Abrams Directing Star Wars

[Franklin]

I'm not sure I could be friends with anyone who didn't find either of those gags hysterical.

"Good God, man!"

Almost made me think, "DeForest, who?" Almost.

My notoriously non-Trek fan wife who dutifully accompanies me to the Trek movies so I don't have to fulfill any stereotype by being a middle aged man going alone -- hey, and she's dragged me to Barry Manilow concerts, so she gets as good as she gives, better, actually -- laughed her ass off at that scene (for the RIGHT reasons).

 

[Amasov]

Oh, come on, gang. I was only being sarcastic. Didn't mean to cause harm.

 

[thumbtack]

I don't think I have any problems interacting with people in the real world.

Well, you do talk to yourself.

 

[ITL]

I don't think I have any problems interacting with people in the real world.

Well, you do talk to yourself.

Don't we all, sometimes?

Don't we all, sometimes?

Yes.

 

[panthers34343]

It would help if Trek fans would ever get over being butthurt about the fact that Star Wars has been, by far, the premier space science fiction franchise in the theaters since 1977. The least successful of the six Star Wars films made almost 100 million dollars more worldwide than the most successful Star Trek movie.

As far as people buying tickets to the movies are concerned, for over thirty years Star Trek has been in second place - and for most of that time a distant second.

That's a really flawed way of looking at things. Why don't you count the people who watched Star Trek on television? It's like saying the NFL is more successful than MLB because more people watch on average the NFL games than the MLB games, leaving out the fact that MLB has vastly more games a season (162 vs 16).

I mean yes the NFL does make more money than MLB but the point is you framed it in a way that made it more one-sided than it is.

I'm sure Star Wars has made more money if you count everything (toys, tickets, books, etc) than Star Trek but doing a pure movie vs movie comparison is ridiculous.

Star Wars is primarily a movie franchise, Star Trek is more television.

 

[Shazam!]

I'm not sure I could be friends with anyone who didn't find either of those gags hysterical.

I could. And also with those who did find them funny.

 

[Franklin]

It would help if Trek fans would ever get over being butthurt about the fact that Star Wars has been, by far, the premier space science fiction franchise in the theaters since 1977. The least successful of the six Star Wars films made almost 100 million dollars more worldwide than the most successful Star Trek movie.

As far as people buying tickets to the movies are concerned, for over thirty years Star Trek has been in second place - and for most of that time a distant second.

That's a really flawed way of looking at things. Why don't you count the people who watched Star Trek on television? It's like saying the NFL is more successful than MLB because more people watch on average the NFL games than the MLB games, leaving out the fact that MLB has vastly more games a season (162 vs 16).

I mean yes the NFL does make more money than MLB but the point is you framed it in a way that made it more one-sided than it is.

I'm sure Star Wars has made more money if you count everything (toys, tickets, books, etc) than Star Trek but doing a pure movie vs movie comparison is ridiculous.

Star Wars is primarily a movie franchise, Star Trek is more television.

Legion: Can someone get butthurt from penis envy? I didn't necessarily know so many Trek fans felt that way. Indeed, if it weren't for SW in 1977, we all may have gotten "Star Trek Phase II: The Entire Series", Special Edition, on Blu-Ray for Christmas. Oh, why can't we all just get along?

As far as the popularity of the NFL over MLB goes, panthers34343, poll after poll says NFL football is by far the favorite sport of Americans. College football is second. Major League Baseball is a distant third, down there with the NBA. The freaking joke called the NFL Pro Bowl draws more TV viewers than World Series games and the NBA Finals do.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It would help if Trek fans would ever get over being butthurt about the fact that Star Wars has been, by far, the premier space science fiction franchise in the theaters since 1977. The least successful of the six Star Wars films made almost 100 million dollars more worldwide than the most successful Star Trek movie.

As far as people buying tickets to the movies are concerned, for over thirty years Star Trek has been in second place - and for most of that time a distant second.

That's a really flawed way of looking at things.

No.

Why don't you count the people who watched Star Trek on television?

Uh, because I'm talking about movies and said so, dude.

Some people are upset about Star Trek movies always being treated like they're second to Star Wars movies. The reason that's so is because Star Trek is second to Star Wars in terms of box office. You got that?

Jesus.

 

[DarthTom]

Some people are upset about Star Trek movies always being treated like they're second to Star Wars movies. The reason that's so is because Star Trek is second to Star Wars in terms of box office. You got that?

Jesus.

Star Wars has generated $22 billion over the past 30 years when you add all of the shit in together. Whereas Trek has made $4 billion. It's not even close.

Edited to add: Which begs the question why would Lucas sell the franchise to Disney for 18% of their generated profits over 30 years?

Star Wars' initial release was followed by another five blockbuster films and a mini-industry of tapes and DVDs, toys, videogames and books. Taken together over its 30 years of cultural dominance, the Star Wars franchise has earned more than $22 billion.

The original TV show started in 1966, and with 10 movies and four more TV series, lasted into the 21st century. Spock action figures and models of the Enterprise sold by Playmates Toys, Hasbro, and Hallmark have made the franchise $4 billion.

 

[BillJ]

Some people are upset about Star Trek movies always being treated like they're second to Star Wars movies. The reason that's so is because Star Trek is second to Star Wars in terms of box office. You got that?

Jesus.

Star Wars has generated $22 billion over the past 30 years when you add all of the shit in together. Whereas Trek has made $4 billion. It's not even close.

Star Wars' initial release was followed by another five blockbuster films and a mini-industry of tapes and DVDs, toys, videogames and books. Taken together over its 30 years of cultural dominance, the Star Wars franchise has earned more than $22 billion.

The original TV show started in 1966, and with 10 movies and four more TV series, lasted into the 21st century. Spock action figures and models of the Enterprise sold by Playmates Toys, Hasbro, and Hallmark have made the franchise $4 billion.

Four billion is still good coin, but Star Wars is in another league.

 

[DarthTom]

Four billion is still good coin, but Star Wars is in another league.

Yea, I love this quote from the same article. Where Star Wars cleans up and Trek not so much is with the toys, DVD's and other shit. Lets face it, more people want a Han Solo action toy than a Captain Kirk one.

And that's just the start. Games and DVDs pull in more money, but the Jedi toys really rake in the bucks. Forbes estimates that those little Chewbaccas and tie fighters have made about $9 billion.
Han Solo was right -- hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster. Especially when it's made by Hasbro and sells for $19.99.

 

[Ovation]

I prefer Star Trek quite a bit to Star Wars (still enjoy the latter, just not as much as the former) but on the toy front, there are way more cool ships in Star Wars than in Trek to catch the eye of my seven year old son, for instance (he's never seen Star Wars and only one episode of TOS, but he's scarily knowledgeable about Star Wars ships--way more than his old man).

 

[Greg Cox]

Star Trek has nothing to be ashamed of. It's a successful, popular series that's been going strong for nearly fifty years now, and inspired a passionate fan following. That's nothing to sneeze at. Most series would be thrilled to be half as popular as Star Trek is. I'm proud to have been a Trekkie my entire life.

But, when it comes to mass popularity, Star Wars is on a whole other level and always has been, especially where young kids are concerned. That's not a value judgement; it's just a matter of fact. You can buy Yoda bedsheets and lunchboxes at Wal-Mart. He's like Mickey Mouse.

 

[cooleddie74]

Just look at most of the Star Trek toy lines over the decades. With the exception of the Mego action figures with fabric clothing that were released before Star Wars first hit theaters the Trek lines have paled and suffered in comparison to the toys and collectibles associated with the six live action SW films and their numerous spinoffs. The Playmates action figures of the nineties and 00's were a noble effort to mainstream Trek toys and lay claim to a chunk of the market, but for the most part they were unsold and unloved except by die-hard Trekkers who wanted plastic representations of their favorite characters.

Star Wars toys are bought in legions by kids who know nothing of the Saga other than Darth Vader, Ahsoka Tano and Jar Jar Binks...not necessarily in that order. The marketing by Lucasfilm outstrips Paramount's handling of Trek by light years.

 

[DarthTom]

Just look at most of the Star Trek toy lines over the decades. With the exception of the Mego action figures with fabric clothing that were released before Star Wars first hit theaters the Trek lines have paled and suffered in comparison to the toys and collectibles associated with the six live action SW films and their numerous spinoffs. The Playmates action figures of the nineties and 00's were a noble effort to mainstream Trek toys and lay claim to a chunk of the market, but for the most part they were unsold and unloved except by die-hard Trekkers who wanted plastic representations of their favorite characters.

Exactly. Star Wars unlike Trek has characters that appeal to younger children who are the primary consumers of action figures. I don't know any children who desired the Trek action figures even after the huge commercial success of the last film. Whereas as someone said up-thread children still want a Yoda lunch box.

And to paraphrase Mel Brooks in Space Balls - 'the real money is in the merchandizing.'

 

[cooleddie74]

Speaking of Star Wars toys (and if anyone's interested), here's the just-revealed line of 6" action figures that will start hitting stores later this year. I have to give Hasbro credit....this thing looks remarkably like Mark Hamill in Episode IV.

Not too bad.

 

[BillJ]

Just look at most of the Star Trek toy lines over the decades. With the exception of the Mego action figures with fabric clothing that were released before Star Wars first hit theaters the Trek lines have paled and suffered in comparison to the toys and collectibles associated with the six live action SW films and their numerous spinoffs. The Playmates action figures of the nineties and 00's were a noble effort to mainstream Trek toys and lay claim to a chunk of the market, but for the most part they were unsold and unloved except by die-hard Trekkers who wanted plastic representations of their favorite characters.

Exactly. Star Wars unlike Trek has characters that appeal to younger children who are the primary consumers of action figures. I don't know any children who desired the Trek action figures even after the huge commercial success of the last film. Whereas as someone said up-thread children still want a Yoda lunch box.

And to paraphrase Mel Brooks in Space Balls - 'the real money is in the merchandizing.'

I think variation in theme plays a big part as well as the fact that Star Wars is more akin to cowboys and indians. Much easier for kids to get into.

Back to variation of theme... we have basically four or five Picard figures that essentially all look alike (early TNG, late TNG, TNG jacket and First Contact). With just vague changes in the color scheme. Most of the ships are also just variation on a theme. Star Wars just destroys Trek on this front.

 

[Franklin]

I may be dichotomizing this too much, but compared to "Star Wars", what is there in "Star Trek" to attract kids? Kathryn Janeway coffee mugs? Spock sheets?
Especially if a kid knows nothing of either franchise, is a six year-old more likely to be attracted to a Spock action figure in the toy aisle, or a C3PO one? What nine year-old is going to want a McCoy doll over a Wookie or R2D2? Which character looks more swash-buckling to a kid, Kirk in uniform holding a phaser, or Hans Solo dressed as a Jedi Knight wielding a light saber? Which would be cooler to a kid, being Darth Vader on Halloween or being a Klingon?

Comparatively, "Star Wars" is the strange, new world, with new life and new civilizations that "Star Trek" is always supposedly seeking out. "Star Trek" is us. Its world is familiar. It also has to make some sense. SW is totally alien, and doesn't want to be familiar to anyone (after all, it takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away), and it therefore has more weird and cool things that don't even have to make sense. The weirder and cooler the better.

 

[BillJ]

The weirder and cooler the better.

Agreed. I think Trek lost this when it became a "franchise".

 

[lurok]

if I collected, wouldn't mind this