Best Trailer..STAR TREK 6
- Thread starter RobertScorpio
- Start date
I've long been a big fan of this trailer for TMP. Even though I think Welles has a great voice, he just sounds very bored reading his list of names; in the second trailer, the announcer gives it some feeling. And even though it does showcase some of the weaker effects of the movie, I think it gives it a really good epic feel, and breeds that sense of wonder that I absolutely love about Star Trek.
But the TUC trailer was also great, I'm a big fan of Christopher Plummer, and I think that this trailer works well just as a free-standing tribute to the original series, and commemorates how TUC really was a nice little completion of that saga.
But the TUC trailer was also great, I'm a big fan of Christopher Plummer, and I think that this trailer works well just as a free-standing tribute to the original series, and commemorates how TUC really was a nice little completion of that saga.
I remember seeing that as well, JuanBolio, and I wondered if they were killing Kirk off. This was before I was a serious Trek fan.
That was a good trailer!
Wait, ST6 disappointed at the box office? I thought it was one of the more successful of the original movies, behind ST4 & ST2.
It did 74 million domestically, that's behind STIV's 109, Fc's 92, TWOK's 78, ST3's 76, Gen's 75...it's above Insurrection, STV, and Nemesis.
But it's numbers are fairly consistent with most ST grosses. I doubt anyone was super disappointed in them.
^Not to turn this into another box-office debate, but that's where it was disappointing. The inflation-adjusted box-office numbers for these movies tell the true tale: while the price of tickets and the price of making a movie kept creeping up, most of the films hit in that mid-$70m range, which means as time marched on, there were fewer butts in the seats.
A movie that makes $78m in 1982 (when the average ticket price was $2.94) is more impressive than a movie that makes $74m in 1991 (average ticket price: $4.21), or a movie that makes $70m in 1998 (average ticket price: $4.69). As an example (and hardly an accurate one, since most people probably paid more than average price for their tickets), this would mean that around 26.8 million people went to see TWOK, versus 17.8 million for TUC or 14.9 million for INS.* The number of people going to see the films shrank. TUC was a bounce back from the disappointment of TFF, yes, but it was not a return to the volume of ticket sales seen with the first four films. That's where the film could be seen as a disappointment.
*To stretch my hypothetical, let's ignore the fact that De Kelley and Jimmy Doohan are dead, and say TUC had been released in 2007, when the average ticket price was $6.88 (though I know I paid way more than that to see Harry Potter
). That means it would have only been seen by around 10.2 million people. Again, the audience kept shrinking.
Just to keep the audience numbers level with what they were for TWOK, at today's average movie ticket price, a Trek film would need to pull down something in the neighborhood of $185 million.
A movie that makes $78m in 1982 (when the average ticket price was $2.94) is more impressive than a movie that makes $74m in 1991 (average ticket price: $4.21), or a movie that makes $70m in 1998 (average ticket price: $4.69). As an example (and hardly an accurate one, since most people probably paid more than average price for their tickets), this would mean that around 26.8 million people went to see TWOK, versus 17.8 million for TUC or 14.9 million for INS.* The number of people going to see the films shrank. TUC was a bounce back from the disappointment of TFF, yes, but it was not a return to the volume of ticket sales seen with the first four films. That's where the film could be seen as a disappointment.
*To stretch my hypothetical, let's ignore the fact that De Kelley and Jimmy Doohan are dead, and say TUC had been released in 2007, when the average ticket price was $6.88 (though I know I paid way more than that to see Harry Potter
). That means it would have only been seen by around 10.2 million people. Again, the audience kept shrinking.Just to keep the audience numbers level with what they were for TWOK, at today's average movie ticket price, a Trek film would need to pull down something in the neighborhood of $185 million.
Last edited:
My personal favorite was the First Contact trailer but this one comes in a close second.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
^Not to turn this into another box-office debate, but that's where it was disappointing. The inflation-adjusted box-office numbers for these movies tell the true tale: while the price of tickets and the price of making a movie kept creeping up, most of the films hit in that mid-$70m range, which means as time marched on, there were fewer butts in the seats.
A movie that makes $78m in 1982 (when the average ticket price was $2.94) is more impressive than a movie that makes $74m in 1991 (average ticket price: $4.21), or a movie that makes $70m in 1998 (average ticket price: $4.69). As an example (and hardly an accurate one, since most people probably paid more than average price for their tickets), this would mean that around 26.8 million people went to see TWOK, versus 17.8 million for TUC or 14.9 million for INS.* The number of people going to see the films shrank. TUC was a bounce back from the disappointment of TFF, yes, but it was not a return to the volume of ticket sales seen with the first four films. That's where the film could be seen as a disappointment.
*To stretch my hypothetical, let's ignore the fact that De Kelley and Jimmy Doohan are dead, and say TUC had been released in 2007, when the average ticket price was $6.88 (though I know I paid way more than that to see Harry Potter
Just to keep the audience numbers level with what they were for TWOK, at today's average movie ticket price, a Trek film would need to pull down something in the neighborhood of $185 million.
If TREK V made, according to IMDB, $114 in 1989 "dollars" and Nemesis made $104 in 2003 "dolars", then wouldn't V actually be considered a far bigger finanical success?? You're the expert Mr. Biggles. What do you think??
Rob
Scorpio
Final Frontier was a bigger financial success than Nemesis.* It certainly made back its budget the first time around instead of having to wait for the international revenues or VHS/DVD sales to come in.
It's still perceived as a failure because of:
*some specifics:
The Final Frontier (1989)
It's still perceived as a failure because of:
- the poor fan and critical response
- its gross was only half of the phenomenally successful Voyage Home
- it went over budget (budgeted for $27mil, came in at $32mil)
- it got lost amid the other summer films it was competing against (specifically, Batman, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and Ghostbusters 2).
*some specifics:
The Final Frontier (1989)
- in 1989 dollars:
- domestic gross: $52.2mil
- international gross: $17.9mil
- total: $70.2mil
- budget: $32mil
- in 2008 dollars:
- domestic gross: $91.5mil
- international gross: $31.5mil
- total: $123.1 mil
- budget: $56.1mil
- in 2002 dollars:
- domestic gross: $43.2mil
- international gross: $24mil
- total: $67.3mil
- budget: $66mil
- in 2008 dollars:
- domestic gross: $50.6mil
- international gross: $28.1mil
- total: $78.8mil
- budget: $77.2mil
Last edited:
I remember seeing the TUC teaser in the theater. I can't remember what movie I saw but I wasn't expecting to see a Star Trek trailer. I got chills when I saw it. Nostalgia alone puts it at the top of the list for me.
^Not to turn this into another box-office debate, but that's where it was disappointing. The inflation-adjusted box-office numbers for these movies tell the true tale: while the price of tickets and the price of making a movie kept creeping up, most of the films hit in that mid-$70m range, which means as time marched on, there were fewer butts in the seats.
A movie that makes $78m in 1982 (when the average ticket price was $2.94) is more impressive than a movie that makes $74m in 1991 (average ticket price: $4.21), or a movie that makes $70m in 1998 (average ticket price: $4.69). As an example (and hardly an accurate one, since most people probably paid more than average price for their tickets), this would mean that around 26.8 million people went to see TWOK, versus 17.8 million for TUC or 14.9 million for INS.* The number of people going to see the films shrank. TUC was a bounce back from the disappointment of TFF, yes, but it was not a return to the volume of ticket sales seen with the first four films. That's where the film could be seen as a disappointment.
*To stretch my hypothetical, let's ignore the fact that De Kelley and Jimmy Doohan are dead, and say TUC had been released in 2007, when the average ticket price was $6.88 (though I know I paid way more than that to see Harry Potter
Just to keep the audience numbers level with what they were for TWOK, at today's average movie ticket price, a Trek film would need to pull down something in the neighborhood of $185 million.
If TREK V made, according to IMDB, $114 in 1989 "dollars" and Nemesis made $104 in 2003 "dolars", then wouldn't V actually be considered a far bigger finanical success?? You're the expert Mr. Biggles. What do you think??
Rob
Scorpio
It also depends on how much the movies cost to produce.
^Those numbers are frequently subject to variation depending on who you talk to.
Paramount claims TMP cost them $45mil in 1979 dollars (today, $143mil), but that included the accumulated costs of every aborted Trek revival of the 1970s. The actual movie itself probably only cost around $30mil ($95mil today).
In 1998, Paramount revised the budget figure for INS down once it became apparent the film wouldn't be the big winner they wanted. INS ran $65mil with expensive salaries for Stewart & Spiner, and lots of expensive location work, then kicked it up another $5mil with an expensive last-minute reshoot. Yet after the first weekend, it magically cost only $65mil again.
Paramount claims TMP cost them $45mil in 1979 dollars (today, $143mil), but that included the accumulated costs of every aborted Trek revival of the 1970s. The actual movie itself probably only cost around $30mil ($95mil today).
In 1998, Paramount revised the budget figure for INS down once it became apparent the film wouldn't be the big winner they wanted. INS ran $65mil with expensive salaries for Stewart & Spiner, and lots of expensive location work, then kicked it up another $5mil with an expensive last-minute reshoot. Yet after the first weekend, it magically cost only $65mil again.
