1  
Reply Thu 21 May, 2009 01:08 pm
sozobe wrote:

Well, I'm deaf though. So captions are an issue.

They DO have open-captioned and closed-captioned (rear-view)
captioned showings of movies around here though.
Have looked for Star Trek, haven't found a captioned showing yet.

Some theaters offer hearing enhancement devices.
I don' t know how well thay work.
View Profile sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 May, 2009 01:15 pm
Deaf. Nothing to enhance. (Not hard-of-hearing. Can't hear 'tall.)
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 May, 2009 01:49 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
What was rong with Angels and Demons ?

Well, Brandon doesn't want me to talk about other movies on his Star Trek thread, but very quickly... it tried to jam too much information into 2 hours, a lot of running around looking anxious, but no drama, or gravitas or whatever you want to call it.
0 Replies
 
View Profile panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 May, 2009 10:03 pm
well...it were real good...not being a trekky I missed some of the irony that the audience picked up on...now it's on to Terminator next week
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 05:07 pm
Looks like it's a return of the once-a-year "Star Trek" movie:

Domestic: $210,586,019 67.5%
+ Foreign: $101,350,393 32.5%
= Worldwide: $311,936,412
View Profile djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 05:35 pm
listened to the audiobook over the weekend, good story, can't wait for the dvd
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 06:28 pm
Lightwizard wrote:

Looks like it's a return of the once-a-year "Star Trek" movie:

Domestic: $210,586,019 67.5%
+ Foreign: $101,350,393 32.5%
= Worldwide: $311,936,412

How much did they spend to make Star Trek?
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 07:32 pm
Less than $ 150M
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 07:40 pm
Projected with after the theatrical release in DVD sales and rentals, cable and satellite profits, it could easily tip over half-a-billion dollars.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 07:42 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
Less than $ 150M

That's a big gamble. This one paid off. They really need to get the production costs on films like this down (then maybe we would get more of them). I wonder what the bulk of the money goes into during production.
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 07:58 pm
That's the average cost of a sci-fi film with top production values but I believe that includes the promotional marketing costs. Terminator Salvation's quoted budget of $200 M is apparently before marketing costs. You notice the TV ads for TS4 have now become non-existent? That means they don't want to pour any more money down the hole -- they need it for the foreign market and it's now going to become a cash flow drain.

Of course, the cost is dependent on the actors they hire, the CGI effects, the sets, and that's after they've paid the writer(s) and the director (who is often on a percentage rake-off status as I believe Christian Bale signed on for). I don't see them getting a film like Star Trek's production cost below that figure.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 07:27 am
I was hoping to find bloopers for the 2009 show, but all I found was this:
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 09:45 pm
rosborne979 wrote:

I was hoping to find bloopers for the 2009 show, but all I found was this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZAkGfJY05k&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div[/youtube]

In 1972, or thereabouts, at the first "Star Trek" convention, Gene Roddenberry came with "The Cage" and a slightly longer version of this blooper reel. That was probably long, long before most people got to see it and we were thrilled.
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 12:45 am
Brandon9000 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

I was hoping to find bloopers for the 2009 show, but all I found was this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZAkGfJY05k&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div[/youtube]

In 1972, or thereabouts, at the first "Star Trek" convention, Gene Roddenberry came with "The Cage" and a slightly longer version of this blooper reel. That was probably long, long before most people got to see it and we were thrilled.

I LOVED those conventions!!!!!
Thay were ineffably special
David
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 06:12 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I LOVED those conventions!!!!!
Thay were ineffably special
David

I think you spelled ineffably wrong, shouldn't if be inFably.
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2009 03:59 am
rosborne979 wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
I LOVED those conventions!!!!!
Thay were ineffably special
David

I think you spelled ineffably wrong, shouldn't if be inFably.

SO STIPULATED.
I was too conventional.
David
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2009 08:08 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:

SO STIPULATED.
I was too conventional.

Don't you mean, "I wuz 2 convenchNL"
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2009 07:28 am
rosborne979 wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

SO STIPULATED.
I was too conventional.

Don't you mean, "I wuz 2 convenchNL"

Yes, I don't.
I don 't say wuz; I say was.
I don't apply a ch sound; conventional is fonetic.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Star Trek - Question by gollum
Star Trek's Khan Noonien Singh passes away - Discussion by rosborne979
 
  1. able2know
  2. » Star Trek 2009
  3. » Page 7
Copyright © 2009 Horizontal Verticals :: Page generated in 0.34 seconds on 11/23/2009 at 12:28:56 Top End