I don't quite like Abrams' attitude

[Sci]

And that wasn't even the problem. The problem of the "budget" is that the studio stuffed the costs of several initialized, then aborted attempts at the series ST Phase II, and multiple switching back and forth between movie and series onto the budget of ST:TMP.

If you look purely at the budget for TMP, and then deminish that by the simple extra costs of the studio jerking about, TMP was more than cost effective.

Which is a bit like saying that if you only look at production costs for Item A, the returns on Item A are better. Well, that's true, but you can't just look at production costs for Item A, you also have to factor in the costs of research and development of Item A (whatever Item A may be). It is part of the job of Item A to pay for the costs of its development -- just like it was part of the job of Star Trek: The Motion Picture to pay for the costs of its development (and yes, that includes the costs of developing Phase II).

Bullshit.

Star Trek Phase II is not research for TMP, it's an entirely different production. It's like having been making a series called "Knight of New York", and then deciding by studio-politics to pull the plug on it. Then you, the studio, make a movie that you hand over the same production crew/company called "Grand Star" and putting the costs of "Knight of New York" onto "Grand Star" because you happen to hand both projects onto the same production crew, and if the movie can't clear both budgets blaming the production crew for it.

EVEN IF you do add the costs of ST Phase II onto TMP, then the blaim for the "bad performance versus costs" needs to lie squarely on the people responsible for jerking the production company around with internal politics causing the problem:

Namely YOU, the STUDIO, NOT Roddenberry, Wise, and company.

And it's fair enough to argue whether or not TMP should have been saddled with the job of recouping the costs of Phase II development. But, remember, it was, ultimately, Paramount Pictures's project; they have the right to whatever financial goals for the film they want and to judge it by that standard. They determined that whether it was Phase II or TMP, it was all Star Trek, and that therefore the final product, whatever it ended up being, would need to recoup the costs of developing any earlier unfulfilled Star Trek project.

You may think it unfair, but they didn't, and they're the ones who owned Star Trek and made the decisions. It's not like this is a matter of objective fact.

 

[3D Master]

Which is a bit like saying that if you only look at production costs for Item A, the returns on Item A are better. Well, that's true, but you can't just look at production costs for Item A, you also have to factor in the costs of research and development of Item A (whatever Item A may be). It is part of the job of Item A to pay for the costs of its development -- just like it was part of the job of Star Trek: The Motion Picture to pay for the costs of its development (and yes, that includes the costs of developing Phase II).

Bullshit.

Star Trek Phase II is not research for TMP, it's an entirely different production. It's like having been making a series called "Knight of New York", and then deciding by studio-politics to pull the plug on it. Then you, the studio, make a movie that you hand over the same production crew/company called "Grand Star" and putting the costs of "Knight of New York" onto "Grand Star" because you happen to hand both projects onto the same production crew, and if the movie can't clear both budgets blaming the production crew for it.

EVEN IF you do add the costs of ST Phase II onto TMP, then the blaim for the "bad performance versus costs" needs to lie squarely on the people responsible for jerking the production company around with internal politics causing the problem:

Namely YOU, the STUDIO, NOT Roddenberry, Wise, and company.

And it's fair enough to argue whether or not TMP should have been saddled with the job of recouping the costs of Phase II development. But, remember, it was, ultimately, Paramount Pictures's project; they have the right to whatever financial goals for the film they want and to judge it by that standard. They determined that whether it was Phase II or TMP, it was all Star Trek, and that therefore the final product, whatever it ended up being, would need to recoup the costs of developing any earlier unfulfilled Star Trek project.

You may think it unfair, but they didn't, and they're the ones who owned Star Trek and made the decisions. It's not like this is a matter of objective fact.

It IS a matter of objective fact. Phase II is NOT TMP; for example: there were entire sets built for Phase II, that's ALL money NOT spent on TMP, when they build brand new movie-grade sets. Yet those costs were dumped onto the TMP movie.

This is a simple fact. Blaming Roddenbery, Wise and company for YOUR actions of switching back and forth, greenlight things, then pulling the plug and doing something else, is YOUR fault, and nobody else's. If Meyer and co. were chosen to helm TMP, they would have the same problem that Roddenberry, Wise, and co. had, and equally been considered a "bad" director/producing team, because the studio decided to smack the costs of Phase II which they would have had nothing to do with onto their production.

Studios like to do this; shove blame for their own meddling and mistakes onto the director and company. Especially if for whatever reason they don't like them.

The simple fact is, that it's bullshit; and whatever the studio decided to do, has nothing to do with the empirical fact that Roddenberry/Wise/and co produced a fantastic movie, that was only eclipsed in box office by STIV, and the only reason that TMP "did not" make as much money versus costs, is because the studio did an accounting trick.

So any attempt for people no cliam that Roddenbbyer/Wise and co. aren't good movie makers and that TMP was so bad in comparison to Trek Wars, is just them riding the same bullshit accounting trick, and nowhere based on anything valid.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Them's the brakes, 3D. The issue of blame is sort of irrelevant to the fact that the movie, for some reason or another, ended up making less money than the studio wanted it to make. Abrams would have had the same problem if he had been put in charge of a TV series at first and only later switched over to a movie.

That's the thing in the end: success of a movie depends on alot of different factors, but the brilliance/creativity of a particular person isn't usually the end all. It mainly depends on the circumstances of production and how well the producers and directors worked within those circumstances. Rodenberry and company did pretty well for TMP under the circumstances, but the fact that they had an uphill climb to begin with still hinders their efforts.

Of course, they're not exactly blameless either. Or did you forget that whole insanely expensive "Memory Wall" sequence that stretched the TMP budget to its limit and ended up on the cutting room floor anyway? A big part of production is knowing when the thing you're trying to do is just a little too ambitious, and THAT was one of Rodenberry's major flaws.

 

[3D Master]

Them's the brakes, 3D. The issue of blame is sort of irrelevant to the fact that the movie, for some reason or another, ended up making less money than the studio wanted it to make. Abrams would have had the same problem if he had been put in charge of a TV series at first and only later switched over to a movie.

That's the thing in the end: success of a movie depends on alot of different factors, but the brilliance/creativity of a particular person isn't usually the end all. It mainly depends on the circumstances of production and how well the producers and directors worked within those circumstances. Rodenberry and company did pretty well for TMP under the circumstances, but the fact that they had an uphill climb to begin with still hinders their efforts.

Of course, they're not exactly blameless either. Or did you forget that whole insanely expensive "Memory Wall" sequence that stretched the TMP budget to its limit and ended up on the cutting room floor anyway? A big part of production is knowing when the thing you're trying to do is just a little too ambitious, and THAT was one of Rodenberry's major flaws.

It doesn't matter.

What a studio does, or doesn't do, or decide doesn't matter.

When you're leveling blame of things, and claiming a production crew is less than another in a thread like this, you can only use OBJECTIVE FACTS.

Not the accounting tricks people in a studio used to convince others in that studio to give a franchise to others because they didn't like someone in that production crew.

And the objective facts are that TMP was the 2nd highest grossing Star Trek movie, and that it made more than it's budget back. Claiming any different, ("as opposed to my pet producers who could"), is just plain being untruthful, and using false arguments.

 

[David cgc]

And while it was awesome that Ron Moore--who slipped a quote from Spock Must Die into the Caprica pilot*, for Pete's sake ("A difference that makes no difference is no difference")--is as big a Trekkie as anyone on this board, it wouldn't mean anything if his scripts were rot, which they sometimes were (Generations).

*I know Espenson is credited with the script but I'll bet cubits to navy beans that was a Moore contribution.

William James coined that aphorism in the 19th century.

 

[Sci]

It doesn't matter.

What a studio does, or doesn't do, or decide doesn't matter.

When you're leveling blame of things, and claiming a production crew is less than another in a thread like this, you can only use OBJECTIVE FACTS.

You're framing this in terms of "blame," as though someone did something "wrong" and someone must be assigned responsibility for this "wrong."

I am not. I am merely framing the question in terms of whether or not a given product earned the amount of money set as a goal by the firm producing that product. It did not. It's not a matter of "blame" -- it's just the math. The firm wanted it to make X amount of money but it earned X-Y instead.

Nothing wrong with that. But if the firm's goal is for the product to earn X, then no amount of arguments about the fairness of that goal can change the fact that X≠X-Y.

 

[trevanian]

Speak for yourself. TMP is STILL my favorite Trek movie, second only to ST09.

That's as may be, but it wasn't a critical success, nor did it make the studio very happy.

Both of which had alot more to do with the budget vs returns than the actual performance of the movie. The fact that the film barely broke even at the box office had alot to do with it, despite the fact that it made ridiculous grosses just to cover that budget.

'barely broke even' huh? Nobody's ever managed to bill TMP as costing more than 45mil, even with all the other tack-ons. With a worldwide return that was often cited as 175 mil in the early 80s (which has been downgraded in recent years to something like 139, though I doubt most after-the-fact sources at this point), 'barely broke even' is not a credible description.

Using the 2.5X multiplier rule, TMP would have broken even at 100-115, and it probably happened at the lower end of that, since most of the money spent was near the end of production, and nearly all of the income came in 1979 (it made 39 of its 55 mil in domestic rentals just between 12/7 and 12/31/79, so the rest of its run was a lot less effective.) So they got most of what the returns were on it back very fast.

Management hated that they didn't have SW on its hands, but considering how badly they handled the thing (and I'll even include the pre-Eisner admin on that, since Barry Diller is a huge heel-dragging culprit too), they're lucky that Bludhorn didn't fire the lot of them.

I don't post in this forum anymore, but had to make an exception here, since the subject being discussed in this thread is pretty much away from the forum heading and much more in the ST MOVIES category.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

And while it was awesome that Ron Moore--who slipped a quote from Spock Must Die into the Caprica pilot*, for Pete's sake ("A difference that makes no difference is no difference")--is as big a Trekkie as anyone on this board, it wouldn't mean anything if his scripts were rot, which they sometimes were (Generations).

*I know Espenson is credited with the script but I'll bet cubits to navy beans that was a Moore contribution.

William James coined that aphorism in the 19th century.

Well, now I feel like a total moron--talk about sub-literate. And I looked it up, too.

Thanks.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Them's the brakes, 3D. The issue of blame is sort of irrelevant to the fact that the movie, for some reason or another, ended up making less money than the studio wanted it to make. Abrams would have had the same problem if he had been put in charge of a TV series at first and only later switched over to a movie.

That's the thing in the end: success of a movie depends on alot of different factors, but the brilliance/creativity of a particular person isn't usually the end all. It mainly depends on the circumstances of production and how well the producers and directors worked within those circumstances. Rodenberry and company did pretty well for TMP under the circumstances, but the fact that they had an uphill climb to begin with still hinders their efforts.

Of course, they're not exactly blameless either. Or did you forget that whole insanely expensive "Memory Wall" sequence that stretched the TMP budget to its limit and ended up on the cutting room floor anyway? A big part of production is knowing when the thing you're trying to do is just a little too ambitious, and THAT was one of Rodenberry's major flaws.

It doesn't matter.

What a studio does, or doesn't do, or decide doesn't matter.

When you're leveling blame of things, and claiming a production crew is less than another in a thread like this, you can only use OBJECTIVE FACTS.

Not the accounting tricks people in a studio used to convince others in that studio to give a franchise to others because they didn't like someone in that production crew.

And the objective facts are that TMP was the 2nd highest grossing Star Trek movie, and that it made more than it's budget back. Claiming any different, ("as opposed to my pet producers who could"), is just plain being untruthful, and using false arguments.

Further reinforcing the impression that you always on the defensive about something.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That's as may be, but it wasn't a critical success, nor did it make the studio very happy.

Both of which had alot more to do with the budget vs returns than the actual performance of the movie. The fact that the film barely broke even at the box office had alot to do with it, despite the fact that it made ridiculous grosses just to cover that budget.

'barely broke even' huh? Nobody's ever managed to bill TMP as costing more than 45mil, even with all the other tack-ons. With a worldwide return that was often cited as 175 mil in the early 80s (which has been downgraded in recent years to something like 139, though I doubt most after-the-fact sources at this point), 'barely broke even' is not a credible description.

Using the 2.5X multiplier rule, TMP would have broken even at 100-115, and it probably happened at the lower end of that, since most of the money spent was near the end of production, and nearly all of the income came in 1979 (it made 39 of its 55 mil in domestic rentals just between 12/7 and 12/31/79, so the rest of its run was a lot less effective.) So they got most of what the returns were on it back very fast.

You're preaching to the choir, buddy. Almost every time I have brought up the notion of TMP being a good movie in the TrekMovie threads, I have at least five people jump down my throat with "But it barely broken even!" posts tossing numbers I've never seen from sources I've never heard of, most of it having something to do with TMP being weak in the box office but strong in VHS sales or some other convoluted shit.

All I know is, it's my favorite Trek movie of all time with STXI as a close second.

 

[I am not Spock]

Look, when it comes down to it people weren't angry at Berman for what he said. Sure, that fanned the flames, but that wasn't the point. They were angry for VOY, ENT, GEN, INS, NEM. They didn't like what he was bringing to the table and thus were already ill-disposed to anything he did say.

Alternately, a lot of people enjoyed the new Star Trek, and as such, they're willing to cut Abrams quite a bit of slack. The double standard is enacted pretty much on the basis of whether or not you like the guy's work. If Abrams follows this movie up with some terrible sequels I'm sure attitudes towards him will change - just as they have with George Lucas.

Seriously, does anyone remember when Lucas was a beloved geek icon? It'd have to be pre-1997 or something. You're only as hated or as well liked as your latest addition to a franchise, clearly.

You have a good point. People do tend to forgive what someone says more often, if they enjoy the product being produced.

Fandom can turn against someone the moment they make an inferior product. Abrams better make his next Trek film a knockout , or the fans will have his guts for garters

 

[WorfSucksDax]

Wasnt Star Trek.

Kirk was totally different.
Spock was totally different.
Uhura was totally different.
Chekhov was totally different.
Scotty was totally different.
The Enterprise was totally different.
The Romulans and Vulcans were totally different.
The Galaxy was totally different.
Starfleet was totally different.
Everyone behaves in ways totally contrary to their established nature.

Had nothing to do with Star Trek! Except the name...

Of course, when was the last time we had a good Trek movie, or even a good Trek.

 

[stonester1]

Wasnt Star Trek.

Kirk was totally different.
Spock was totally different.
Uhura was totally different.
Chekhov was totally different.
Scotty was totally different.
The Enterprise was totally different.
The Romulans and Vulcans were totally different.
The Galaxy was totally different.
Starfleet was totally different.
Everyone behaves in ways totally contrary to their established nature.

Had nothing to do with Star Trek! Except the name...

Uh...no.

Of course, when was the last time we had a good Trek movie, or even a good Trek.

We're in luck. 2009, the year the franchise, like the phoenix, lept back to flaming life.

 

[WorfSucksDax]

Well.. yes.

I dont get it, are you being sarcastic, wheres the argument here? How is Kirk the same as Kirk?

I enjoyed the movie, but it wasnt a Star Trek movie, or at least not a TOS movie.

 

[WorfSucksDax]

Ok, Chekhov was good, strike that one.

 

[Shazam!]

Eh? But Chekov was surely the most removed from the original TOS character?

 

[stonester1]

Well.. yes.

I dont get it, are you being sarcastic, wheres the argument here? How is Kirk the same as Kirk?

It felt like Kirk to me. The character easily pulled the "Kirk" strings and I can easily see that young man becoming the more mature starship captain. He WAS Kirk to me.

BTW, I don't know how he was "not" Kirk to you (feel free to spell it out), but if it was because he was portrayed as a young hellion, most of the novelizations that have depicted young Kirk, INCLUDING one by Shatner himself, ALL portray him as a young, rebellious, even troubled young man. Loads of potential, but lacking direction.

I enjoyed the movie, but it wasnt a Star Trek movie, or at least not a TOS movie.

To you. To me, it most definitely was. But again, I didn't need a bolt by bolt recreation of the look, cast, etc of TOS to get TOS. Just need a "feel". A familiar texture.

I got that.

 

[WorfSucksDax]

I dont know, I think he reacted in the same way old Chekhov would. How do you mean?

 

[Shazam!]

I enjoyed the movie, but it wasnt a Star Trek movie, or at least not a TOS movie.

To you. To me, it most definitely was. But again, I didn't need a bolt by bolt recreation of the look, cast, etc of TOS to get TOS. Just need a "feel". A familiar texture.

But it literally wasn't a TOS movie. They even said so in the film.

 

[stonester1]

Eh? But Chekov was surely the most removed from the original TOS character?

I don't get that, either. Now, I thought Checkov also hit the right notes, but they also made him more obviously competent.

I've no problem with that.