TrekMOVIE Is Broken

[Devon]

Look I know you are trying to see the positive side with STiD box office, however something's are fact. If trek movie and the Hollywood reporter can admit the film underperformed including so many fans, then to an extent it is true.

No one denied that it underperformed in the U.S. But this does not mean "It failed" and "It isn't gaining new fans because of Quinto screaming 'Khan'" or anywhere close. Even in the U.S. it's still the second highest grossing film, this means it did better than TEN other films in the franchise.

I'd also like to remind you that "The Wrath of Khan" also did not perform as well at the box office as "The Motion Picture" did. Yet "The Wrath of Khan" is considered the benchmark of Trek films. Obviously while it would be nice for each film to do better than the next, market demands and many other factors will cause fluctuations in a series of films from a franchise.

Let's look at other examples, "Empire Strikes Back" ended up pulling in significantly less than "A New Hope." "The Godfather Part 2" did less than the first one. "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" did less than "Raiders of the Lost Ark." And in a couple of cases THESE are the films usually considered the best in their series. Just because a film pulls in a little less than the previous film does not mean anything remotely close to what some of you are trying to imply, especially that joke of an article on TrekMovie.

If this film had not been released in 3D, I doubt the film would have cracked 200m domestically.

The 3D people would have just seen the 2D version. Simple.

 

[serenitytrek1]

Look I know you are trying to see the positive side with STiD box office, however something's are fact. If trek movie and the Hollywood reporter can admit the film underperformed including so many fans, then to an extent it is true.

No one denied that it underperformed in the U.S. But this does not mean "It failed" and "It isn't gaining new fans because of Quinto screaming 'Khan'" or anywhere close. Even in the U.S. it's still the second highest grossing film, this means it did better than TEN other films in the franchise.

I'd also like to remind you that "The Wrath of Khan" also did not perform as well at the box office as "The Motion Picture" did. Yet "The Wrath of Khan" is considered the benchmark of Trek films. Obviously while it would be nice for each film to do better than the next, market demands and many other factors will cause fluctuations in a series of films from a franchise.

Let's look at other examples, "Empire Strikes Back" ended up pulling in significantly less than "A New Hope." "The Godfather Part 2" did less than the first one. "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" did less than "Raiders of the Lost Ark." And in a couple of cases THESE are the films usually considered the best in their series. Just because a film pulls in a little less than the previous film does not mean anything remotely close to what some of you are trying to imply, especially that joke of an article on TrekMovie.

If this film had not been released in 3D, I doubt the film would have cracked 200m domestically.

The 3D people would have just seen the 2D version. Simple.

Am sorry if my comments are hurting other trek fans. It is not my intention. I am just been misunderstood.

I never said STiD flopped, STiD is no where near a flop, far from it, The film has been a good success.

Most sequels don't earn as much as their first films: star wars, harry potter, Spiderman 2.

My point is that I don't know why other fans wont just admit the film underperformed. It still doesn't mean it wasn't a success.

STiD has been a critical and commercial success but it could have been way more successful in both areas.

 

[MacLeod]

You can use figures to support just about any argument.

For example ST has always underperformed in the non-english speaking countries.

So for example whilst F&F6 did some US$787.5m worldwide if we look at just the US and UK markets which are two of the key ST markets.

F&F6 did US$238.7m at the US and at the UK it was US$38.3

for STID the figures were US=US$228.7m an for UK US$39.4m

Of course you now need the detailed breakdown of how much revenue STID earned via 3D. But at the end of the day the final box office total difference is negliable. You have to look to the non-english speaking countries to see were ST fails to strike a chord. If the makers of ST could understand the reasons as to why and address them without impacting on the existing key markets ST could potential to US$750m+

 

[Ln X]

STID is one of Star Trek's biggest hits but not the best. It's in the top four highest grossing Trek films adjusted for US ticket inflation (though given inflation in general is under-reported the earlier Trek films may have grossed even more money). It's the biggest so to speak but not the best.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

If a film is really good it will be one of the front runners for massive box office returns, consider The Dark Knight and Inception. Both solid films and they stood out from the pack by a mile, especially Inception which should of flopped given it was a movie where you had to really use your brain. But it did not flop because people saw something unique in it.

What was so unique and special about STID which makes it stand out? Why does it 'deserve' more box office returns if there was too much competition? If STID really was that great it would have outshone every big box office film this year.

I've seen other big box office films this year and quite frankly STID looks like all the rest. It did not capitalise on poignant moments like Spock talking about his emotions with Uhura or Kirk's death. The former was promptly drowned out by a chase scene while Kirk's death was ruined with Spock screaming Khan! Some sombre silence and inner pain would have totally redeemed that scene.

While other poignant or emotional moments seemed contrived or forced. Consider those scenes devoted to that dying girl or Kirk going all putty when Pike died. It only works if Pike is a father figure to Kirk but I think that is pushing it, at best Pike gave Kirk a few hints and was Kirk's boss but other than that...

STID was going in the right direction with Khan's crew, the hints about Section 31 and a potential Klingon/Federation war. Those were the bits a really enjoyed and parts were STID was building upon the first NuTrek film.

But the non-Trekkie and the casual viewer will probably only remember the stand-out moments: the Enterprise rising up above the sea, Carol Marcus' cleavage, the Vengeance crashing into San Francisco and Spock screaming Khan.

Now, consider the casual viewer, how many times have they seen huge CGI moments, scantily clad women and clichéd shouting/screaming?

Give the audience something special and truly amazing and they will reward you. STID had potential but it was largely wasted and they spent 190 million dollars making a rehash of TWOK. So here's hoping the third NuTrek will be more imaginative!
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

 

[Flake]

STID is one of Star Trek's biggest hits but not the best. It's in the top four highest grossing Trek films adjusted for US ticket inflation (though given inflation in general is under-reported the earlier Trek films may have grossed even more money). It's the biggest so to speak but not the best.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

If a film is really good it will be one of the front runners for massive box office returns, consider The Dark Knight and Inception. Both solid films and they stood out from the pack by a mile, especially Inception which should of flopped given it was a movie where you had to really use your brain. But it did not flop because people saw something unique in it.

What was so unique and special about STID which makes it stand out? Why does it 'deserve' more box office returns if there was too much competition? If STID really was that great it would have outshone every big box office film this year.

I've seen other big box office films this year and quite frankly STID looks like all the rest. It did not capitalise on poignant moments like Spock talking about his emotions with Uhura or Kirk's death. The former was promptly drowned out by a chase scene while Kirk's death was ruined with Spock screaming Khan! Some sombre silence and inner pain would have totally redeemed that scene.

While other poignant or emotional moments seemed contrived or forced. Consider those scenes devoted to that dying girl or Kirk going all putty when Pike died. It only works if Pike is a father figure to Kirk but I think that is pushing it, at best Pike gave Kirk a few hints and was Kirk's boss but other than that...

STID was going in the right direction with Khan's crew, the hints about Section 31 and a potential Klingon/Federation war. Those were the bits a really enjoyed and parts were STID was building upon the first NuTrek film.

But the non-Trekkie and the casual viewer will probably only remember the stand-out moments: the Enterprise rising up above the sea, Carol Marcus' cleavage, the Vengeance crashing into San Francisco and Spock screaming Khan.

Now, consider the casual viewer, how many times have they seen huge CGI moments, scantily clad women and clichéd shouting/screaming?

Give the audience something special and truly amazing and they will reward you. STID had potential but it was largely wasted and they spent 190 million dollars making a rehash of TWOK. So here's hoping the third NuTrek will be more imaginative!
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

Best reviewed blockbuster of 2013
Highest rated blockbuster of 2013

Will sell millions on home video

Stunning action sequences with excellent 2D and 3D visual/audio quality. Visually stunning generally.

WTF do you expect? I don't understand?

1979-1986 marketplace was very different to today, so simply adjusting the old movies and comparing them to today is incorrect.

I agree there are elements that will rub some fans the wrong way but when it is looked at on its own and discarding the Trek produced by other people it is not half as bad as some make it out to be.

 

[JarodRussell]

Why is a personal opinion less valid just because something makes money and is successful?

That's the basic gist in these argument. You didn't like it? Well, but all the others liked it. So go fuck yourself.

I miss Dennis.

What happened, did he get banned?

Didn't he eat his own shoes because he always said with 100% certainty that it won't be Khan?

 

[Avon]

Why is a personal opinion less valid just because something makes money and is successful?

That's the basic gist in these argument. You didn't like it? Well, but all the others liked it. So go fuck yourself.

and the gist of the other side of that is: I didn't like it. But all the others liked it. So go fuck yourselves.

so what's your point?

 

[Flake]

It is not just successful financially though is it?

It is successful with the critics and successful with the masses who have rated it highly.

To say it is broken when the above has occurred does not seem correct to me because these facts state otherwise.

 

[Ln X]

It is not just successful financially though is it?

It is successful with the critics and successful with the masses who have rated it highly.

To say it is broken when the above has occurred does not seem correct to me because these facts state otherwise.

Soaps and The Simpsons are all highly successfully financially, have been praised by critics and are hugely popular with the masses. Both are steaming turds whose quality has gone down over the years.

STID is diluted Star Trek and it's great if you want some action and some drama (just don't think about to hard or the whole thing falls flat on its face). You can make one of Michelangelo's sculptures out of turd and mould it to the very last nuance, but it is still a turd.

Now I really thought STID would be an improvement to Star Trek 09 and the first two thirds are decent though a little shaky (Kirk being a dick in beginning of the movie, Kirk crying his eyes out for one of his bosses, Kirk going all Hulk-like on Khan, Carol Marcus and the underwear scene) with some great promise with references to Section 31 and Spock dealing with the emotional aftermath of losing his homeworld.

But the ending, it was a mess and that sets the tone for the rest of STID. I wonder what metric the critics are comparing STID to? Star Trek 2009, the rest of the riff-raff out there?

I just guess DS9 and TNG have spoiled me rotten, I dunno.

 

[BillJ]

STID is diluted Star Trek and it's great if you want some action and some drama (just don't think about to hard or the whole thing falls flat on its face).

Much like the previous seven hundred hours of the franchise. It is the spin-offs that were "diluted" Star Trek.

I wonder what metric the critics are comparing STID to? Star Trek 2009, the rest of the riff-raff out there?

Likely the same metric they hold other movies too. Is it fun to watch? Is it well made? Into Darkness meets both of those criteria.

I just guess DS9 and TNG have spoiled me rotten, I dunno.

The passive-aggressive "I'm smarter than everyone else" schtick gets old. The Abrams films have shown me just how far Modern Trek had moved away from the source material and how unhappy I was with much of Modern Trek.

 

[Sindatur]

..."This one is.. I kind of forget what was supposed to be wrong with Insurrection."

Say it with Sean Connery's accent

Shtar Trek 9 Inshurection

 

[Harvey]

STiD didn't do that well domestically

It currently ranks #7 in domestic box office this year (by the end of 2013, it will probably remain in the top 10). It's done well domestically.

 

[Saul]

I did also think it a bit weird that a website that so strongly supported JJ Trek and this new direction would post something like this. OK, STID wasn't as successful as the studio wanted but the movie seems quite popular, it wasn't a failure and I really enjoyed it. I think the article is jumping the gun a bit since the site said the same thing about the previous trek movies and series and how things needed to change. Now two movies later in a new universe with everything all shaken up and they're playing the same song again.

 

[BillJ]

My point is that I don't know why other fans wont just admit the film underperformed.

Many, many people here have already stated their thoughts on this starting with what the movie did opening weekend. Where have you been?

But, no one here knows Paramount's actual feelings on the films performance. Unless one in is in either the production or financial departments at Paramount. Do you work for either of those divisions?

STiD has been a critical and commercial success but it could have been way more successful in both areas.

Sure. So could have Titanic, Star Wars or the Avengers. I had a scoop of ice cream last night, but I could've had two. Doesn't make the one I did have any less tasty.

 

[Flake]

Trekweb is also broken and has been broken for some time. The main editor there hates the reboot and has shown this in his posts for years now. It is a shame that Anthony Pascale built trekmovie.com up so well only to go AWOL and now the 'star trek is broken' will take centre stage for god knows how long until someone finally posts something else.

It is such a shame the major trek news communities are now so negative (trekcore doesn't 'like' it either) when they should remain impartial at least. I would love to take over one of those sites and try to spread the reboot love a bit instead of constant infighting amongst fans.

Fans are suffering from TNG hangover and it clouds their judgement when it comes to the reboot. They are watching through TNG tinted, 80s glasses. Berman era Star Trek was broken beyond repair and the reboot is the fix.

 

[Ln X]

It is such a shame the major trek news communities are now so negative (trekcore doesn't 'like' it either) when they should remain impartial at least. I would love to take over one of those sites and try to spread the reboot love a bit instead of constant infighting amongst fans.

What is there for these fans to love? If they see a sub-par Trek movie then that is what they see.

Fans are suffering from TNG hangover and it clouds their judgement when it comes to the reboot. They are watching through TNG tinted, 80s glasses. Berman era Star Trek was broken beyond repair and the reboot is the fix.

Does Deep Space Nine fit into that category?

STID is diluted Star Trek and it's great if you want some action and some drama (just don't think about to hard or the whole thing falls flat on its face).

Much like the previous seven hundred hours of the franchise. It is the spin-offs that were "diluted" Star Trek.

I can accept that VOY and ENT 'diluted' Star Trek. But TNG and DS9 improved Star Trek and were steps in the right direction, while VOY and ENT were made by creators who were running on vapours and were burnt out with the whole franchise.

I just guess DS9 and TNG have spoiled me rotten, I dunno.

The passive-aggressive "I'm smarter than everyone else" schtick gets old. The Abrams films have shown me just how far Modern Trek had moved away from the source material and how unhappy I was with much of Modern Trek.

Not saying "I'm smarter than everyone". So, anyway, what were the problems with Modern Trek?

 

[BillJ]

So, anyway, what were the problems with Modern Trek?

Much of it was incredibly dull for starters. Star Trek was sci-fi action-adventure, Modern Trek aimed to be sci-fi drama. It was essentially "L.A. Law in space". So much of what made Star Trek memorable was lost in the transition.

 

[Franklin]

It is not just successful financially though is it?

It is successful with the critics and successful with the masses who have rated it highly.

To say it is broken when the above has occurred does not seem correct to me because these facts state otherwise.

Soaps and The Simpsons are all highly successfully financially, have been praised by critics and are hugely popular with the masses. Both are steaming turds whose quality has gone down over the years.

STID is diluted Star Trek and it's great if you want some action and some drama (just don't think about to hard or the whole thing falls flat on its face). You can make one of Michelangelo's sculptures out of turd and mould it to the very last nuance, but it is still a turd.

Now I really thought STID would be an improvement to Star Trek 09 and the first two thirds are decent though a little shaky (Kirk being a dick in beginning of the movie, Kirk crying his eyes out for one of his bosses, Kirk going all Hulk-like on Khan, Carol Marcus and the underwear scene) with some great promise with references to Section 31 and Spock dealing with the emotional aftermath of losing his homeworld.

But the ending, it was a mess and that sets the tone for the rest of STID. I wonder what metric the critics are comparing STID to? Star Trek 2009, the rest of the riff-raff out there?

I just guess DS9 and TNG have spoiled me rotten, I dunno.

There were more than just references to Section 31. Section 31 unthawed Khan and started the entire mess. Khan blew up a significant portion of it in London. Marcus apparently headed it. Every time he was on screen you basically saw Section 31. The Vengeance and its crew were part of Section 31. Section 31 was being used by Marcus to drag the Federation into a war with the Klingons. What more did you need to know about Section 31 that was important to the story or that would've added to it?

There were more than just references to Spock dealing with the emotional aftermath of losing Vulcan. His behavior in almost the entire movie was influenced by it, from his almost suicidal behavior at the beginning, to melding with Pike, to the obvious damage he was doing to his relationship with Uhura, to his loss of Kirk and the reaction to it. It was all about him dealing with the loss of Vulcan. His problems just didn't take the form of sitting down with a ship's counselor for ten minutes of dialog in order to really explore his feelings. Of course, maybe that would've been useful.

If anyone went to STID expecting to be made to think deeply about an issue, explore the morality of something, or get a life lesson, then they violated the first rule of politics: never believe your own propaganda. Sorry, it's been said so often that someone could've become rich by copyrighting the statement, but TOS was never about that. At least not any more than any other good TV series was that was meant for intelligent people who more than anything just wanted to be entertained. TOS was fun. Kirk had fun, and we lived vicariously through him. STID recaptured a lot of that, at least to this 50-something fan from early syndication days. TNG was very good, but if I may say, it was stuffier than TOS. It wasn't as much fun. To exaggerate a little, TNG (Picard) is like an uncle who buys you a violin for Christmas then gets you lessons as a birthday present. He has you sit down and watch Masterpiece Theater with him on PBS. Kirk (TOS) is the uncle who let you have occasional sips of beer, bought you the X-Box for your birthday that your mom didn't want you to have, and he looks the other way when he sees you watching his stash of porn flicks on his computer.

 

[BillJ]

TOS was fun. Kirk had fun, and we lived vicariously through him. STID recaptured a lot of that, at least to this 50-something fan from early syndication days. TNG was very good, but if I may say, it was stuffier than TOS. It wasn't as much fun. To exaggerate a little, TNG (Picard) is like an uncle who buys you a violin for Christmas then gets you lessons as a birthday present. He has you sit down and watch Masterpiece Theater with him on PBS. Kirk (TOS) is the uncle who let you have occasional sips of beer, bought you the X-Box for your birthday that your mom didn't want you to have, and he looks the other way when he sees you watching his stash of porn flicks on his computer.

This statement is spot on how I feel.

The thing about Picard was that I really loved the character in seasons one and two of TNG. He was fun to watch and was capable of bending the rules in the finest tradition of Jim Kirk. It wasn't until season three that the stuffy, weirdly moral Picard came to the surface.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Okay then if you choose to leave in self denial there is nothing I can do.

What is it with you and this "self denial" bullshit?

Paramount were the ones that projected first that STiD will earn a 100m opening weekend. that what was the original projected and it didn't happen.

I already addressed this:

"Paramount got overzealous and made a brash and unrealistic exclamation. People like to set lofty goals. When they don't achieve those goals, it doesn't mean they're disappointed with the actual outcome. Unless you work for Paramount, any thing you say about its reaction to the film's performance is complete speculation." Then there was my rock star analogy. Did the film do as well as Paramount initially wanted? No. Does that automatically mean they're disappointed? No. Unless you can provide documented evidence where an executive specifically states he or she is upset by the film's performance, you're just speculating.

STiD even with competition could have done better. Instead of blaming the time of it release maybe you should blame why the film had a poor demographic of young people. the same young people who would flock to see Star Wars in a heartbeat.

Star Wars is the single largest IP in the world. Hell, it's produced three movies that everybody hated and said were terrible but went to go see multiple times anyway. It should not be used as a measuring stick for anything.

In a way it does promote fact. Let me give you a perfect example. imagine two students with a GPA of 3.0 and 3.5. while there might be opinions among lecturers about who is overall the better student. it is of fact that that student with a GPA of 3.5 has the better degree.

Huh? A bachelor's degree is a bachelor's degree. After the diploma is in your hands, no one gives a shit what your GPA was. Now one degree might be more applicable to certain occupations than the other, but that doesn't make it "better." Now what does this absurd analogy have to do with anything?

When films are release everyone references their score on RT and Metacritic. while opinions might vary, it is quite clear that a film with a higher RT and Metatcritic score is technically seen as the better film. This is fact, it is not opinion.

No.

Superman may be the highest grossing films but it could not eve touch Burton's Batman and this was before the Nolan batman series. Superman and the Trek films use to gross around the same but now MOS has left STiD in the dust.

The difference in the adjusted gross's for Superman and Batman is about 9%. That's hardly "can't touch this," MC Hammer. And it should be pointed out that Batman was shown on almost three times the number of screens.

Furthermore, Superman and TMP came out the same year. Superman world wide gross was more than two-times TMP's. How's that not "left in the dust"? It's certainly not "about the same."

Look I know you are trying to see the positive side with STiD box office, however something's are fact. If trek movie and the Hollywood reporter can admit the film underperformed including so many fans, then to an extent it is true.

And for the 1,000,001 time, under-performance does not beget disappointment.

May I add that there has bee no article saying STiD 3D ticket sales were poor. which means STiD did have a boost at the box office thanks to 3D.

Yet another fallacy.

If this film had not been released in 3D, I doubt the film would have cracked 200m domestically.

Anyways, until you start doing a better job formatting your posts, I'm done arguing. I'm wasting too much time trying to decipher what you're even talking about.