Poll What fans of the other Star Trek series are enjoying Discovery so far?

[Prax]

...and add in the money that was made on dvd, blu ray and digital download. Now do the same for Nemesis. Still not even close





None of which refutes what I said. I'm not talking about what happened after Voyager. I'm talking about what happened after Nemesis and Enterprise failed.



A producer who is no longer here and a studio who wanted to start on any timeline except TNG.



I agree. So as of right now, the franchise has STILL not touched TNG era trek since the last episode of Enterprise. If they go back to it later fine. But still doesn't change the fact that they've been avoiding it for twelve years now.

Who is "they"? The last twelve years- yeah, paramount went with a reboot. They didn't continue the TNG era even though they wanted to a few years earlier, and Berman, understandably didn't want to do more TNG era. This reboot film series did well until the 3rd movie.

Discovery is different. It is not "avoiding" the 24th century. It produced Fuller's vision for a first season, even if he was fired. And we don't know what's to come, but the 24th century was originally part of that plan.

Saying they've avoided the TNG era for 12 years, (as if there is some kind of aversion to it) is the same as saying they haven't produced a series in 12 years. The studio doesn't care what era it's in as long as it sells. The first one to break from the Berman era was Berman, the TNG king, if for no other reason than being sick of it, even the studio wanted more of it.

Also, Nemesis did very well in DVD sales, having the number 1 spot in the US and UK the week it was released on DVD. Did the studio break even? We don't know. Probably not.

Did the studio break even on Beyond? We don't know. Probably not.

TNG First Contact was very successful. Insurrection much less so, but enough to merit an additional, and unplanned sequel, Nemesis, which flopped(Even if it ended up doing extremely well in DVD sales and rentals).

ST09 was very successful, STID less so, but certainly good enough to merit an additional sequel, Beyond, which flopped(even if it ended up doing very well in DVD/BR sales).

Should there be an aversion to the reboot Kirk era as well?

It's just your opinion/perception, and just my opinion/perception disagreeing,and seeing it differently. There's nothing to refute.

It's like when people say "Killed the franchise." the franchise has never stopped, not even for a year since maybe the 70's, and even then there were projects and plans in the works for Trek the whole time.

 

[Prax]

^^^
Yeah, "Star Trek: Nemesis" proved how popular that era still is...oh, wait...

Yeah, no:
ST:NEM Bombed BIG TIME:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek10.htm
Cost: $60 million - brought in $67 million

STB underperformed vs expectations, but it was hardly a bomb:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek2016.htm
Cost: $185 million - brought in: $358 million

Again, overall STB did not do well, but comparatively it did not outright bomb like ST:NEM

Did you read the sentence you quoted?
I'll reiterate. TNG, the show, was the most profitable Trek series to date. Star Trek Nemesis, the movie, was the biggest financial failure of Star Trek to date, possibly only surpassed by Beyond. Beyond lost money at the box office. As a general rule of thumb(for big budget films), a film needs to gross twice it's production budget just for the studio to break even. That means that Beyond would need to gross 370m to break even. It's estimated that marketing budget for Beyond was about 120-125 million. It could have been less, it could have been more. On top of that, depending on the country, the theaters get a fair portion of ticket sales too.

For instance, The Force Awakens had a production budget of about 200 million, and a marketing budget a great deal higher. If it grossed 500 million worldwide, Lucasfilm would have broken even, and possibly lose money.

Yes, Nemesis may indeed have lost less money than Beyond. There is no way to fully know. There are so many factors of why a movie does well or not. "People don't like TNG era" is the least considered. For instance, Nemesis released, and tried to compete with LOTR, The Two Towers. Huge mistake. I know what movie I saw that season, and it wasn't Star Trek. Also premiering at the same time was Harry Potter, the highest grossing film that year.

 

[Vger23]

Did you read the sentence you quoted?
I'll reiterate. TNG, the show, was the most profitable Trek series to date. Star Trek Nemesis, the movie, was the biggest financial failure of Star Trek to date, possibly only surpassed by Beyond. Beyond lost money at the box office. As a general rule of thumb(for big budget films), a film needs to gross twice it's production budget just for the studio to break even. That means that Beyond would need to gross 370m to break even. It's estimated that marketing budget for Beyond was about 120-125 million. It could have been less, it could have been more. On top of that, depending on the country, the theaters get a fair portion of ticket sales too.

For instance, The Force Awakens had a production budget of about 200 million, and a marketing budget a great deal higher. If it grossed 500 million worldwide, Lucasfilm would have broken even, and possibly lose money.

Yes, Nemesis may indeed have lost less money than Beyond. There is no way to fully know. There are so many factors of why a movie does well or not. "People don't like TNG era" is the least considered. For instance, Nemesis released, and tried to compete with LOTR, The Two Towers. Huge mistake. I know what movie I saw that season, and it wasn't Star Trek. Also premiering at the same time was Harry Potter, the highest grossing film that year.

How do you come to the conclusion that TNG is the most profitable of the series? I'm just curious.

 

[BillJ]

For instance, The Force Awakens had a production budget of about 200 million, and a marketing budget a great deal higher. If it grossed 500 million worldwide, Lucasfilm would have broken even, and possibly lose money.

I bet if you look at Disney's books, neither The Force Awakens nor Rogue One has actually made a profit.

 

[Mattadd]

I'm a die hard Niner and I have to say I'm surprised that Discovery is being so well received by other Niners. I really tried to like Discovery, but after "Choose Your Pain" I'm extremely disappointed in the series.

So far Discovery ranks at the very bottom of the list for me. And unlike other series where it got better over time, Discovery has really locked themselves into a garbage concept that will make it difficult to adjust course. Of course Enterprise very successfully changed their formula in season 4, so maybe Discovery can do the same.

 

[Noname Given]

ST09 was very successful, STID less so, but certainly good enough to merit an additional sequel, Beyond, which flopped(even if it ended up doing very well in DVD/BR sales)..

ST:ID LESS successful that ST:2009? What?
Star Trek 2009:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek11.htm
Cost: $150 Million Wordwide BO: $385 Million

Star Trek: Into Darkness
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm
Cost: $190 Million Worldwide BO: $467 Million (And it also did very well with DVD/Blu-Ray)
^^^
Even with the $40 million production increase it did better that ST:2009. I don't get where many try to somehow claim is was "less successful" because It wasn't. It was the most successful (BO and aftermarket) of the JJ Verse films.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

DS9 is my favourite - so far. Discovery might actually take the top spot before long

Samesies!

 

[137th Gebirg]

ST:ID LESS successful that ST:2009? What?
Star Trek 2009:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek11.htm
Cost: $150 Million Wordwide BO: $385 Million

Star Trek: Into Darkness
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm
Cost: $190 Million Worldwide BO: $467 Million (And it also did very well with DVD/Blu-Ray)
^^^
Even with the $40 million production increase it did better that ST:2009. I don't get where many try to somehow claim is was "less successful" because It wasn't. It was the most successful (BO and aftermarket) of the JJ Verse films.

Perception vs. reality is a funny thing. It is damn near every fan's perception that STID was an inferior product to ST09, yet the reality of box office returns dictates otherwise from a studio POV. To put lemon juice in the paper cut, it was likely STID's monetary success that convinced Paramount execs to allow Beyond to be made.

 

[Noname Given]

Perception vs. reality is a funny thing. It is damn near every fan's perception that STID was an inferior product to ST09, yet the reality of box office returns dictates otherwise from a studio POV. To put lemon juice in the paper cut, it was likely STID's monetary success that convinced Paramount execs to allow Beyond to be made.

^^^
Hon estly, I think the fact 2016 was the franchise's 50th Anniversary - UNLESS ST:ID had bombed at the level of ST:NEM - a third film was assured to be released that year one way or another. Also, one thing to consider in STB's overall cost was that the Studio first approved (and cleared for pre-production) Orci's script, which was later canned; and the Pegg/Lin hastily written (but still good) script approved; BUT the Studio included the pre-production costs for the script the studio approved and later canned into the overall cost of STB. Point being that it was the studio's decision that bloated the overall budget to $185 million - and that's why there might still be a 4th JJ-Verse film at some point in the future (after ST: D's digital run however long that is - and even though I like it a lot, I don't see a 7 season run; two to three at best before they switch back to a feature film of some type.) We'll see.

 

[Prax]

How do you come to the conclusion that TNG is the most profitable of the series? I'm just curious.

I assume so, as it had the widest audience, was direct syndication, and led to so many spinoffs. It received mainstream level viewership ratings. The Original series received the same strong, mainstream viewership ratings, but the ad-revenue in the 60's is not comparable to the 80's, even adjusted.

The succeeding shows were less and less widely available, and had 5 times the competition to achieve even half the viewers, and I believe Voyager for example, had a larger budget.

ST:ID LESS successful that ST:2009? What?
Star Trek 2009:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek11.htm
Cost: $150 Million Wordwide BO: $385 Million

Star Trek: Into Darkness
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm
Cost: $190 Million Worldwide BO: $467 Million (And it also did very well with DVD/Blu-Ray)
^^^
Even with the $40 million production increase it did better that ST:2009. I don't get where many try to somehow claim is was "less successful" because It wasn't. It was the most successful (BO and aftermarket) of the JJ Verse films.

Well, I was pulling data from the-numbers.com, which has a giant graph at the top of the Star Trek page, showing ST09 at the top of the graph. And yes, it is domestic, but that's still important when discussing how well a studio performs. How much does the studio see from international ticket sales? Half?

And you keep giving the production budget. That's just a part of the cost in making and releasing a film, sometimes it's even the lesser cost(as in the Star Wars example)How much was spent promoting Into Darkness(a much more heavily promoted film than Beyond, if I recall)? 150 million?

 

[Vger23]

I assume so, as it had the widest audience, was direct syndication, and led to so many spinoffs. It received mainstream level viewership ratings. The Original series received the same strong, mainstream viewership ratings, but the ad-revenue in the 60's is not comparable to the 80's, even adjusted.

The succeeding shows were less and less widely available, and had 5 times the competition to achieve even half the viewers, and I believe Voyager for example, had a larger budget.

Well, I was pulling data from the-numbers.com, which has a giant graph at the top of the Star Trek page, showing ST09 at the top of the graph. And yes, it is domestic, but that's still important when discussing how well a studio performs. How much does the studio see from international ticket sales? Half?

And you keep giving the production budget. That's just a part of the cost in making and releasing a film, sometimes it's even the lesser cost(as in the Star Wars example)How much was spent promoting Into Darkness(a much more heavily promoted film than Beyond, if I recall)? 150 million?

I think on longevity and widespread distribution alone, TOS likely has TNG beat by a country mile.

 

[DarKush]

DS9 is my favorite Trek series, and so far, from what little I've seen of Discovery, I don't dislike or hate it. It hasn't hooked me yet, though. I do like the visuals quite a bit and the darker tone is somewhat similar to the feel of DS9 at points, though DIS is far darker at this point IMO.

 

[Noname Given]

And you keep giving the production budget. That's just a part of the cost in making and releasing a film, sometimes it's even the lesser cost(as in the Star Wars example)How much was spent promoting Into Darkness(a much more heavily promoted film than Beyond, if I recall)? 150 million?

Oh please - any marketing is going to be about the same for the era (or are you trying top claim they spent no money marketing ST:NEM?) I give teh production budget because that even what the studios go by publicly when measuring Box Office success.

Yes, I knopw that sometimes the marketing itself cost more than the film, but again that would be as true for ST:NEM in 2002 or ST2009, STID in 2013 and STB in 2016.

Oh and if you want to play the 'actual costs' card - remember the with STB the Chinese partner studio ponied up a lot of the costs and Paramount also got more tax writeoffs for the production costs than usual as a result - so it may be that STB WAS in fact profitable for Paramount in the end even with the underperforming BO results.

 

[ichab]

IStar Trek Nemesis, the movie, was the biggest financial failure of Star Trek to date, possibly only surpassed by Beyond.

Why do you keep repeating this lie sbout Beyond? It has no basis in fact.

Beyond lost money at the box office. As a general rule of thumb(for big budget films), a film needs to gross twice it's production budget just for the studio to break even. That means that Beyond would need to gross 370m to break even.

And that would mean that Nemesis needed 120 million to break even. So even by your standards Nemesis was a far bigger failure at the box office. And if box office isn't enough to decide popularity compare the two scores on rottentomatoes. It isn't even close

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/search/?search=star Trek
Nemesis 37 percent
Beyond. 84 percent

This means that for the majority of the viewing public, Beyond was a good movie and Nemesis sucked.

By the way, I enjoyed both movies and never understood the hate that Nemesis got. But facts are facts. We're both in the minority on liking Nemesis.

. There are so many factors of why a movie does well or not. "People don't like TNG era" is the least considered. For instance, Nemesis released, and tried to compete with LOTR, The Two Towers. Huge mistake. .

Also not true . Nemesis had the entire first weekend to itself with no blockbuster competition and it still couldn't crack twenty million nor first place.Maid in Manhatten won that honor and frankly that should tell you all you need to know about the lowpoint of the franchise by then. LOTR came the week after and before you try and use that excuse, one weekend without new box office competition is as good as it gets.

 

[Refuge]

^^^
Yeah, "Star Trek: Nemesis" proved how popular that era still is...oh, wait...

[QUOTE="Prax, post: 12218754, member: 73621"
TNG was so far, the most profitable Trek series to date, with the widest audience. Nemesis was one of the biggest financial failures, possibly only surpassed by Star Trek Beyond. Irony?

I wasn't saying other than how TNG, DS 9 and Voyager were popular. Nemesis, good or bad, doesn't mean the others were not received well. You know Discovery is going to have its own reckoning too, it doesn't mean previous Trek hasn't performed well

 

[Noname Given]

I wasn't saying other than how TNG, DS 9 and Voyager were popular. Nemesis, good or bad, doesn't mean the others were not received well. You know Discovery is going to have its own reckoning too, it doesn't mean previous Trek hasn't performed well

Here's the thiing I seriously doubt TNG had a wider audience then TOS as TOS was in syndication successfully for 18 years before TNG debuted and actually remained in syndication during TNG's run. Also, the JJ Verse films have brought new fans of the TOS era as well.

Yes, TNG was successful, but wider and more successful then TOS which is still aired to this day, and has been in some form since 1966 - sorry, no.

 

[ichab]

I bet if you look at Disney's books, neither The Force Awakens nor Rogue One has actually made a profit.

And on what basis are you making the case that a movie which made over 2 billion dollars at the box office didn't turn a profit?

 

[ichab]

Here's the thiing I seriously doubt TNG had a wider audience then TOS as TOS was in syndication successfully for 18 years since TNG debuted and actually remained in syndication during TNG's run. Also, the JJ Verse films have brought new fans of the TOS era as well.

Yes, TNG was successful, but wider and more successful then TOS which is still aired to this day, and has been in some form since 1966 - sorry, no.

This I can vouch for because our local station always aired a TOS episode right before the new TNG one.

 

[BillJ]

And on what basis are you making the case that a movie which made over 2 billion dollars at the box office didn't turn a profit?

Hollywood accounting. Return of the Jedi still hasn't made a profit, according to Lucasfilm.

They make up costs to keep films in the red, so they don't have to pay profit sharing.

 

[Noname Given]

And on what basis are you making the case that a movie which made over 2 billion dollars at the box office didn't turn a profit?

Oh trust me - he's 100% serious. Studios do this all the time to get out of profit sharing clauses in contracts (or severely underpay). Hollywood accounts can come up with enough 'hidden costs' to show that ANY film lost said studio money. It's an art form (and again - NOT kidding here.)