^^

MI3 was such a disappointment that paramount did not greenlight the 4th film. It grossed below 1st one even though it opened 10 years later and to a empty marketplace. Its OS performance was decent but with TC eating most of the money it was a financial disappointment for the studio.

I think you'll agree that Wall-E went for a entire different audience than Avatar/Final Fantasy will/did. I'm thinking it'll be the opposite of what you said. 150-175 for Avatar (Unless all this hype is justified by the greatest movie Cameron has ever made, then it'll probably jump to 300 or so) and 175-200 or more for Star Trek. Unless mark66's club comes true, in which case hello Iron Man.

But they went ahead and greenlit a more expensive and more risky 'sequel' to a pretty-much-dead franchise, which honestly didn't make a lot of sense. The only reason we didn't get a 4th film is because Paramount didn't want anything more to do with Cruise and his crazy.

WALL-E's low box office (relative to other popular CGI films) shows it didn't really appeal to that different audience you're talking about.

Avatar will pass 150 Mill on or around Dec 28th.

hmmmmmm

ST was never dead. It was just hibernating. Everyone knew it will come back with a movie or another series. If you really think it was JJ who resurrected the franchise you're having a wild pipe dream.

There's certainly a reason FOX contacted Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman team, but the project could've easily fallen into other hands.

Regardless I just can't see this club coming true. ST would have to be a enormous hit

an
based on what? Have you seen footage? Have you heard anything? Have you read the script? It's coming from a very talented director who really knows how to do Brit action/comedies, and has two fantastic actors at the front. Where does the "terrible movie" factor in? Also, I have read most of the script, and while I only kind of like it myself, it will be a major crowd pleaser.
Sherlock does 150m+

I beg to differ.
I maybe wrong so its not a opinion I am arrested to but from the description of the trailer and the word that they are going for a buddy comedy just makes it sound incredibly corny.

the script is solid, and after having seen RockNRolla I have plenty of faith in Guy Ritchie. Either way, the script like a major crowd pleaser, unless the marketing really sucks it will play with audiences, regardless of whether we like it or not.

Yikes, don't scare me by mentioning Fox. If Avatar is good, it'll be their first good release in...how many years now? Star Trek is Paramounts :-p

And yes, JJ did resurrect the franchise. It was dead, they went to him, and now it's at a level of hype and popularity that it hasn't been since the glory days of Next Gen. Another creator may have tried, but the results would probably have been far different.

I really don't think JJ is the reason. The movie looks awesome, but I think there are other directors who can do that. All JJ has done on the big screen is give the weakest and worst performing movie in a once great franchise (MI). I don't know if ST will be fantastic or not, it sure looks that way, but in either case, I highly doubt it is all entirely due to the great JJ Abrams.

Worst performing? Yes. Weakest? No. Best reviewed, and closest to the show? Yes.

I'm not sure what your argument is. This movie is directed by JJ Abrams and written by 2 of his writers, and produced by him and his group. He did resurrect the franchise, and apparently he managed to respect the fans and do something truly amazing at the same time, as just about every review has been saying. If not him it would have been someone else, but it wasn't someone else. Likely the someone else would have pitched a different story, and not even bothered to include anything from Nimoy or the original cast period. Not to mention that JJ is a fricking master of marketing when he has total control of something.

Simply that someone else could have made an excellent ST movie. Personally I'm not a fan of his past efforts, I think MI3 sucked big time, and Lost went so far off the rails that it's killed more people in it's crash than the subway train in knowing did (figuratively speaking of course). Maybe he'll make a hell of a movie here, maybe he won't. The marketing certainly suggests the latter, but I'm sure there are other people who could've done a better job with the movie, and with resurrecting the franchise.

Er, Wall-E did better than any other CGI movie in 2008, and every CGI movie not named Shrek in 2007.

Avatar, with nothing to go on, may hit 100 mil by the end of the year. Again, with nothing to go on because there is absolutely NO buzz for this yet outside of the few pushers on the net, I think it'll be out of theatres completely by the end of January.

few pushers?
you make me laugh.

But they didn't. Either they didn't want to, or they weren't offered the position. Strazynski wanted to, but was turned down. Rick Berman had an idea for a movie prequel, and thank goodness he was turned down. Bryan Fuller wants a new series, etc. etc. Nobody of any substance has said one thing about wanting to do Star Trek. Remember, it wasn't anyone going to Paramount saying "I want to do Star Trek!" It was a dead property. The movie flopped and the show was cancelled. Even the trekkies had abandoned it. JJ brought it back to life and it's going to end up making more money in it's opening weekend than most of the previous movies have done in their entire run. Very few directors can do that. I'm amazed JJ did.

We can debate the awesomeness of Lost somewhere else :-p

No way it's out of theatres before the end of Jan.

Friday the 13th and the Jonas Bros. even managed a full month.

I wouldn't have even heard of Avatar if not for a small amount of internet posters saying how great it is. When asked why, it's always because the "effects will be incredible and like nothing ever seen before and omg 3D and.." We're about 6 months out. There has been NOTHING released yet on this. Any concept art is pulled immediately. The only thing of actual content relating to the movie, other than a few articles repeating the effects mantra, is a 10 year old scriptment that reads like a sci-fi channel movie.

I'm not saying Avatar is going to be bad. James Cameron usually doesn't dissappoint, but then again he has done NOTHING in the past decade, besides the disappointing Dark Angel and a couple of educational films. George Lucas was a great creator too, remember. I'm expecting a good film that will have a limited audience. People will go for the effects and it'll do well on 3D.

You know what i missed as a good example? Chronicles of Riddick. Good movie, Good effects, disappointment at the box office purely because of it's high-concept sci-fi storyline. Take that and Final Fantasy, add some sparkle, put it in a blender, and bingo: Avatar.

We knew nothing about Gran Torino until about 2 months before that came out, didn't even have a poster, and that was a gigantic flop right.....oh wait.
Also, CoR was a very idiotic entirely action focused film. From what we've heard thus far, nothing akin to what Avatar will be.

Ok, mid February then, depending on if we get another Paul Blart that surprises, and how well Sherlock Holmes does. Also, another 3D movie might open up afterward and knock Avatar out of the equipped theatres.

I would say that Gran Torino and Avatar are going for 2 completely different audiences. One is the Oscar/'important' movie crowd. One is the sci-fi crowd. When was the last big hit science fiction movie that came out around Christmas time?

CoR was many things, but not idiotic.

yes, it truly was. Not that I didn't like it, it served it's purpose to be fun and entertain beautifully, but it moronic in every sense of the word.
Anywho, I tire of this argument and this thread, goodbye.

See ya in December!

Hey! Whadda ya know? I finally agree with critch about something...