Can Star Trek XI really appeal to the masses?

It seems (logically so) that the business plan behind ST XI is to try and appeal to the masses. Even with a budget of $150 million and a big name director behind it can Star Trek XI overcome the stigma of being a Star Trek film a become a true "tent pole" franchise?

I've read of late where tptb behind this film feel this films box office returns will be in line with those of "Batman Begins"

Personally, I don't think that is a realistic comparison. The ST brand name has been in decline for close to 15 years. To expect a domestic gross north of $200 million may be shooting a little high. This film does not have a box office star to attract a new audience (I was expecting casting along the lines of Richard Donner's "Superman" where the cast Marlon Brando + Gene Hackman to attract non genre fans)and at the moment the most popular and well known member of the ST cast (William Shatner) is not involved.

I think a more realistic gross is in the $130 million range. (I'm talking about domestic gross) which would put ST XI in line with the latest Die Hard film + put it around #15 for the year. I would think the absolute ceiling for the film would be around $160 million which is where the re-launch of the 007 series with "Casino Royale", but 007 does seem to have far more mass appeal at the moment + may not be a fair comparison.

This isn't 1979 where there was massive interest in a new S.T. project with actors and characters that were part of everyone's extended family.Can the series also re-capture many of the fans who have left the series once the original characters + actors were no longer involved?

Another fair question to ask is will the public accept new actors in these iconic roles? Remember the reaction to Timothy Dalton as James Bond?

One could argue that in the past TOS did appeal to the masses with the original films. The original TOS films performed a little below the modern day X-Men FILMS. Most of the TOS fils finished in the top 10 of the year they were released (TMP #2 in 1979 TVH #5 in 1986) but is Star Trek's mass appeal to be limited to the past? Can this film break the recent business model + expand Star Trek's appeal to the masses?

So again I ask, will the general public be interested in the new Star Trek film?

Any thoughts?

 

I say we should all just pick random box office numbers out of thin air and then defend them as if they were gospel.

 

Nothing random at all. The "Batman Returns" numbers were put out there by people involved with the film.

Do you think this film will appeal to non ST fans?

 

Yes.

 

I think it'll appeal to non-fans. As to how much money it'll make, I have no clue. I had no idea Transformers would make $300 million, I don't think anyone did. I think if it's advertized properly and shown to be a Star Trek for the 21st Century, then it stands a chance of doing well.

 

I'm not saying that it won't appeal to non Trek fans, but I have some doubts.

 

with Cloverfield's box office performance, the word sequel is being bandied around Hollywood..(with Son of Cloverfield, Cloverfield vs. the Smog Monster, Cloverfield Attacks!, Cloverfield vs the World being possible titles) and the teaser trailer attached, I feel that the general population is ripe for a new Star Trek movie (how long has it been for a Star Trek film that appeals to non-fans, I'm willing to think actually 12 years since First Contact).

 

sure. we'll see, won't we?

 

Appeal to the masses?

Hell, I have several friends who were devout ST fans who won't even be seeing this thing, let alone Joe Sixpack in Ass-wipe Iowa who thinks of ST as something for brainiacs and nerds.

Personally, I think whoever greenlit $150m for this will be busy checking the "Help Wanted" ads come Boxing Day '08.

 

^Your devout friends sure plan ahead, don't they?

 

Well, they haven't really cared a shit about ST for many years now. It's more a notion of, "I won't be able to muster the enthusiasm to be bothered."

 

Will the concept of Trek appeal to the masses? No. However, will JJ Abrams and the other names involved with the film appeal to the masses? Very likely. I think this is where Trek will score its new fans. People go to see it to support the names they know, and may find out that they like it. It's just like me and the before mentioned X-Men movies. I went for Patrick Stewart, and ended up liking them.

 

Actually, you may be onto something there!

I was also not interested in X Men but saw it because of SOME of the talent involved and really liked it. For that reason I also saw the second one twice. Inversely, I also didn't pay to see 3 for the VERY SAME REASON.

Oh and incidentally, it was NOT because Hugh Jackman was in it. I am one of the eight people in the world who does not actually see what the big deal is with him. I am also the ONLY gay man on the planet who likewise could not give a shit about him.

 

The film will be a hit if we ALL attend

 

Hi, my first post...

n e waze...

I have loved star trek for a long time.. and what has me not interested in this film is the fact that paramount is making it go backwards. when it should be going forward.

This thing with earlier times in the federations history totally defeats the whole " mission statement " if you will, of star trek.

 

You know, no matter how many times I hear it, this argument still makes no sense to me.

 

Boldly going where no man has gone before? I take it you missed that? Not an expression that sticks out in memory? Doesn't ring a bell?

I think its a big mistake that paramount is not progressing foward with the idea. They are making these silly prequels because they are fashionable. I think jetting another 2 or 4 hundred years into the federations future, would be interesting.

Instead of envisioning a future, which might I add, was Roddenberry's great talent, Paramount has us looking toward a past.

 

Skipping ahead another couple hundred years could probably work as a TV series.

For a feature film, they're looking to reignite interest by bringing us back to Star Trek's roots. I really don't think there's a better way to do it right now.

 

The issue isn't the brand name, it's the people behind it. As much as I'm not fond of them, J.J. Abrams and O&K both have made successes on TV and film. They've got a reasonable chance of repeating that with Star Trek.

 

But it doesn't necessarily follow that non-Trek fans will feel like this. As someone said on another thread, when the trailer showed in the cinema the narrative and music actually brought a cheer from the audience. This way the audience get both the familiar and the new, I think.

Welcome, BTW