acceptable casualties (possible spoilers)
- Thread starter RobertScorpio
- Start date
Abrams has not DESIGNED his film to "piss-off long time customers". But like any business that is updating/modifying a major element of its product, Paramount and co. hope to keep most of the their "long-time customers" AND bring in LOTS of NEW ones. They know that SOME of the old ones won't like it, but they believe it will be outweighed by the NEW ones. Will they be right? Only time will tell. But I can say that those of my friends who have any interest in sci-fi movies at all (but are not "trekkies" or fans of any other franchise in particular--you know, they're "regular" people) to whom I've sent the photos and such are ALL excited to see the film (whereas none of them saw the last two Trek film and none of them watched any Trek beyond TNG). So if my anecdotal experience is indicative of general trends (I have no way of knowing, but I'm willing to guess it is), then it looks like Paramount/Abrams will succeed.
Well, I've shown the photos to those that I work with (three to be exact) and all three think it looks just as groan-worthy as the original. You know the mainstream audience Paramount is soooo desperate for.
Since I work in finance... I question their business plan.
I don't think that's their intention, though I can see how you would interpret it that way.
That said - I have seen such an example. One that, as you say, would "piss off" long time fans. Back in 1996, Hasbro relaunched the Transformers toy line and cartoon. Gone were Autobots, Decepticons, trucks and planes and instead, we were introduced to two new factions: Maximals and Predacons. What did they become? Techno-organic animals. Their war? Fought on ancient Earth in a savage setting millions of years ago.
This was a huge risk as it completely went against the Transformers formula in many ways. Sure there was a Megatron, but he wasn't the Megatron. Sure there were transforming robots, but they became organic critters! Many old skool fans cried blasphemy (just as fans here have over the new Trek film) and you know what? Beast Wars turned out to be one of the most successful Transformers franchises ever, going 3 seasons and putting Transformers back on the map as a viable toy franchise after years of floundering. The success of the film last year and the sheer volume of product being produced (and selling) for the line is a tribute to how smart of a move shaking things up was back in 1996 - even if it meant pissing off "long time" customers.
I did not only show the ship (just about everyone I know who has liked sci-fi movies has been, at best, indifferent to the 'ships'--whatever the franchise. I've yet to see a truly "awe-inspiring" ship design, of any franchise, if we exclude sheer apparent size). And if the new ship is just as groan worthy as the original, then pining for "the original" isn't the solution, then, is it.
Think of it as risk vs. reward...
I can spend 25 million (cost + advertising + packaging) on a straight to DVD feature targeting my core audience and make 15 million in profit (DVD's, sales to broadcast outlets and merchandising).
Or...
I can spend 150 million and have to double that total before even beginning to think about turning a profit (same income factors as above plus ticket income sales), so you have to pull in 300 million before dime one goes to the studio. Now I got to tell you merchandising revenue probably wouldn't be all that different between to two.
So pining for the original is the right choice if you're shooting for the right audience.
Plus, no Trek film has ever sniffed the 300 million mark. So history definitely isn't on your side.
Re: acceptable casualties
I am going to go at this like I did with the last Star Wars Triology (Original trilogy still WAY better),
If you go to be entertained you will have fun. If you go for the story alone you may be disapointed.
I went to those movies to be entertained by the visuals and left thinking it was fine.
So I will head to this "NEW" take on the Trek Mithos the same way.
And with JJ at the helm I am sure the story will be better than expected.
I am going to go at this like I did with the last Star Wars Triology (Original trilogy still WAY better),
If you go to be entertained you will have fun. If you go for the story alone you may be disapointed.
I went to those movies to be entertained by the visuals and left thinking it was fine.
So I will head to this "NEW" take on the Trek Mithos the same way.
And with JJ at the helm I am sure the story will be better than expected.
You're quite correct in that no Trek film has sniffed the $300 million mark, but you're also conveniently forgetting inflation. If Star Trek: The Motion Picture's $140 million worldwide gross is adjusted for the 29 years of inflation between 1979 and 2008, it comes to something in the range of $395-420 million, depending on the calculations used.
Similarly, if Star Trek IV's 1986 returns of $133 million are adjusted for 22 years of inflation, the resulting figure is closer to $250 million. Both movies, alongside Star Trek II, were considered to be bonafide blockbusters of their time, so there is some precedent for Star Trek movies pulling in large box office returns.
The law of diminishing returns for Star Trek movies only set in after the absymal showing of Star Trek V at the box office, and was briefly arrested by First Contact's vaguely impressive $145 million worldwide haul, before continuing with the lacklustre results of Insurrection and the disastrous financial performance of Nemesis.
I know some people will challenge the validity of adjusting box office grosses for inflation, but if you don't, the bald figures imply that First Contact was a bigger hit than Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek IV, something we all know full well ISN'T the case.
Trek XI isn't designed to piss off the "long time customers". The long time customers are chosing to be pissed off over one minor thing or another. And realistically, why shouldn't Abrams take a risk and try and make a movie that everyone will enjoy, not just Trekkies? I think Nemesis (a movie written by a guy who said he was a huge fan) and Enterprise (a series designed to bring Trek back to its roots) both proved that the fans can't really be counted on when it comes to carrying a movie or a series. If a movie is made for the fans, in all likelyhood, they will only get those fans, and then there will be the additional losses because they will inevitably fuck something up that will drive people away.
No, but I doubt you'll ever be able to convince those making such contentions otherwise.
^I know... but it gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside to at least say it, regardless of the effect it has. 
Or you can hit 700 million dollars worldwide and have a summer blockbuster,..... Like Transformers.... I wonder who wrote that..
Oh yeah the guys writing Star Trek.
quoted because I agree 100%
Think of it this way...
At an average of $7.00 a ticket (factoring in matinees and what-not), you'll have to sell about 43 million tickets to re-coup your initial investment. Factor out broadcast rights and DVD sales... you're still going to have to sell about 35 million tickets. Not impossible... but a pretty daunting task. Plus, I don't believe the initial cost estimates include advertising.
I hope Star Trek can pull in those kinds of numbers, but I doubt it.
At an average of $7.00 a ticket (factoring in matinees and what-not), you'll have to sell about 43 million tickets to re-coup your initial investment. Factor out broadcast rights and DVD sales... you're still going to have to sell about 35 million tickets. Not impossible... but a pretty daunting task. Plus, I don't believe the initial cost estimates include advertising.
I hope Star Trek can pull in those kinds of numbers, but I doubt it.
Long-time customers that have proven to be a real burden. Maybe the plan is to frak 'em and look elsewhere.
Similar threads
