What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[CorporalCaptain]

The definition of flop is "fail completely" [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flop], and bomb means "flop" [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bomb].

Star Trek Beyond underperformed, surely, but to say it "flopped" or "bombed" is exaggeration, what click-bait thrives on.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

But both stayed way behind expectations, previous movies or competition

That’s more like it. Neither movie truly ‘bombed’ though.

For that, check out how Madame Web is doing right now…

 

[fireproof78]

It beats the shit out of FC.

Controversial Opinion:

Beyond is not only the best Kelvin movie of the 3, it’s the best Trek movie of all 13.

I don't agree but love the Kelvin love shown here.

 

[Shat Happens]

That's... Debatable

hehe the ellipsis. Was you dictating? sorry, I see that manywhere

ST09 was a commercial and critical success

Commercial yes because fans went to see what it was about. I know I bought one ticket. Critics I don't take too seriously. They are paid to do a job.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

It beats the shit out of FC.

Controversial Opinion:

Beyond is not only the best Kelvin movie of the 3, it’s the best Trek movie of all 13.

100% agreed.

 

[Rahul]

The definition of flop is "fail completely" [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flop], and bomb means "flop" [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bomb].

Star Trek Beyond underperformed, surely, but to say it "flopped" or "bombed" is exaggeration, what click-bait thrives on.

That’s more like it. Neither movie truly ‘bombed’ though.

For that, check out how Madame Web is doing right now…

I mean. Yeah. It's kind of an oversimplification. But still - whenever mainstream media is still taking about Beyond, the words "box office bomb" are attached to it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottm...er-as-big-as-star-wars-avengers-transformers/


Madame Web had a budget of 80 mio. and currently stands at 91 mio box office.
Morbius had a budget of 75 mio. & made 165 mio.

Comparatively Beyond is a bigger success than Madam Web, but a bigger failure than Morbius.
It's not a failure of epic proportions that goes down in history, like the Marvels or John Carter.
But overall "box office bomb" is justified.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Commercial yes because fans went to see what it was about. I know I bought one ticket. Critics I don't take too seriously. They are paid to do a job.

Fans make up a fraction of the cinema audience. I suspect you know this. If Paramount could make money just from curious Star trek fans there would be a lot more Star Trek at the cinema.

And still, you've got nothing for the 'lamentable failure' part.

It made it's money back.

Audiences liked it.

Critics liked it.

It won an Oscar.

Now, lamentable failure, where?

 

[Richard S. Ta]

The words "box office bomb" are fitting.

For the purproses of creating a false narrative, perhaps.

In reality, no:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box-office_bomb

Star Trek Beyond, not appearing in this list (Solo does):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biggest_box-office_bombs

 

[fireproof78]

Fans make up a fraction of the cinema audience. I suspect you know this. If Paramount could make money just from curous Star trek fans there would be a lot more Star Trek at the cinema.

And still, you've got nothing for the 'lamentable failure' part.

It made it's money back.

Audiences liked it.

Critics liked it.

It won an Oscar.

Now, lamentable failure, where?

People only want it to be a failure because of personal dislike. The evidence does not bear this out.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

People only want it to be a failure because of personal dislike. The evidence does not bear this out.

Bingo.

 

[Rahul]

For the purproses of creating a false narrative, perhaps.

In reality, no:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box-office_bomb

Star Trek Beyond, not appearing in this list (Solo does):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biggest_box-office_bombs

From that wiki-page:
"Although any film for which the production budget, marketing, and distribution costs combined exceed the revenue after release has technically "bombed", ..."


From Beyond's Wikipedia page:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Beyond#:~:text=It had a global opening,losing an estimated $50.5 million.
"It had a global opening of $89.2 million and an IMAX opening of $11.6 million on 571 IMAX screens.[61] Industry analyst Danny Cox had previously estimated that in order for the film to break even, it would have to earn $340–350 million worldwide,[62] and ended losing an estimated $50.5 million.[62]"

Funnily enough the source [62] doesn't mention anything of Beyond "needing 340-350 mio." (Because that movie DID reach that!), and just says "...churned a $50.5M loss after all ancillaries counted per financial sources"
https://deadline.com/2017/07/war-fo...-forecast-sumer-franchise-fatigue-1202123662/

Soooo..... it's only "technically" a box office bomb?

Certainly not one of the biggest or most notable bombs of all time. Just... bad enough to kill any sequels.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It underperformed is I believe how studios call it.

 

[Rahul]

Morbius underperformed. Beyond lost money.

(At least in cinema - might be recouped by now via merchandise, streaming rights, DVDs...)

 

[Rahul]

Controversial opinion:
Trek shouldn't try to be a big budget blockbuster or try to compete with the big boys of Marvel, DC, Star Wars and Disney in general.

Trek movies in the budget range of 80-120 mio. $ would look totally fine, and would be guaranteed to make their money back with the existing fanbase.
We just would have to miss out on the last half an hour of action schlock scenes. Which... I find very acceptable.

 

[fireproof78]

Guaranteed money?

I doubt it.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Controversial opinion:
Trek shouldn't try to be a big budget blockbuster or try to compete with the big boys of Marvel, DC, Star Wars and Disney in general.

Trek movies in the budget range of 80-120 mio. $ would look totally fine, and would be guaranteed to make their money back with the existing fanbase.
We just would have to miss out on the last half an hour of action schlock scenes. Which... I find very acceptable.

I agree this is they way they should go. However...

Guaranteed money?

I doubt it.

Yeah, this is 100% true. It doesn't matter if the budgets are reasonable, no Trek movie is 'guaranteed' to make its money back.

If it's bad enough it's going to do 60-70m or less, just like Nemesis or The Final Frontier.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I mean. Yeah. It's kind of an oversimplification. But still - whenever mainstream media is still taking about Beyond, the words "box office bomb" are attached to it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottm...er-as-big-as-star-wars-avengers-transformers/

It was no accident that I used the term "click-bait".

 

[cooleddie74]

STID made even more money than Trek 2009. For movies with unsuccessful appeal to audiences they sure made a lot of money. And I'm not even a fan of STID.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Trek movies in the budget range of 80-120 mio. $ would look totally fine, and would be guaranteed to make their money back with the existing fanbase.
.

Piffle.

 

[Commander Troi]

How about this for controversial?

TAS is better than PICARD and DISCO. (My order of the bottom three shows... 9th is TAS, 10th is PICARD, and dead last is DISCO. How their final season turns out to be will determine if it inches up or not. Personally, I'd like them to end well.)

I have to disagree. I love TAS, but the limitations of the show (like the short episode run time) keep it from being top tier Trek IMO. Plus, I happen to enjoy DISCO. (PIC is sadly near the bottom of my list as well, mostly because of missed opportunities to have been better.)