It didn't do that well, according to Wikipedia it made $179.1 million, that is not really gang busters, especially for a super hero movie.
In 2003, against a production budget of about 80 million. It did just fine.
Exactly.
Part of the issue here, I suspect, is that we tend to confuse critical success with commercial success when they're actually very different things and don't necessarily go hand-in-hand.
The 2003 movie got mixed reviews, so too many people tend to assume that that translates to a box-office disappointment as well--even though it netted about $100 million.
This is a fairly common misunderstanding. I'm kinda fascinated by the way some movies acquire reputations as financial failures in defiance of the actual facts. Back in the day, I used to run into people who were convinced that, for example, SPECIES or the first STARGATE movie were "flops" simply because they were underwhelmed by the movies themselves or had heard some negative buzz about them.
Maybe failure was an over statement, but it still wasn't successful enough to get a direct sequel, so you can at least say Daredevil didn't succeed as a film franchise.
The Green Lantern movie didn't flop, but it didn't make a lot of money either, it made its budget back and that's it. Just because a movie isn't a complete flop at the box office doesn't mean it has succeeded as a film franchise.
My point is DD was something of risk, the only real media outing DD got before the Netflix series was a film that was widely seen as mediocre, so if Netflix can take a risk on DD, they could take a risk on Star Trek.
Well, nostalgia plays into it, sure. I don't know how old you are, but its a concept you will understand better when you have a few more years under your belt. I only say that because somebody who talks about nostalgia in the manner you do almost has to be on the young side.
But for me, I don't particularly care for the angsty melodrama that TV has mostly become. These "darker" stories have their place, and in small doses can even be good. But for some reason, what should have stayed the exception, became the rule.
Shaky cam, or "steady cam" (There's an oxymoron if there ever was one) is another thing I dislike. You shouldn't need motion sickness pills to watch TV.
How's that? Better? Worse?
Fair enough, but I still disagree.
I am not young, I was born in the very early 80s and I am in my early to mid 30s. I just look back at a lot of the TV shows from the 80s and don't think they hold up.
I fail to see how formulaic shows like the A-Team, Miami Vice and Dukes of Hazard hold up as great television.
I also don't see much "shakey" cam in most of the modern TV shows I watch, I see that more in movies. The there are more quite scenes in something like Breaking Bad then there is Michael Bay's latest explosion fest.
I also think something can be dark and good at the same time, TV has taken up the mantle film used to have, tackling important subject matter. The Wire is far more artistically relevant then anything made in the 90s and 80s. It dealt with real social issues, it didn't tone things down for the sake of not offending anyone. Sometimes art has to be provocative, rather then safe and white washed. That is what film did the 70s. I would take these new darker shows over any of the formulaic shows from the 80s, any time of the week.
Plus not its not like if they made a new Star Trek show, doesn't mean it will be Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones. It can still be Star Trek, but it can't be as episodic as it was in the 60s and 80s. I think it would need an element of serialization to it.
But I totally disagree that a Star Trek show should not be made, because TV was better in the past. Even if that is true, nothing ventured nothing gained, you can make a good Star Trek show in today's era, it just has to be fresh and new.
Is the Marvel license itself a cheap one? I would doubt. I don't think Netflix or Hulu or any major online streaming service would have a problem paying the licences fees assoicated with Star Trek, they are hungry for content and content with a known name is always a good choice for these companies.
Relatively speaking, a minor Marvel hero is probably cheaper to license than Star Trek would be. Also, it is cheaper to produce.
Netflix is still in the business of making money, just like CBS. They probably have a business model that can't be sustained just by raising subscriber fees again and again and again. If there ever was interest, it probably faded because the cost associated with bringing Trek back wasn't worth it based on the number of subscribers they believe it would bring in.
Well Netflix is making several other Marvel shows, so put together, it could pretty expensive.
However I think we are both making assumptions here, but I remember hearing that Netflix was interested in making a Star Trek show, if that was true, then CBS is the one holding things up, not Netflix. So how do we know the license fees are too expensive for Netflix? Again Netflix spent a ton of money on Marco Polo and that was not as much as a safe bet as Star Trek is.
Maybe CBS is being shrewd and not making a new show because they carefully studied the market to see whether show will fail or not. Or maybe they are old dinosaurs, intent on maintaining an outdated distribution model, because they are unwilling to adapt to the new media landscape. I shouldn't assume the former, because many media companies have been slow to adapt to change. I do dispute the idea that a Star Trek series would not profitable in the modern era, but it would have to adapt to the times. If CBS is still obsessed with TV ratings, it shows outdated thinking on their part.
