MONDAY 11 AM, 6TH UPDATE: Coming…
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
This article was printed from http://www.deadline.com/2012/08/first-box-office-bourne-legacy-46m-48m-the-campaign-24m-26m-hope-springs-12m-14m/
Well done Universal and WB!
A little too eager for Universal.
“That scene where Ferrell punches the baby was priceless?” Oh, you mean the scene the studio didn’t want in the movie?
Last couple weeks, first box office has had a habit of being revised down as firmer numbers come in.
I’ll wait til it firms up a little.
first box office numbers almost always get revised down.
“I’ll wait til it firms up a little.”
what are you waiting for? when the numbers do firm up, then what are you gonna do?
Steve I love your comment. That’s hilarious.
don’t encourage him
The snark is nice but it wasn’t that complicated.
I just meant that because Nikki is reporting earlier numbers now, there’s a lot of initially over-excited conversation about how well X film is doing which then gets undone as refined numbers come in over the course of the day because initial projections have been more optimistic. So it’s better to maybe wait until better first day projections are in.
But please, do snark another reply. Go on – you probably won’t be able not to.
Why even comment then, Esquire, if it’s too early to make a proper assesment?
I agree with you and your assessment was right. From $48 mil on Friday to $40 on Sunday, with a final probably being less. The only time it was even further off was Avengers which kept going up after the initial “it’s good but no record” statement. Studios and bloggers get carried away, but end up saying “oops”, wrong numbers again.
Yeah i remember box office projections being way off on “The Avengers” when it opened. On friday alone early estimates we’re 65 million and it turned out to make 81 million that day. I did think “Bourne Legacy” would open around 40-45 million. $40.2 million is a good solid if not spectacular opening for the film, now of course final numbers could drop it below 40 million.
Saw “Hope Springs” Wed. It was very good. Meryl is the best actor working, and TLJ was outstanding.
Saw “Bourne” today. Def the weakest of the franchise. A very average movie. Some good stuff (I like the wintery/Alaska stuff at the beginning). Nothing special tough. So tired of chase scenes (esp when they feel like they last 1/2 hour) too.
Over Daniel Day Lewis ? Not possible.
DDL is WAAAAaaaayayyyyyy over-rated. His early stuff is great (In the Name of the Father, Last of the Mohicans), but lately he’s become so much of an over-actor (more Broadway than Hollywood) that it completely pulls me out of the film! Streep takes it, hands down.
Bourne was such a huge disappointment. Hardly any action and an embarassingly silly storyline.. Pills? Really?
Just saw Bourne this afternoon. Oh my, how dreadful. What a disappointment. Can’t believe that they couldn’t do better than this dud.
I saw BOURNE 4 last night. What rubbish. Why can’t they make films with a story these days? And what arrogance to spend almost the whole ending setting it up for potential sequels!
But the worst of it was trying to convince us that the conclusions reached at the end of BOURNE ULTIMATUM didn’t actually happen at all.
Still believe in Bourne Legacy… people still gonna watch this.. its a great action movie compared to tohers this year… its fresh and endearing…cmon.. give Renner a chance he’s a formidable actor !
Damon should retire in this series.. really
The real disappointment is that Bourne Legacy will probably do well enough that Universal will do at least one more trying to keep this going.
My guess is this may not be an easy decision for Universal. At that time, the real global box office will be critically important to decide where to go with Bourne.
Not really, i do not agree with you….you people cannot just admit that Damon needs to be replaced… is still say to movie fans.. go and see The Bourne Legacy… its worth your money…
there’s a lot of good and an edge of your seat action in bourne legacy,YOUR WRONG
I had a feeling about the Bourne movie. I mean even if you don’t care for Damon- he made the character Jason Bourne so to make a movie with his name and not have Damon in it,well it seems dumb. I haven’t seen it yet cuz of my suspicions. Maybe I still will, maybe not.
As much as I would love for Bourne to open this strong, or better, its very early yet… A lot of people are dismissing it due to the lack of Damon, but the fact of the matter is the film still has an excellent cast with some serious actors who simply do not to take projects they don’t believe in. That tells me its a soild flick. People just need to get this idea that a movie in the Bourne universe without Bourne as a main character is automatically garbage.
saying a movie is good without even seeing it. congrats on being a moron!
Comment of day!
For that movie? Yes, but not all movies are that way. I don’t have to see a Friedberg/Seltzer, Larry The Cable Guy or Uwe Boll movie to know it will suck. In the words of Ron Burgandy, “it’s science.”
“saying a movie is good without even seeing it. congrats on being a moron”
And yet people like you dismiss movies before they’re even made… every single day on sites like this. Douche bag!
would love to be able to RT this – super sharp observation!
Yes, because never in the history of cinema has there ever been a movie where the cast was phenomenal but the movie sucked.
If the actors believe in the project it must be good–sight unseen.
Nice work Einstein. Some studio should give you a high level executive position pronto.
Be nice to see Hope Springs do well. Otherwise, they’ll make even fewer films for grown ups (if that’s possible).
I get what you are saying. But I would rather have a ‘Bourne for grownups’ than another seniors rediscovering sex dramady. Makes it seem like that is the only thing senior actors – the real actors not the ones who are Expendable – are good for. I like Streep, I like Tommy Lee Jones but this looks like a Lifetime movie to me, and those I don’t pay 10-15 bucks for.
we need to go back to real movies with real people and real stories.
If that means adult films with people who know how to act and tell a story, so be it.
Hire them and bring them on.
We are dying to see the old hollywood greatness.
I was always very surprised to hear Damon rave about Paul Greengrass considering how totally unwatchable Bourne Supremacy’s camera work was/is (and, to a lesser extent, Bourne Ultimatum). I would say that ‘vomit inducing’ is a generous description. Meanwhile, Damon bashes Gilroy over script issues years ago? Damon needs to get a grip.
Doug Liman should never have left the director’s chair for this franchise. If all (now 4) movies were as good as Bourne Identity (thanks to Liman), it would have been one of the best franchises in history.
Tastes and viewing habits are subjective and all that, but the sequels to Identity were huge hits and bigger than Identity. There were a lot of problems and disagreements with Liman and the studio on Bourne Identity.
You may not like the camera work for Supremacy and Ultimatum, but the fast, tight pacing of those movies drew a lot of people in. I think Liman is a good director and I like what he did with the first movie, but it was Greengrass work that truly elevated the franchise.
Scripts get re-written and tightened up during production and even during editing so that is probably what Damon is referring to.
Plus 1 to The Truth
Yeah – except Greengrass’ pictures > Identity.
Did you even read the article where Matt talks about Gilroy’s script? Matt wasn’t happy with Tony’s lack of effort. And Gilroy freely admits he didn’t care. Ultimatum is a fantastic film but not due to Gilroy’s work. Matt Damon is hardly being unfair here.
Yeah, I read the article. But also keep in mind that Damon’s ego was peaking around this time and he was swearing undying loyalty to Greengrass, even though his absurd shaky cam style of filmmaking was turning off fans in droves.
The Bourne Identity – $214,034,224
The Bourne Supremacy – $288,500,217
The Bourne Ultimatum – $442,824,138
Yeah, apparently the fans were turned off in f***king masses.
I said droves, not masses. And I didn’t say “turning away”, I said turning off. I loved the Bourne Identity, mostly because of Damon. I paid to see Supremacy, so yes…they got my money as well as the money of millions of other fans who wanted to see the magic of Identity repeated. But the shaky-cam style turned me >off< (which is what I said above.
Here's something for ya: go to Amazon.com and read the reviews of Bourne Supremacy. If you don't think that the shaky-cam thing turned off (not turned away) viewers, then that will convince you. There are countless negative comments about the shaky-cam work in Supremacy.
@ Andrew, lol. Numbers for the win.
You have no idea what you are talking about. If it really turned people off then Ultimatum would not have been as huge of a hit as it was.
It seems time has made people forget how big the Bourne sequels were in their respective summers. In 2007, people were saying it was the best spy thriller ever. All the Greengrass Bourne sequels have outdone all the recent Bond sequels in the US as well.
Say what you will about shaky-cam or what have you but for Supremacy and Ultimatum and what Greengrass did it worked fine. It was a grittier, edgier atmosphere. Greengrass kept things very tight and it worked for the most part. The pacing and energy those films had was ridiculously amazing. Legacy failed to measure up to even a fraction of that.
Look at the results. The critics are not liking Bourne Legacy. Early estimates for this movie went from like $46-48 million down to like $40 million. It is NOT getting good word of mouth.
What happens next weekend with Expendables2 comes out?
What happens next weekend when Expendables 2 comes out is Bourne Legacy drops Total Recall style like a rock. 71%. If the estimates fell this hard the word of mouth is not doing good.
The “Shaky Cam” is truly one of the worst innovations in the history of cinema. I’m not sure who can be blamed for first bringing the “Shaky Cam” to prominence, either Greengrass or his compatriot Guy Ritchie, but whomever it was needs to be brought in front of the Hague!
“I’m not sure who can be blamed for first bringing the “Shaky Cam” to prominence, either Greengrass or his compatriot Guy Ritchie”
What are talking about? Have you seen a Ritchie film? Like ever? His use of handheld is sporadic. He uses steadicam and dollies more than he does handheld.
I would challenge those who think Supremacy’s camera work is better than Identity to do the following:
Go to YouTube and watch these two fight scenes:
The Identity clip (the first one) has great energy and movement, but the viewer can tell what’s going on. You feel like you’re right in there, and the camera work is great. Does that mean it’s boring? Hell no. It’s just the right balance of good camera work/choices and great editing.
Whoever was holding the camera in the second clip (from Supremacy) should be brought out back and beaten with a switch. Every time I watch clips from that movie I just picture the camera man standing there moving the camera all over the damn place rather than simply following the action. It’s TOTALLY unnecessary and jarring camera movement, and the editing is so quick that it detracts from the scene.
This comparison can also be done with car chase clips from both movies:
The Supremacy clip is almost vomit inducing and confusing, as the shaky clips and ridiculously fast edits make the scene annoying to watch. The Identity clip (first one) however, has just the right balance of great camera work and editing.
As a side note, It’s funny as hell in the Supremacy when the camera is all over the god damn place and then they suddenly cut to a shot that’s locked down.
We get it you don’t like hand-held cinematography. It’s utterly meaningless though. The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum outperformed Identity in EVERY area.
When all is said and done, The Bourne Legacy won’t likely even surpass The Bourne Identity. What is your deal? Are you Doug Liman?
I watched the clips and I love all the movies. Supremacy and Ultimatum brought something a little different to the table. I watched all of them in theaters and own all of them on DVD and I never really had a problem with the cinematography. Now do I have preference toward straight-up cinematography, tracking shots, stationary camera? Yes. However after watching things like 24 for many seasons and other things (even parts of Fellowship of the Ring) I’ve gotten used to this style more which Greengrass I think made a lot more acceptable and mainstream.
You are entitled to your opinion about the cinematography but don’t try and pass it off as fact. The facts are the sequels were wildly popular and successful movies. You’ve yet to provide any evidence of your claim that the film-making style of Greengrass turned people off in droves when each of his sequels was more successful than the last INCLUDING with critics and audiences alike.
…and yet people agree with me.
As I mentioned previously, simply go to Amazon.com and browse the reviews for Supremacy.
I need not sit here and argue with you anymore when the facts speak for themselves and it’s easy enough to go to Amazon.com and see how many people didn’t like the shaky-cam in Supremacy. I guess you’ll then respond that I wrote all of those negative comments.
From Wikipedia, in the Ultimatum piece:
“Like its predecessor, The Bourne Supremacy, the film was criticized for its use of “shaky camera” work, as Richard Corliss of Time magazine, in an otherwise positive review, wondered “why, in the chat scenes, the camera is afflicted with Parkinson’s? The film frame trembles, obscures the speaker with the listener’s shoulder, annoys viewers and distracts them from the content of the scene.”
I could do quick searches on the web of “Supremacy shaky cam” and come up with THOUSANDS of negative references to this issue. Do it yourself if you don’t believe me. I’m not one person, as you seem to claim, that didn’t like this style IN THIS MOVIE.
I agree with you. The camera work in Supremacy was beyond annoying. I can’t stand the many modern directors who substitute fake “realism” for their apparent inability to stage & shoot (so the viewer can actually see it) an action sequence, whether it’s a fight, a car chase, whatever.
I had to walk out of the Bourne Ultimatum because the camera work made me so nauseous. I was really enjoying the movie otherwise so it was a shame.
Beg to differ. Liman’s Bourne was a solid entry, but lacked the energy and the vitality of Greengrass’s installments.
If Greengrass had only used a less shake-prone cinematographer, the Supremacy would’ve been an amazing film. As it is, I can’t even watch it. Plus, the absurdly fast edits during that one car chase make it so the viewer doesn’t even know what the hell is going on. He toned down the shaky cam for Ultimatum, but it’s still present and annoying.
“If Greengrass had only used a less shake-prone cinematographer, the Supremacy would’ve been an amazing film.”
Umm, you mean like the cinematographer of ‘The Bourne Identity’? Oh wait, Oliver Wood photographed all three Damon-lead films, so you can’t blame the cinematographer for the style when it was very different on the first one.
A lot of it came down to editing decisions made by the editing team of Richard Pearson and Christopher Rouse on Supremacy versus Saar Klein on Identity.
Plus, I’m sure Greengrass influenced the visual style, even if they stuck with Oliver Wood. Plus, there were different camera operators and 2nd unit director of photography on Supremacy.
Note that Ultimatum’s shaky cam style is toned down a bit, and they also had a different editor in Christopher Rouse.
Thanks for disproving your own point, Wicked. You initially blamed the cinematographer (“if Greengrass had only used a less shake-prone cinematographer, the Supremacy would’ve been an amazing film”) and then argued that, no, in fact it was the collective team that resulted in the shaky-cam: “A lot of it came down to editing decisions made by the editing team of Richard Pearson and Christopher Rouse on Supremacy versus Saar Klein on Identity. Plus, I’m sure Greengrass influenced the visual style”
I need some help here. I know the first three Bourne movies were based on Ludlum books. Was this one also? I thought there were only three Bourne books. Did they just decide to keep making new films roughly based on the story or what?
No, there are more than three BOURNE books. However, the last two BOURNE movies diverged from the book path so much in terms of plot and the death of certain characters, they really can’t use the books as a plot guideline anymore.
There are at least four books that I know of. The last of the four ” The Bourne Legacy” is another story from this movie. They’ve taken the title but written their own story that takes place in the same universe. The story of this movie takes partly takes place in the same timeline of Bournes arrival in New York. But the movie takes it from there and deals with the aftermath of the events in The Bourne Ultimatum.
The movie I’ve seen lacks the emotional connection with the maine character that one have come to expect from this series. There is no emotional centre , and I could realy care less to what happened to the characters. Even through a special incident in the film.
There are at least 8 Bourne books at this point. Ludlum’s replacement (Van Lustbader) has now written more Bourne books than Ludlum did. They were good at first, but have gotten continiously worse. At this point, I continue to read them out of habit.
And, as Mohammed said, the movies stopped resembling the books shortly into the second movie. The plot of the second movie took away Bourne’s entire motivation, so completely changed the tone of the series. From about five minutes into the second movie, the series started diverging from the books, and the third movie didn’t even resemble a Ludlum work.
Tony Gilroy admitted he never read the books.
Uni admits as much – in the credits it says something like “based on characters appearing in novels by Robert Ludlum.” Ludlum wrote an INCREDIBLE trilogy, with the stakes getting higher, the story richer, in each installment. Then he (or his estate) sold the rights to a new guy, who continued in the world.
The real tragedy is not sticking to the originals. This franchise is a total shit-fest compared to the novels.
The Bourne Legacy does something criminal for an action movie; It’s too talketive. It’s not a surprise. Gilroy must’ve felt he needed an hour of the movie to explaine how and why the title characters presence wasn’t warranted.
Some people are saying that the Bourne movies should also be recast as the Bond movies. But this isn’t what’s happened. It’s new characters , yet the name remains. It’s the equivelant of a Bond movie without Bond.
I’d have to say that the first Bourne movie probably influenced the first Craig Bond film
Without a doubt. Bond’s first action scene is very Bournesque.
The first three Bourne movies borrowed titles and the basic idea of the character from the books but don’t really have much in common with them otherwise. Another writer started publishing more books with the authorization of Ludlum’s estate, and the title of the first of those is also The Bourne Legacy, but this movie doesn’t have anything to do with it, either.
Bourne Legacy is the very definition of bland.
The first hour is exposition heavy, it was as if they were tying this in to Ultimatum and the film was desperately trying to justify its existence. And Jeremy Renner does nothing for the first hour, its almost boring. It picks up in the next hour, but its surprisingly scarce in action. I’ll be surprised if the film is well received by audiences.
So what you are saying is that it has too much story and not enough mindless action?
No. He said the first hour was exposition heavy. Which is not what story is. I honestly don’t think I’ve ever seen so much throat clearing in a feature film before. The first forty five minutes could have been cut down to twelve. It was crazy.
This isn’t a matter of getting to “mindless action.” It’s about the economy of storytelling. It was strange. I mean, really, really strange the way this movie kept not getting around to getting a story going.
I never stop thinking this “Bourne Legacy” would be able to pull in 40-50M this weekend. It just goes to show you that if it’s a movie people want to go see, they’ll see it, Olympics or no Olympics. And i’ve been watching the hell out of the Olympics, but i’m going to see “Legacy” tonight. If the numbers play out like early projections say, even “The Campaign” might open better than “Total Recall” did last weekend.
Not really. The Olympic are in their last two days. People are Olympic worn out. Sunday should be a telling day as the hype for the closing ceremonies have being high all week. As for “Bourne” I also would like to see what the Cinemascope rating is going to be. I being to a couple of sites with viewers review and they aren’t liking “Bourne”. I haven’t seen so many one star reviews for a film in a while so it will be interesting to see if “Bourne Legacy” has legs after this weekend.
I might add “The Campaign” has even worse viewer ratings than “Bourne”.
True, the Olympics are in their last days but these are also the biggest days as well being all the climatic final events are all for medals now. You are right about “Legacy’s” legs, it looks like it will open in the low 40′s and it will be interesting to see how well it can hold up in coming weeks. Especially with “Expendables 2″ opening next week. I’ll say this much, if “Legacy” can follow up this weekend with a solid 20 million midweek and 20 million weekend and play pretty well through Labor Day weekend it could set itself up for a possible final solid box office domestic take of around 140-150 million, but only time will tell.
Liman’s was the best. This new one is dreadful and word of mouth of how bad it is is spreading quicky. Critics didn’t think much of it and Renner has no personality nor is lead material. He’s a drip.
Because reviewers are such geniuses? Check out this doozy of a criticism: “Why focus on a Jason Bourne clone as opposed to exploring what kind of different tactics a woman in the same position might explore?” Yep, this writer complained that the film is rubbish because it didn’t feature the idea that he wanted.
How about Ebert’s negative review, in which he initially commented that a lab technician that “looked to me exactly like Tom Noonan, although Noonan’s not mentioned.” After he was tweeted with the answer, he re-edited the review: “Now there is the best sequence of violence in the movie, which involves a lab technician played by Zeljko Ivanek.” This is meant to be one of the best critics in the country, but he can’t even be assed doing the bare minimum of research.
BOURNE rocks…saw it at an earlier screening. Renner does an amazing job, (& looks hot), and Gilroy knocked it out of the park. Go see it, you’ll have a great time. F all you naysayers.
So? Many people do that. Especially with THE AVENGERS and TDKR.
Early viewers enjoyed the movie. Their reviews were higher than I expected. I guess it depends on how the person enjoyed it.
Just got back from The Campaign. Between that film and Ted, original comedies are finally having their moment in Hollywood.
What does that mean exactly? What about Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, screwball comedies, Some Like It Hot, Woody Allen, Blazing Saddles, Animal House, Ghostbusters, Nora Ephron, the Farrelly brothers, Anchorman, The Hangover, Bridesmaids, and so forth?
very nice list, succinct yet inclusive
Just returned from seeing Bourne Legacy. Pretty good minus the car convo (all the science stuff for 3 minutes straight caused my eyes to glaze over) and the woeful copout of an ending. The entire (packed) theater actually sat around for a bit confused and wondering if that was the real ending. Lots of “REALLY, that’s the ending?” mutterings from the crowd.
All of you who complain of sitting through a dull and boring movie should go see beasts of the southern wild– truly one of the most horrible experiences you will ever have
I feel sorry for this poor asshole, and anyone else who doesn’t see why Beasts of the Southern Wild is so damn good. Enjoy The Expendables 2 next week, douchebag.
^This. I wasn’t in love with Beasts of the Southern Wild, but at least it’s a pause from the familiarity and timidity of studio fare. I’m so glad an art-house theater was built in New Hampshire five years ago; I no longer have to wait two months for Regal to pick up one or two Oscar contenders.
BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD is bold, poetic, and a beautiful film.
I feel sorry for anyone who has to go all apeshit on someone else because they have a different opinion on a movie.
Really? You hadn’t heard anyone excited about the box office since Avengers opened? Certainly not Ted making back its $50 mil budget in 3 days and Magic Mike almost quadrupuling its budget in the same time period? No one goes to the movies anymore, right?
I’m surprised there isn’t some snark about how Will Ferrell can’t open movies anymore because this is a sub-$30 mil opening and how Bourne Legacy dropped from the last film even though the brand name is seminal & Renner just starred in two smash hit action blockbusters that have made a combined $800+ million in America.
‘The Bourne Legacy’ gets a 10/10 for me. All four movies are good and I like that this continues the franchise and does not remake(reboot, same damn thing, just people trying to make it not sound like remake and lack of new ideas. Reboot and remake are the same damn thing, lack of new ideas). Paramount should listen to Universal (looking at you dumb jj abarahms and your pathetic remake star trek movie and star trek remake sequel, any way the remake did not feel like star trek and it ain’t star trek). Instead of remaking star trek, they should have had another Star Trek – The Next Generation movie, or a Star Trek – Deep Space Nine movie, or a Star Trek – Voyager movie or a Star Trek – Enterprise movie, or guess what????? Have a new crew for the movies, ever thought of that jj abrahsma, damien linoff, ortiz and who ever, those bunch of hacks of unoriginal ideas!!!!! You could have had a good continuity with all 10 Star Trek movies, and all 5 live action series and ‘Star Trek – The Animated Series’, have a new crew and a different ship, take place after Star Trek Voyager or something like that, but noooooo! You just had to shit on Stat Trek and remake it, dumbasses!. Star Trek – The Original Series had an awesome ending(s) in ‘Star Trek VI – The Undiscovered Country’ and the TOS/TNG Crossover epic movie ‘Star Trek – Generations’. There are only 10 Star Trek movies and only 4 Alien movies (promethues is shit and not an Alien movie, space jockeys are suppose to look like what they did in ‘Alien’, that was an exoskeleton not a fucking mask. You trying to say that the space jockeys look like gay, retarded babies? Pathetic. Even ‘Aliens Vs Predator – Requiem’ got the space ockey right, having the exoskeleton skull in the trophy room look like the one in ‘Alien’, dumbasses that made promethues shit!), and I am glad to say, there are 4 excellent Bourne Movies. I know there are spelling mistake, and they are on purpose, abrahams, lindoff are hacks and so is ridley scott.
See The Bourne Legacy is my suggestion, it was highly entertaining, even without Damon. It is the next Bond series (though that one line that dismisses the first 20 Bond films in ‘Casino Royale’ pisses me off, I was enjoying the movie up until that dumbass line from M, then the movie was tainted. The movie could still be Bond’s first mission and be considered canon with the previous 20 movies).
Looking forward to what Universal comes up with after The Bourne Legacy. Universal Pictures did something rare these days in movies, continued a franchise past THREE MOVIES without starting over and over and over and over and over!
How terribly rude it is to insult three legends in one poorly written paragraph.
Then watch Gladiator, Alien, Blade Runner, American Gangster, Hannibal, White Squall, Thelma & Louise.
After that re-watch Star Trek and ask yourself why you don’t enjoy seeing Spock in his early years? He’s cool and he clearly gets the job done.
Live it trick.
I admire your bravery, sir, suggesting that the filmmaker behind ‘Legend’, ‘White Squall’, ‘Someone To Watch Over Me’, ‘Black Rain’, ‘Hannibal’, ‘Robin Hood’, ‘A Good Year’ and ‘G.I. Jane’ is a legend. I would also cite ‘Kingdom of Heaven’, but I am afraid to bring the whole ‘director’s cut is AMAZING’ spiel into the debate.
DS9 was my favorite Star Trek series but I never would have wished for a DS9 movie. Why? because it would have tanked and killed Star Trek off for good. The average person doesn’t want to see Sisko, Kira and Odo. The average person doesn’t know who the fuck those people are.
The mass audience has tired on TNG and none of the other series ever gained pop awareness. That left the original series as the only possibility to out butts in seats, of course only if everyone is young and pretty. So that meant reboot.
When you realize that Abrams’ first, last and only goal was to make Star Trek a success again, and restore its credibility as a viable franchise, you’ll see that he took the only path he responsibly could. I doubt he wanted to be known as the guy who put a stake through Star Trek’s heart. Instead, if the next movie is also a big success, there’s a possibility that CBS might actually be interested in a TV series!
If Abrams can get Les Moonves interested in that, I don’t care how he does it, he could have an all tribble musical for all I care. The alternative is that we get nothing because Holywood doesn’t bother with failed franchises.
Somehow, I think frank did make a point… Eventually. I liked the Star Trek movie though.
GO See THE CAMPAIGN!!!! Zach G. is hysterical and Will Ferrell is as perfect as ever. Epic satire-fear and overall much better viewing experience than Bour-ing Legacy.
Don’t take this guy’s advice. The Campaign wasn’t very funny. That mediocre B- CinemaScore was well-earned.
Sorry, comments are closed for this article.