start date
Mark Harris
Pain in the ass
No no no!!!! Russell Crow!!!!!
mikkowilson
Steadi-Guru
NOOOOOO!!!!
- Mikko
oneinfiniteloop
Veteran
That is something I NEVER thought I would read!
HorseFilms
Look ma no hands
Why are they doing this to me?:furious3:
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
where does the informant say he'd be playing Kirk? it says "lead" role and JJ Abrams just denied reports that young Kirk and young Spock were the main characters in the story.
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
Ahhhhh!!!!
cygnet74 said:
It hardly matters. Affleck in Trek?
NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Why do they keep making Star Trek films ?
From what I can tell, they've lost 35 yards on the last three and are looking to punt from the opposing 15.
despite the last two or so its the second most profitible franchise after JamesbondJohn_Hudson said:
http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/va/20060421/114561441400.html
I'm not jazzed bout this and had the same NOOOOOOOOOO reaction as most of you
...
but
...
SHATNER = Not a Joke, Then a Joke, Then a Bigger Joke, Then Sort of Not a Joke, Now not so much of a Joke due to self parody etc, and sometimes doughy and sometimes not.
AFFLECK= Not a Joke, THen a Joke, Then a Bigger Joke, and sometimes doughy and sometimes not.
maybe there's something sort of right about it????????????
:cheesy: I'm just sayin is all ...
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
They should let you Direct the next one
good point, lolJohn_Hudson said:
no way I would touch that powder keg!
My vote would be raimey ... he'd respect the fan's view point (so that'd be the end of Affleck I guess) and he would make sure the story was good and then treat it like a real movie - not just a genre toss off.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Check your facts Jack!
I think they're referring to the number of films made.
And if you make 10 of em your bound to land in the Top somewhere
Star Wars 7
US $2,190,997,096 $4,344,052,628
James Bond 21
US $1,272,777,099
INT $3,958,127,960
Harry Potter 4
US $1,119,068,220
INT $3,538,249,581
Lord of the Rings 4
US $1,059,649,279
INT $2,948,001,970
Batman 6
US $916,340,031
INT $1,645,743,975
Spider-Man 2
US $777,230,860
INT $1,605,624,485
Jurassic Park 3
US $767,320,741
INT $2,072,686,679
Star Trek 10
US $756,595,859
INT $1,078,012,826
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
I would love to direct the next Star Trek movie... I wouldn't make a prequel though.
mikkowilson
Steadi-Guru
LOTR 4?
- Mikko
- Mikko
EDIT: yeah I misquotedJohn_Hudson said:
should have said "most durable"
rather than purely "most profitable"
which is what the article I cited was saying
obviously I knew without looking that star wars and jurrasic park and LOTR had gossed more
but that does not mean they are more PRPOFITABLE as in what the cost vs. the return
I don't have those figures but it would be interestiing to look at of anyone wants to dig that up
exactly .. but like all things its cost to return tooJohn_Hudson said:
Star Trek movies and James Bond are much cheaper to make than Star Wars or Jurrasic Park ... Just like Pauly Shore could have gone on making flicks indefinately because his films cost what? -like a million to 8 million? and would make what? - like 20-30 million?
Spending less per film and making more films also helps maximize profit because you get the same audience members back again to see the next film (trekkies, trekkers, whatever).
Last edited: