I've long thought the same thing. I thought after the success of 2009 Trek that they should've put an animated series out there to keep those new, younger fans interested and reel more in.
STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
I've long thought the same thing. I thought after the success of 2009 Trek that they should've put an animated series out there to keep those new, younger fans interested and reel more in.
Trek does need some more younger fans. I got into the franchise as a child, in the 90s, during the Berman era, but I was probably a minority.
Another animated series is a great idea. It should happen.
Seeing this movie sitting there, not even at 300 million after three weeks of release (internationally), is increasingly frustrating.
I am wondering where all the Star Wars fans, eager to see how their new overlord fares with sci fi, are
Another animated series is a great idea. It should happen.
Seeing this movie sitting there, not even at 300 million after three weeks of release (internationally), is increasingly frustrating.
I am wondering where all the Star Wars fans, eager to see how their new overlord fares with sci fi, are
Watching Fast and Furious and Iron Man.
Yes.
However I would prefer Trek stay on TV and everyone in the world of all ages experiences its awesomenessI just think that it might look dated now to today's teens and as a result might perhaps impact on that demographic at STID box office.
Let 1000 teens watch a random episode of any Star Trek and I think chances are 900+ won't like it.
The obvious antidote is a new TV show or cartoon.
Well, as long as they show DS9 I'm good
(they DON'T show it now.... the bastadges
)Really? SW fans see more in common with those movies, than with Star Trek? Wow.
I guess Trek 09 really was a fluke. Someone at Paramount got a bit too excited with the budget with this one.
SW has always been more of a mainstream product than ST, you know that.
I don't know, I'm a huge fan of both franchises. Just because SW is more mainstream by and large, that has no bearing on my (lack of) interest to go see F&F. I know a lot of people in the same boat.
That said, sure. I can take the hit, especially where Iron Man is concerned. I do know a lot of people who skipped out on ST09 and STID but went to all three Iron Man flicks and look forward to more Star Wars.
That said, sure. I can take the hit, especially where Iron Man is concerned. I do know a lot of people who skipped out on ST09 and STID but went to all three Iron Man flicks and look forward to more Star Wars.
Last edited:
That's a silly rhetorical question, given that we've actually seen the film and don't have to base anything on a snarky article about focus groups.
As a nearly fifty-year fan of Star Trek, this movie is the Star Trek I want - this year. I look forward to seeing more Star Trek movies, which will each be different and will continue to change with the world in which they're being made.
Replace fifty with forty and this is spot on how I feel.
Some of you guys need to get a grip dammit!
STID will cross the $300 million dollar mark this weekend (global total) and by the end of its run, will probably make $400-$500 million. This will make it the most successful Trek movie ever (bar the possible exception of TMP).
Crikey - it's going to beat Star Trek 09's global gross and do rather nicely, thank you very much.
STID will cross the $300 million dollar mark this weekend (global total) and by the end of its run, will probably make $400-$500 million. This will make it the most successful Trek movie ever (bar the possible exception of TMP).
Crikey - it's going to beat Star Trek 09's global gross and do rather nicely, thank you very much.
I've used a few inflation calculators, and TMP's 1979 worldwide take of $139,000,000 is worth roughly $433,000,000 in today's money. I realise there are many other factors to take into account, but I do think the comparison is a fair guide.
Based on that, STID has a good shot at becoming the most successful Trek movie - when judged by the final dollar tally at least.
If there were more of the Admiral Buzzkill-type fans, this film wouldn't be where it is profit-wise. Unfortunately, there are not.
The film needs to make $380 million to be successful. It is still treading water in the mid-$260s million. For the film to make $300 million, it will need to get $30 million in profits.
As for After Earth, I don't know if it will succeed. The film does have a positive - Will Smith - and a negative - MNS. Maybe the two will balance out.
Next week, there isn't a strong challenger coming out for number one. Then, the week after, there will be the Man of Steel. So, Star Trek has two more weeks to attempt to reach $380 million. It's possible, and I am rooting for all those Admiral Buzzkills that are out there that it will happen. If it does happen, then the chances of getting the film they want are greater.
The film needs to make $380 million to be successful. It is still treading water in the mid-$260s million. For the film to make $300 million, it will need to get $30 million in profits.
As for After Earth, I don't know if it will succeed. The film does have a positive - Will Smith - and a negative - MNS. Maybe the two will balance out.
Next week, there isn't a strong challenger coming out for number one. Then, the week after, there will be the Man of Steel. So, Star Trek has two more weeks to attempt to reach $380 million. It's possible, and I am rooting for all those Admiral Buzzkills that are out there that it will happen. If it does happen, then the chances of getting the film they want are greater.
No, it's not a fair guide. In 1979, there were no crappy downloadable cam versions that legions of people watch instead of going to the cinema... There wasn't even home video, so the only way to see TMP was in the cinema (and thereafter, hoping it would air on television in about 3 to 4 years at minimum)... Today, so many people will think: 'I'll check it out when it comes out on DVD/blu ray/ whatever'. I think when you take that into account, the whole 'unadjusted gross' check of films that were released prior to the home cinema age is very flawed...
Agreed. I think ST09 and STID gross can only be compared with any Trek movie from TUC/GENS onward.
In 1979-1989 the population was smaller but there was less channels on TV, no internet, no DVD, no Blu-Ray, no PPV, no piracy and movies made their money over several months rather than several weeks. I know VHS started coming in during the mid 80s but it was only in the early-mid 90s that they were in every household I think.
And what made up metric are you basing that on?
Well, I did say there were other factors to take into account. I absolutely loved the movie, and want it to succeed as much as anyone. Personally, I believe it'll sail into the black without any problems.
VHS came out in the mid-1970s. There was piracy then - every VHS tape (film or episode) came equipped with a warning against this practice. Movies today can earn their money over months - look at Avatar.
When I read about Hollywood today, the word I keep seeing is "safe". The corporations want a product that is safe, doesn't offend major investors, and is easily translatable for any audience member. Corporations will fund focus groups to see what they want and what they don't want. I feel there is an expectation placed on the directors, producers, and writers to respect what the focus groups and investors demand, and to make every effort to meet these demands.
One of the reasons I have been reading for the greater emphasis on international markets is that the sale of physical copies of the movies is declining, as people are increasingly relying on online streaming. This paradigm is occurring as well in the music and video game industries.
Some franchises work better than others in this new world. Comic book movies are an exceptionally good case of a successful model. Comic book movies aren't required to change their fundamental nature to work in this new world. Characters like Iron Man and Superman are the main draw to these movies. For other franchises, like Star Trek, they have to fundamentally change their nature. Focus groups see this franchise as a science heavy talky where people wear outlandish costumes and speak in meaningless gibberish. Star Trek was about characters being philosophical and exploring the human condition, using science that was credible - a criteria established by Roddenberry at the onset of the franchise, and solving issues through diplomacy and negotiation, and occasionally, with weapons. This doesn't translate well. (I think it's possible to create a film that does all three. For the film to be successful, well, I think that will require an exceptionally good director and talented screen writers.) So, what we see on the screen is what Paramount believes will be interpreted by overseas audiences favorably, and, in the process, the film alienated some of the hardcore fans. So, the franchise is struggling.
I see the situation here as this. There is a girl. Some adore this girl near and far, and will accept her flaws without questioning. They are in love with her. Others look at this girl, and think she's homely, and wonder what her adorers see in her. Admiral Buzzkill I place in the former, and I place myself in the latter. There is no middle ground.
I want and desire for people to be happy, and I think having this film be successful - to attain at least $380 million - will make Admiral Buzzill happy. So, I'm rooting for him and others like him.
(Why $380 million? http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable. The writer describes it as a rule of thumb.)
When I read about Hollywood today, the word I keep seeing is "safe". The corporations want a product that is safe, doesn't offend major investors, and is easily translatable for any audience member. Corporations will fund focus groups to see what they want and what they don't want. I feel there is an expectation placed on the directors, producers, and writers to respect what the focus groups and investors demand, and to make every effort to meet these demands.
One of the reasons I have been reading for the greater emphasis on international markets is that the sale of physical copies of the movies is declining, as people are increasingly relying on online streaming. This paradigm is occurring as well in the music and video game industries.
Some franchises work better than others in this new world. Comic book movies are an exceptionally good case of a successful model. Comic book movies aren't required to change their fundamental nature to work in this new world. Characters like Iron Man and Superman are the main draw to these movies. For other franchises, like Star Trek, they have to fundamentally change their nature. Focus groups see this franchise as a science heavy talky where people wear outlandish costumes and speak in meaningless gibberish. Star Trek was about characters being philosophical and exploring the human condition, using science that was credible - a criteria established by Roddenberry at the onset of the franchise, and solving issues through diplomacy and negotiation, and occasionally, with weapons. This doesn't translate well. (I think it's possible to create a film that does all three. For the film to be successful, well, I think that will require an exceptionally good director and talented screen writers.) So, what we see on the screen is what Paramount believes will be interpreted by overseas audiences favorably, and, in the process, the film alienated some of the hardcore fans. So, the franchise is struggling.
I see the situation here as this. There is a girl. Some adore this girl near and far, and will accept her flaws without questioning. They are in love with her. Others look at this girl, and think she's homely, and wonder what her adorers see in her. Admiral Buzzkill I place in the former, and I place myself in the latter. There is no middle ground.
I want and desire for people to be happy, and I think having this film be successful - to attain at least $380 million - will make Admiral Buzzill happy. So, I'm rooting for him and others like him.
(Why $380 million? http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable. The writer describes it as a rule of thumb.)
Yet for all practical purposes those Trek fans are sure box office dollars. No one is going to come out and claim that its "the casual fan that has driven the box office take to $160 million, if only we could reel in some of the hard core Trek fans". A lot of trek fans act like a gaggle of old women who like to b*tch about everything just for the sake of b*tching. *yawn*
Superhero stories are also not true science fiction. While superheros appeal much more to males than females, science fiction has never been a popular genre with women and girls. And its not like comic books are popular with juveniles these days either. The comic industry is lingering on its way to a slow death. Kids these days are either exposed to superheros on TV or in the theaters, comics are a non-entity in today's youth culture.
I'm sure 10 Trek fans can have 10 different interpretations of what defines "Trekness" (see the old woman comment previously). However, there has always been a great deal of destruction in the Star Trek Universe. This is a key component of much of the drama within the series. What is best for Star Trek is whatever increases its popularity and chances of survival. Movies obviously cannot have the same storylines as a series as they need to be grander in spectacle and tension to justify the investment. They also need to resolve in the equivalent of 2 - 2 1/2 episodes where a series can drag out a story arc over a season or more.