RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,591
Posts: 5,424,251
Members: 24,809
Currently online: 557
Newest member: Super Scout

TrekToday headlines

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12

New Wizkids Attack Wing Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12


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 > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Literature

Trek Literature "...Good words. That's where ideas begin."

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old January 7 2010, 07:45 PM   #31
seigezunt
Vice Admiral
 
seigezunt's Avatar
 
Location: Splashing on some Tiberius before a night on the town
Re: Star Trek Concordance -- One More Time!

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
What, you expect me to turn around on my stance on that lousy excuse for a movie just because of a gig? Can you imagine the amount of crap I'd get if I suddenly turned around and pretended everything was hunky dory with the thing?

Worry not, JJphiles, mine is not the final word on this, Bjo's is. Rest assured in the knowledge that JJ's film will be given fair treatment (even if that fair treatment means being sequestered in a special section in the back )

Otherwise, this'd be the cover...


"JJPhiles." Oy.

Yeah, I'm keeping my '76 edition. And my money.

Sorry, Bjo.
__________________
I am constantly surprised by the close-mindedness of some fans...this means change as well as a positive attitude. Without those things, how can we ever achieve that Trek future we enjoyed so much on TV? --Bjo Trimble
seigezunt is offline  
Old January 7 2010, 07:54 PM   #32
JoeP
Commander
 
JoeP's Avatar
 
Location: The Mighty Dominion of Canada
View JoeP's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Concordance -- One More Time!

seigezunt wrote: View Post

"JJPhiles." Oy.
Vey.
JoeP is offline  
Old January 7 2010, 08:02 PM   #33
Dimesdan
Rear Admiral
 
Dimesdan's Avatar
 
Location: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Dimesdan
Re: Star Trek Concordance -- One More Time!

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
What, you expect me to turn around on my stance on that lousy excuse for a movie just because of a gig?
Not exactly, but you need to suck it up, put what ever opinion you have behind you and accept that May 8th 2009 saw the most successful Trek film ever made released. Whether it was what you wanted is beside the point, what was made was made.
__________________
People in third world countries are so lucky they don't have to deal with these problems. - TheGodBen

I'm on twitter now. @DimesDaniel
Dimesdan is offline  
Old January 7 2010, 09:31 PM   #34
Mysterion
Rear Admiral
 
Mysterion's Avatar
 
Location: SB-31, Daran V
Re: Star Trek Concordance -- One More Time!

Even the '96 edition chronicled all appearances of TOS characters up to that point. Why shouldn't this edition?
__________________
USS Galileo Galilei, NCC-8888
Prima Inter Pares
Mysterion is offline  
Old January 8 2010, 03:16 AM   #35
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Star Trek Concordance -- One More Time!

It's still debatable just how much these characters still qualify as TOS characters; their personal histories are completely different, Chekov's age is off by several years, Spock is completely out of character, whether he's being played by Nimoy or Quinto, the ship is over twice the size of the original, the technology is wildly inconsistent, not only with TOS but with itself, etc.

Like I said, in all likelihood (unless Bjo came away from the film with a seriously bad taste in her mouth), it will be included, repeat, it will be included, but in an honest comparison with all of the previous material, you might not like the final result. And that's with as charitable an assessment as I imagine. The alternate timeline angle alone is enough to require it to be handled as a separate entity, like the Mirror Universe, so it's already on the road to being sequestered away from the rest of the canon.
Captain Robert April is offline  
Old January 8 2010, 03:36 AM   #36
MHJH
Lieutenant
 
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Re: Star Trek Concordance -- One More Time!

Dimesdan wrote: View Post
Not exactly, but you need to suck it up, put what ever opinion you have behind you and accept that May 8th 2009 saw the most successful Trek film ever made released. Whether it was what you wanted is beside the point, what was made was made.
Not that I want to come down on the side of the JJ Haters ('cause I thought the movie was decent, if not great), but how exactly are we defining successful? The movie spent at least 150 mil to make 385. It returned about the same profit per dollar as Generations did, and did it with movie tickets that cost nearly twice as much now as they did then. The new movie got fewer butts in seats than Wrath of Khan or even the Motion Picture did. JJ got Star Trek back on the scene, but let's not pretend the new movie made Trek insanely popular again.
MHJH is offline  
Old January 8 2010, 03:52 AM   #37
Thrawn
Rear Admiral
 
Thrawn's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
Re: Star Trek Concordance -- One More Time!

It made more than X-Men, Night At The Museum, 2012, GI Joe, Sherlock Holmes, and Terminator, coming in at the 7th most popular movie, domestically, this year. Wrath of Khan was the 6th most popular movie that year. If you define TWOK as "insanely popular", I don't see how this isn't. Seems pretty equivalent to me.

(Which is not an argument for quality, so don't go there; I loved it, and I have lots of arguments for quality, but that isn't one of them. Your post was about popularity, and so is mine.)

If you think the 7th most popular movie of the year doesn't qualify as "successful", I don't know what to tell you.
Thrawn is offline  
Old January 8 2010, 04:10 AM   #38
MHJH
Lieutenant
 
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Re: Star Trek Concordance -- One More Time!

I'm not arguing "successful", I'm arguing most successful. To continue with Wrath of Khan as the example, it made 97 million off a budget of 11 million. It made almost nine bucks for every dollar invested in it. Keep in mind, these are early eighties dollars too, I've not adjusted for inflation. JJs made 385 off of a budget of at least 150, which more than likely doesn't take into account the massive amount of marketing they did too. That's a take of around 2.50 for every dollar spent in the best possible scenario. Technically took in the most money? Absolutely. Adjusted for inflation? Not so much. Profitability? Doesn't even come close.

And this has nothing to do with TrekLit, so I should probably stop now.
MHJH is offline  
Old January 8 2010, 04:11 AM   #39
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek Concordance -- One More Time!

MHJH wrote: View Post
The new movie got fewer butts in seats than Wrath of Khan or even the Motion Picture did.
That's not really a valid comparison, for two reasons. One is that movies spend far less time in the theater now than they did in 1979 or 1982. Those box office figures for TMP and TWOK were accumulated over many months. The other reason is that movie attendance in general is less these days, since movies are a smaller piece of the multimedia pie and the audience is more fragmented.

JJ got Star Trek back on the scene, but let's not pretend the new movie made Trek insanely popular again.
Okay, overall for 2009 it was the 7th top-grossing film domestically. But compare that to its predecessors. For their respective years:

NEM: 54th place
INS: 28th
FC: 17th
GEN: 15th
TUC: 15th
TFF: 25th
TVH: 5th
TSFS: 9th
TWOK: 6th
TMP: 4th

(Courtesy of Box Office Mojo, except for the TMP figure, from Wikipedia.)

So at the very least, the movie has made ST more popular at the box office than it's been in the past 23 years. It's restored a high profile to a franchise that had come to be seen as irrelevant by the general public.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline  
Old January 8 2010, 04:19 AM   #40
Thrawn
Rear Admiral
 
Thrawn's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
Re: Star Trek Concordance -- One More Time!

MHJH wrote: View Post
I'm not arguing "successful", I'm arguing most successful. To continue with Wrath of Khan as the example, it made 97 million off a budget of 11 million. It made almost nine bucks for every dollar invested in it. Keep in mind, these are early eighties dollars too, I've not adjusted for inflation. JJs made 385 off of a budget of at least 150, which more than likely doesn't take into account the massive amount of marketing they did too. That's a take of around 2.50 for every dollar spent in the best possible scenario. Technically took in the most money? Absolutely. Adjusted for inflation? Not so much. Profitability? Doesn't even come close.

And this has nothing to do with TrekLit, so I should probably stop now.
Who cares about dollars earned per dollar spent? If you spend a dollar and make 235 million and one dollars, that's shocking and extremely cool, but if you spend 150 million and make 385 million, you're still 235 million dollars richer.

And besides, larger overall profit doesn't just mean the movie did well, it means there's increased visibility for all kinds of ancillary sales. I bet Star Trek toys sold a hell of a lot better this Christmas than they had in a while, don't you think?

It's more or less impossible to define "most successful", but given the incredibly negative buzz for the franchise as a whole after Nemesis and Enterprise, it certainly ranks among the highest from any reasonable perspective. So either way, Dimesdan's point is pretty inarguable.
Thrawn is offline  
Old January 8 2010, 04:43 AM   #41
MHJH
Lieutenant
 
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Re: Star Trek Concordance -- One More Time!

Thrawn wrote: View Post
Who cares about dollars earned per dollar spent? If you spend a dollar and make 235 million and one dollars, that's shocking and extremely cool, but if you spend 150 million and make 385 million, you're still 235 million dollars richer.
The initial investment matters quite a bit. Is it worth the gamble to stake so much money on one property? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. We'll surely get a sequel to this flick, but as the profit per dollar shrinks, and the initial investment gets higher, as it invariably does, the risk isn't worth it. Profit per dollar is incredibly important.


Thrawn wrote: View Post
And besides, larger overall profit doesn't just mean the movie did well, it means there's increased visibility for all kinds of ancillary sales. I bet Star Trek toys sold a hell of a lot better this Christmas than they had in a while, don't you think?
I don't understand how a technically larger gross leads to greater visibility, when fewer people have actually seen the movie. As for Star Trek toys selling better this year than in the past few, you're absolutely right. Best ever? I really doubt that.

Thrawn wrote: View Post
It's more or less impossible to define "most successful", but given the incredibly negative buzz for the franchise as a whole after Nemesis and Enterprise, it certainly ranks among the highest from any reasonable perspective. So either way, Dimesdan's point is pretty inarguable.
Obviously not, since I'm arguing . And, again, I'm not arguing that JJs movie didn't improve Star Trek's standing among the public, but I honestly don't see that this one movie has had anywhere near the impact that, say, TWOK and TVH had.

And really, I'm done now. This is way off topic and I don't want to get banned.
MHJH is offline  
Old January 8 2010, 05:12 AM   #42
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek Concordance -- One More Time!

MHJH wrote: View Post
And, again, I'm not arguing that JJs movie didn't improve Star Trek's standing among the public, but I honestly don't see that this one movie has had anywhere near the impact that, say, TWOK and TVH had.
Those movies had years for their full impact to be felt. The new Star Trek came out in theaters less than eight months ago and on DVD less than two months ago. It's really premature to be drawing conclusions about its overall impact.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline  
Old January 8 2010, 07:53 AM   #43
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Star Trek Concordance -- One More Time!

I'd say that Playmates suspending their Star Trek line of toys (based on the new movie) doesn't exactly qualify as a good indicator of what that overall impact is gonna be.

And I'd say the box office success of the movie spoke more towards the audience's hunger for new Star Trek, not necessarily a hunger for this version of it. Considering that Avatar's made a billion damn dollars, the money is definitely there to be made, so with all the built-in advantages Star Trek has, like a rabid audience that's ready, and wanting, to support whatever comes out, the real question is, why didn't this movie do better? It was a mediocre big budget blockbuster in a sea of big budget blockbusters, and that's all it was intended to be, a big, loud, blockbuster summer movie to go right alongside Transformers 2: Electric Boogaloo.

And pardon me while I channel Harlan Ellison, circa 1976 (since this year's model seems to have lost his way a tad), but that is the real insult, that they didn't even try for something a little higher in the intellectual scale. They shot right for that middle of the lowest common denominator, scientifically illiterate action movie herd where you don't have to generate any more brain power than it takes to read the opening credits. Remember when Star Trek was supposed to be the antidote for those kinds of movies? Now it's a complete sell-out, which is precisely what Roddenberry feared would happen once he was gone from the scene.

Okay, rant over.

Hey, kids, a new version of the Concordance is in the works! Stay tuned for more news as it happens!
Captain Robert April is offline  
Old January 8 2010, 12:50 PM   #44
Dick Whitman
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Behind the mask of Donald Draper
Re: Star Trek Concordance -- One More Time!

Beyond the new movie what other additions would there be?

The last update featured spin-off appearances of TOS characters played by the same actors. So obviously the DS9 and Voyager episodes that continued this trend would also be included.

But what about TOS characters which were recast? Like Zephram Cochrane, T'Pau, and Surak.
Dick Whitman is offline  
Old January 8 2010, 01:51 PM   #45
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Concordance -- One More Time!

Donald Draper wrote: View Post
But what about TOS characters which were recast? Like Zephram Cochrane, T'Pau, and Surak.
Well, both Saaviks were in the last book.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline  
Closed Thread

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 10:05 PM.

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