RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,895
Posts: 5,476,975
Members: 25,050
Currently online: 540
Newest member: aloraptor

TrekToday headlines

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Trek Actors In War Of The Worlds Fundraiser
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Star Trek: The Next Generation Gag Reel Tease
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Shatner In Haven
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 22 2013, 09:44 PM   #166
AUbricklogic
Ensign
 
Location: North Hollywood, CA
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

The whole reason the Enterprise is anywhere near in that condition in the first place is Marcus and not Khan.
AUbricklogic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 09:48 PM   #167
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

But they'd have never lost power or fallen into the atmosphere if not for Khan breaking his word and attacking once he'd beamed (what he thought were) his people over. They'd have just floated there still with power and Kirk wouldn't have had to sacrifice himself.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 10:08 PM   #168
AUbricklogic
Ensign
 
Location: North Hollywood, CA
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Had they not betrayed their deal with Khan and shot him, maybe he wouldn't have turned on them like that once he had control of the ship. "This is a new universe. Things are supposed to be different." is how its been put by fans of the film. The same logic applies.

We can continue to grasp at straws with the gigantic plotholes, or we can agree that the film wasn't perfect just like every other Star Trek film out there. Its like when the community was trying to figure out why old klingons aren't like new klingons. You can come up with all the wild stories trying to explain it all you want, but the truth is it was some decision made during the writing/make-up/production stages that resulted in an inconsistency.
AUbricklogic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 10:10 PM   #169
Maxwell Everett
Commodore
 
Maxwell Everett's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Simon Pegg wrote:
"Star Trek Into Darkness" is the most successful "Star Trek" movie ever made. It is, in terms of what it took at the box office and how many people went to see it. More people saw that film than any iteration of "Star Trek" that existed before. That is probably slightly annoying to some "Star Trek" fans -- which I totally understand.
His claim that more people saw STID than any other Star Trek movie is true. But it might surprise people that if you take the worldwide grosses of the first Star Trek film in 1979 and the most recent in 2013... and you adjust the gross of TMP for ticket price inflation, you find that roughly the same number of tickets were sold:

ST: TMP: 55,378,486
STID: 55,605,904

So yes, it sold a few hundred thousand more tickets. But when one considers that there are 2.6 billion more people in the world today than in 1979 and there are about 150,000 movie screens in the world, with about 40,000 of those in the United States (STID was on 25% of them), the slightly higher number of tickets sold seems just a tiny bit less impressive.
__________________
"Shake off all the fears & servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." -Thomas Jefferson
Maxwell Everett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 10:12 PM   #170
AUbricklogic
Ensign
 
Location: North Hollywood, CA
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Maxwell, I was just considering that the other day, but had no idea how to calculate the price inflation or box office numbers to account for the differences in our currency's value from the earlier productions to the new ones. How did you calculate these numbers?

Oftentimes these newer productions are labeled as "vastly more successful" because of a monetary number without considering that the dollar bought a hell of a lot more 50+ years ago. I always thought that might be a fallacy of sorts but didn't know how to go about proving it.
AUbricklogic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 10:32 PM   #171
Maxwell Everett
Commodore
 
Maxwell Everett's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

AUbricklogic wrote: View Post
Maxwell, I was just considering that the other day, but had no idea how to calculate the price inflation or box office numbers to account for the differences in our currency's value from the earlier productions to the new ones. How did you calculate these numbers?

Oftentimes these newer productions are labeled as "vastly more successful" because of a monetary number without considering that the dollar bought a hell of a lot more 50+ years ago. I always thought that might be a fallacy of sorts but didn't know how to go about proving it.
Sure. Here are the wordwide grosses, the average ticket prices and the links where I got the info:

Star Trek: The Motion Picture: $139,000,000 gross @ $2.51 average ticket price
Star Trek Into Darkness: $453,744,180 gross @ $8.16 average ticket price
__________________
"Shake off all the fears & servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." -Thomas Jefferson
Maxwell Everett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 10:40 PM   #172
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Maxwell Everett wrote: View Post
His claim that more people saw STID than any other Star Trek movie is true. But it might surprise people that if you take the worldwide grosses of the first Star Trek film in 1979 and the most recent in 2013... and you adjust the gross of TMP for ticket price inflation, you find that roughly the same number of tickets were sold:

ST: TMP: 55,378,486
STID: 55,605,904
More or less common knowledge around here. It's also common understanding to take that kind of mathematical hocus-pocus with a grain of salt. Stats like that only account for inflation rates (and not all that accurately) and ignore countless other factors that apply.


So yes, it sold a few hundred thousand more tickets. But when one considers that there are 2.6 billion more people in the world today than in 1979 and there are about 150,000 movie screens in the world, with about 40,000 of those in the United States (STID was on 25% of them), the slightly higher number of tickets sold seems just a tiny bit less impressive.
More statistical manipulation incongruent with reality.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 10:48 PM   #173
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Maxwell Everett wrote: View Post

So yes, it sold a few hundred thousand more tickets. But when one considers that there are 2.6 billion more people in the world today than in 1979 and there are about 150,000 movie screens in the world, with about 40,000 of those in the United States (STID was on 25% of them), the slightly higher number of tickets sold seems just a tiny bit less impressive.
But I think we'd also all agree that there is far more competition for the customer dollar as well.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 10:57 PM   #174
Maxwell Everett
Commodore
 
Maxwell Everett's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
More or less common knowledge around here. It's also common understanding to take that kind of mathematical hocus-pocus with a grain of salt. Stats like that only account for inflation rates (and not all that accurately) and ignore countless other factors that apply.
You make take it with whichever condiment you prefer. You are also welcome to provide your own more accurate figures.

BillJ wrote: View Post
But I think we'd also all agree that there is far more competition for the customer dollar as well.
True. Nevertheless, Paramount does not seem to have grown their Star Trek movie-going audience much in the intervening three decades, whatever way you want to slice it. I think Abrams was smart to jump ship.
__________________
"Shake off all the fears & servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." -Thomas Jefferson
Maxwell Everett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 11:01 PM   #175
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Maxwell Everett wrote: View Post

True. Nevertheless, Paramount does not seem to have grown their Star Trek movie-going audience much in the intervening three decades, whatever way you want to slice it. I think Abrams was smart to jump ship.
Is he really jumping ship (has it been stated he won't direct?) though if it's his company that is making the third installment and he's a producer?

If he left to direct some no-name film, I'd agree that he may think the franchise doesn't have room for much growth. But he's leaving to direct something that he loves.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 11:42 PM   #176
Maxwell Everett
Commodore
 
Maxwell Everett's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

BillJ wrote: View Post
Maxwell Everett wrote: View Post

True. Nevertheless, Paramount does not seem to have grown their Star Trek movie-going audience much in the intervening three decades, whatever way you want to slice it. I think Abrams was smart to jump ship.
Is he really jumping ship (has it been stated he won't direct?) though if it's his company that is making the third installment and he's a producer?

If he left to direct some no-name film, I'd agree that he may think the franchise doesn't have room for much growth. But he's leaving to direct something that he loves.
Well, currently the rumors are Star Wars VII is unofficially slated for May or December 2015. And Paramount wants Star Trek 3 out for the 50th Anniversary in 2016, so I don't see how he could possibly direct both. Any way you wish to characterize it, the fact is he left Star Trek for Star Wars which stands to make far more money than the next Star Trek film.
__________________
"Shake off all the fears & servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." -Thomas Jefferson
Maxwell Everett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 22 2013, 11:48 PM   #177
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Maxwell Everett wrote: View Post
CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
More or less common knowledge around here. It's also common understanding to take that kind of mathematical hocus-pocus with a grain of salt. Stats like that only account for inflation rates (and not all that accurately) and ignore countless other factors that apply.
You make take it with whichever condiment you prefer. You are also welcome to provide your own more accurate figures.

BillJ wrote: View Post
But I think we'd also all agree that there is far more competition for the customer dollar as well.
True. Nevertheless, Paramount does not seem to have grown their Star Trek movie-going audience much in the intervening three decades, whatever way you want to slice it. I think Abrams was smart to jump ship.

The movie audience has shrunk for a myriad of reasons. It's not a reflection on Star Trek as a franchise.

What IS a reflection of ST is that audiences, especially general ones did NOT want to see the ST movies being made after 1996...the BO grosses were tepid to say the least. By this measure, the fact that ST movies have come so far since that more recent history, is a very positive thing.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 12:49 AM   #178
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Maxwell Everett wrote: View Post
AUbricklogic wrote: View Post
Maxwell, I was just considering that the other day, but had no idea how to calculate the price inflation or box office numbers to account for the differences in our currency's value from the earlier productions to the new ones. How did you calculate these numbers?

Oftentimes these newer productions are labeled as "vastly more successful" because of a monetary number without considering that the dollar bought a hell of a lot more 50+ years ago. I always thought that might be a fallacy of sorts but didn't know how to go about proving it.
Sure. Here are the wordwide grosses, the average ticket prices and the links where I got the info:

Star Trek: The Motion Picture: $139,000,000 gross @ $2.51 average ticket price
Star Trek Into Darkness: $453,744,180 gross @ $8.16 average ticket price
Without getting into incongruencies with reality and other esoteric horseshit, I still gotta interject that the 139 figure for TMP is WAY WAY less than everybody claimed in the early 80s, when the 175 mil worldwide gross figure was bandied about rather handily.

And if you consider that is back when paramount was TRYING to hide big numbers to avoid paying out net points (something they managed to do up until 1985 or 1986), that they'd let the 175mil stand in STARLOG and pretty much any other mag I saw the number in, I'd figure that is the low-end number.

So how it got downgraded to 139 I really don't know. 139 is actually in keeping with what the domestic total should have been, if you figure about a 2.5X multiplier on the film's rentals, which is how it was reported in VARIETY (the general idea is that 2.5 times rental equals gross -- that was also rather commonly reported back then, along with the gross 2.5 times budget to breakeven as a general principle.) TMP generated 39 mil in rentals just in 79, and a total of I believe 55 mil overall theatrical. 137.5 goes into 55 how many times? 2.5

You can look at Gerrold's old column in STARLOG where as I recall he runs figures much like these proving TMP was well into the green (I think this would have been in 1981 or early 1982.)

All this just makes TMP seem more platinum than golden with respect to current earnings of recent films when inflation and common sense are factored in.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 01:46 AM   #179
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

We went through this till we were green in the face in the box-office thread.

You can't compare a movie released in 1979 to one released in 2013. The end. Inflation and population increases mean jack shit.
Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 03:58 AM   #180
Cyrus
Rear Admiral
 
Cyrus's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Flake wrote: View Post
We went through this till we were green in the face in the box-office thread.

You can't compare a movie released in 1979 to one released in 2013. The end. Inflation and population increases mean jack shit.
Yeah, exactly. There is no way to make it apples-to-apples. And a movie matching the theatrical audience of TMP is a major accomplishment (especially considering the much higher home video revenues these days), TMP was a big hit.

trevanian wrote: View Post
So how it got downgraded to 139 I really don't know. 139 is actually in keeping with what the domestic total should have been, if you figure about a 2.5X multiplier on the film's rentals, which is how it was reported in VARIETY (the general idea is that 2.5 times rental equals gross -- that was also rather commonly reported back then, along with the gross 2.5 times budget to breakeven as a general principle.) TMP generated 39 mil in rentals just in 79, and a total of I believe 55 mil overall theatrical. 137.5 goes into 55 how many times? 2.5.
I think the rental multiplier for TMP was much less than 2.5. Subsequent Trek movies had around a 2 multiplier (e.g. TWOK 80M boxoffice, 40M rentals) but there was more interest in TMP among theater owners than other Trek movies so Paramount was able to get better rental deals for it. The final TMP rentals reported by Paramount was 56M. I don't think TMP made 112M domestically but it certainly did better than the 82M that is now assumed to be it's final domestic boxoffice, probably more in the 90M-100M range.
Cyrus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.