Captain of the next Trek series

[BigJake]

Having Kirk and Spock in the new films gave it the hook it needed to gain audience attention.

This is a just-so statement, and I doubt that it's really the case. The hook needed to gain audience attention was the return of the Trek brand, period. Only fandom gives a shit about what characters are helming it, the general audience does not care.

Successful and largely forgotten in the public eye.

That sounds like wishful thinking to me? I'm pretty sure the public eye remembers Picard and crew perfectly well -- they had more eyeballs during their run than any other crew -- and it certainly seems over-hasty to be pronouncing them obsolete in pop-culture terms. In fact I wouldn't be overly surprised to see them rebooted at some point in the future, given how thoroughly they got gypped on the big screen. (I mean, who can say. The one thing I've learned about any incarnation of Trek by this point is never to count it out in the long haul.)

That's not at all true and betrays an extremely shallow viewing of the two films.

Tell you what, how about we just agree to disagree on that one and simply stipulate that, owing to youth or different conception or alternate timeline influence or what-have-you, the characters in NuTrek are quite deliberately different from the classic characters (whether or not one still finds them compelling, yes?). NuKirk (likeable and charismatic though Pine is) is not personally someone I would follow on a pub-crawl, much less into a situation of life-or-death, but even if you disagree about that, the fact that he is a vastly different character from Kirk should not be in dispute. And that is my point.

They just want to see some space adventures and be told a halfway decent story.

If that was even remotely true, Serenity would have been a monster hit.

Serenity did not have the accumulated reputation and goodwill of the Trek brand backing it, so that's a false comparison. In fact it's arguably an example of the hindrances faced by a show and concept that, unlike Trek, really is dependent on having certain characters present and on the audience relating to and understanding their dynamics. A lot of Serenity would not have made sense to audiences outside Firefly's small cult base for just that reason (and the additional problem that the parent show aired for like six episodes before being cancelled); and Trek owes its long-term success to not suffering from that hindrance, precisely because its brand had the opportunity to grow beyond just being about one set of characters.

The new franchise owes a great deal of its success to its dynamic and likeable cast, and there is some nostalgic fun to the notion that Karl Urban is updating DeForrest Kelley and so on. That's not an indication that "Trek is Kirk and Spock and Bones" and nobody else. If that were true, replacing Bones in the core trifecta with Uhura would not have worked. Right?

 

[The Doctor]

Having Kirk and Spock in the new films gave it the hook it needed to gain audience attention.

This is a just-so statement, and I doubt that it's really the case. The hook needed to gain audience attention was the return of the Trek brand, period. Only fandom gives a shit about what characters are helming it, the general audience does not care.

The Trek brand was about as valuable as mud after a decade of running it into the ground. What caught people's attention was a new Trek with the characters they actually knew and cared about.

Successful and largely forgotten in the public eye.

That sounds like wishful thinking to me? I'm pretty sure the public eye remembers Picard and crew perfectly well -- they had more eyeballs during their run than any other crew -- and it certainly seems over-hasty to be pronouncing them obsolete in pop-culture terms. In fact I wouldn't be overly surprised to see them rebooted at some point in the future, given how thoroughly they got gypped on the big screen.

Star Trek has 'the dude with the pointy ears,' not the 'bald captain' or the 'gold android.' As for potentially rebooting TNG, that would also not surprise me on the small screen, but I don't see it as a film project.

That's not at all true and betrays an extremely shallow viewing of the two films.

How about we just agree to disagree on that one and simply stipulate that, owing to youth or different conception or alternate timeline influence or what-have-you, the characters in NuTrek are quite deliberately different from the classic characters (whether or not one still finds them compelling, yes?). NuKirk (likeable and charismatic though Pine is) is not personally someone I would follow on a pub-crawl, much less into a situation of life-or-death, but even if you disagree the fact that he is a vastly different character from Kirk should not be in dispute. And that is my point.

They are different because of youth and drastically different circumstances than the previous timeline but it takes a deliberately blind eye to miss the clear similarities. Pine Kirk and Shatner Kirk are very clearly the same person, shaped by different circumstances. He's not a 'vastly different' character at all. That same all-encompassing ego, the same bravura front concealing a sea of self-doubt, the same innate cunning. It's all there.

They just want to see some space adventures and be told a halfway decent story.

If that was even remotely true, Serenity would have been a monster hit.

Serenity did not have the accumulated reputation and goodwill of the Trek brand backing it, so that's a false comparison.

I agree entirely, but you stated quite clearly that audiences 'just want to see some space adventures.' You can't now backtrack and claim you never said it.

In fact it's arguably an example of the hindrances faced by a show and concept that, unlike Trek, really is dependent on having certain characters present and on the audience relating to and understanding their dynamics. A lot of Serenity would not have made sense to audiences outside Firefly's small cult base for just that reason (and the additional problem that the parent show aired for like six episodes before being cancelled); and Trek owes its long-term success to not suffering from that hindrance.

Trek was a tired and broken franchise when these films were announced and it was because the films went back to TOS and resurrected Kirk and Spock at a younger time in their lives that it picked up any kind of steam at all. That Paramount rejected a Trek offshoot 'war picture' set during the Romulan wars paints an even starker picture of Trek's viability from the studio POV outside of the Kirk/Spock dynamic.

 

[BigJake]

The Trek brand was about as valuable as mud after a decade of running it into the ground.

That is quite obviously not true, and the facts of NuTrek's reception do not bear it out. Given fresh wrapping and impetus and a bigger budget, the brand turns out to have had plenty of goodwill left to it -- that's exactly why reviewers were so explicitly forgiving about ST09's admitted flaws and relative nonsensicality, because it was fun and it was good to see Trek back again. A great many of them said it precisely that way and sometimes in so many words.

To skip ahead a bit:

Trek was a tired and broken franchise when these films were announced

... because the TNG crew were wasted on films that didn't fit them and they went (at least) one spin-off show too far, yes.

and it was because the films went back to TOS and resurrected Kirk and Spock at a younger time in their lives that it picked up any kind of steam at all.

It was because of the concept of a reboot that the franchise gained new energy. There were any number of ways to do a reboot, and while I appreciate that you were probably excited that it resurrected Kirk and Spock -- a lot of people in fandom were, and the idea certainly felt fresh after years of the Bermagaverse -- but the general audience does not care about the specifics. You are projecting if you think they do. They don't.

Star Trek has 'the dude with the pointy ears,' not the 'bald captain' or the 'gold android.'

Star Trek has Starfleet. It's been thirty years since it was solely identified with "the guy with the pointy ears."

Pine Kirk and Shatner Kirk are very clearly the same person, shaped by different circumstances. He's not a 'vastly different' character at all.

I think you underestimate how "vastly different" the same person shaped by different circumstances can be.

I agree entirely, but you stated quite clearly that audiences 'just want to see some space adventures.'

I stated that that's what audiences want from Trek. That they're more willing to go to Trek for this than to a less well-known brand is not news.

 

[OpenMaw]

TNG has been selling quite well as far as it's remastered Blu Ray's are concerned. So I don't know where the idea that it was "long forgotten" comes from. I say that as a huge fan of the original crew, too. TNG has a big audience.


Star Trek is not cemented to just one ship, just one crew. It can break out from there if the story is compelling, the visuals interesting, and the characters, above all else, well written.

 

[Jonny]

the lunatic (janeway)

Parminder Nagra.

Good choice as far as a female Captain is concerned. I think she could pull of at least being a member of the crew if not Captain.

Another woman I think could be a good choice for Captain could be Marg Helgenberger.

But then I am a C.S.I fan so I might be biased here.

The next woman captain? Harry Kim.

It was bound to come up eventually.

That's mean but still

 

[Shaka Zulu]

The Stig is right about Trek needing to get the characters right. But I've said this before and I'll say it again: the notion that "Trek is Kirk, Spock and (sometimes) McCoy" does not wash. Their presence or lack of it does not make it more or less a safer bet, period.

You're wrong about that. Having Kirk and Spock in the new films gave it the hook it needed to gain audience attention.

Leaving aside the fact that by far the most successful Trek show in the franchise's history was TNG,

Successful and largely forgotten in the public eye. Picard and Data have not endured, twenty years on, the way that Kirk and Spock have over the past fifty.

which did not feature Kirk, Spock and Bones... even bracketing that out, ironically enough, NuTrek itself is a data point here: it really contains "Kirk" and "Spock" in name only, with the core elements of the characters completely changed and "Kirk" rendered as closer to a frat boy than a great leader of men,

That's not at all true and betrays an extremely shallow viewing of the two films. Both characters are different due to circumstances but retain much of what made them so compelling. Spock's internal conflict is amplified by the extreme circumstances of the first film. Kirk still displays that potent mixture of bravado and cunning that made him such a great captain, while still learning what it is to truly lead men. We're seeing them young, not fully formed, and there is a clear through line from the new films to the Kirk and Spock we saw fifty years ago.

and it rounds out the triumvirate with Uhura (McCoy is a minor character by comparison). Audiences came out to see it anyway, because most audiences -- even most Trekkies -- don't particularly give a shit about defining Trek as all about Kirk, Spock and Bones. They just want to see some space adventures and be told a halfway decent story.

If that was even remotely true, Serenity would have been a monster hit.

In actuality, the cachet of Kirk and Spock sold audiences on the first film. The skilled execution of these younger versions fueled the appetite for the second film, which did quite a bit more money than the first. Audiences have responded to these new incarnations of Kirk and Spock, and quite strongly at that. Would I personally like McCoy to play a bigger role? Sure. That said, he was a pivotal part of STiD, far moreso than he was in many of the TOS films. I'm quite happy with the expanded role for Uhura and look forward to even more in the next installment.

THIS.

The Stig has nailed it in a way that I wish that I could, and people need to just accept the facts he's presented and stop blasting the new movies by saying that they aren't as good as the original series.

 

[BigJake]

people need to just accept the facts he's presented

The Stig is a nice fellow whose opinions I respect, but they don't rise to the level of "facts." And I've already responded to his post.

And you seriously need to relax. I'm not kidding.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

But I am relaxed. And all that I'm doing is agreeing with the Stig. If you want, I'll throw this in as a sign of goodwill; (or if you prefer, this: )

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

But I am relaxed. And all that I'm doing is agreeing with the Stig. If you want, I'll throw this in as a sign of goodwill; (or if you prefer, this: )

His point is that Stig's opinions are just that, opinions. That someone says something over and over doesn't make it true.

--Sran

 

[T'Girl]

They just want to see some space adventures and be told a halfway decent story.

If that was even remotely true, Serenity would have been a monster hit.

Okay, add air the pilot as the first epiosde, airing the episodes in their intended order, actually advertize the show, and don't preempt randomly the scheduled showings.

Maybe then it will be a "monster hit."

 

[T'Girl]

In actuality, the cachet of Kirk and Spock sold audiences on the first film. The skilled execution of these younger versions fueled the appetite for the second film, which did quite a bit more money than the first.

ST: Twelve's opening weekend was about five million dollars short of ST: Eleven's. They were in a similar number of theaters.

Overall Twelve made about thirty million dollars less than Eleven.

 

[BigJake]

They just want to see some space adventures and be told a halfway decent story.

If that was even remotely true, Serenity would have been a monster hit.

Okay, add air the pilot as the first epiosde, airing the episodes in their intended order, actually advertize the show, and don't preempt randomly the scheduled showings.

Maybe then it will be a "monster hit."

Too true.

 

[The Doctor]

~$387

In actuality, the cachet of Kirk and Spock sold audiences on the first film. The skilled execution of these younger versions fueled the appetite for the second film, which did quite a bit more money than the first.

ST: Twelve's opening weekend was about five million dollars short of ST: Eleven's. They were in a similar number of theaters.

Overall Twelve made about thirty million dollars less than Eleven.

No, it really didn't. STiD made ~$467 million world-wide to ST09's ~$385 million.

 

[BigJake]

Re: ~$387

In actuality, the cachet of Kirk and Spock sold audiences on the first film. The skilled execution of these younger versions fueled the appetite for the second film, which did quite a bit more money than the first.

ST: Twelve's opening weekend was about five million dollars short of ST: Eleven's. They were in a similar number of theaters.

Overall Twelve made about thirty million dollars less than Eleven.

No, it really didn't. STiD made ~$467 million world-wide to ST09's ~$385 million.

I think she was talking about net, not gross.

 

[The Doctor]

Re: ~$387

ST: Twelve's opening weekend was about five million dollars short of ST: Eleven's. They were in a similar number of theaters.

Overall Twelve made about thirty million dollars less than Eleven.

No, it really didn't. STiD made ~$467 million world-wide to ST09's ~$385 million.

I think she was talking about net, not gross.

No, she was using the US domestic take and ignoring the massive growth that Trek saw overseas.

Trek has never been more popular internationally than it is today.

 

[BigJake]

Whatever T'Girl had specifically in mind, ST09 really was more profitable in worldwide terms than its sequel:

So what is the most profitable Star Trek film of all time? Will we find it in the Abrams area, where the films have grossed $888 million worldwide, adjusting for inflation? Or will we find it in a different era?

The 1701News researchers decided to find out. They looked only at what would be apples-to-apples comparisons, and didn't factor in any expenses other than the film's overall budget. Of course, marketing, distribution and other costs also play factors, but this is a straight profit margin based on box office gross and the film's reported budget.

For "The Motion Picture," the $264.6 million domestic total created a 135 percent profit margin. On the worldwide scale, that profit margin jumps to just less than 300 percent -- both very strong outings. "The Voyage Home" boasted even better profit margins -- 172 percent domestically and 432 percent worldwide.

Yet, among all the Star Trek movies, "The Motion Picture" is ranked fifth domestically and fourth worldwide. "The Voyage Home" did a little better, but didn't quite earn the crown -- third domestically and second globally.

Then we jump to the Abrams films. When adjusted for inflation, the 2009 "Star Trek" earned $280.7 million domestically, and $420.2 million worldwide. However, "Star Trek" had a budget of $152.5 million, meaning it made just 84 percent over budget in North America, and 176 percent over budget worldwide. That ranked "Star Trek" ninth and eighth among all Star Trek movies.

Last year's "Star Trek: Into Darkness" actually had one of the smallest profit margins both in North American and domestically. It earned $228.8 million in North America, but the film cost $190 million to make, leaving a profit margin of just 20 percent. That's slightly worse than the 21 percent profit margin of 1998's "Star Trek: Insurrection," and better only than "Star Trek: Nemesis" in 2002, which actually finished 28 percent in the red.

Worldwide, "Into Darkness" did get a lot better. It's $467.4 million haul provided Paramount a profit margin of 146 percent, but again that was only better than "Insurrection" (105 percent) and "Nemesis" (12 percent).

Who is the winner? "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan." When adjusted for inflation, the 1982 film made $190.3 million domestically and $234.9 million worldwide. This fell considerably short of what "The Motion Picture" made three years before. However, "Wrath of Khan" also had the smallest budget of any Star Trek film. Even adjusted for inflation, it cost just $26.6 million to produce. Paramount kicked up the budget a bit for "Star Trek III: The Search For Spock" (to $38.4 million), but then the budget would hover in the $50 million range until "Star Trek: First Contact" in 1996, which had a budget of $67.1 million after adjustment.

This gave "Wrath of Khan" a whopping 615 percent profit margin, just in North America. When the rest of the world was factored in, the final tally put Paramount 783 percent in the black -- the difference between the nearly $27 million budget and the $235 million total haul.

(emphases mine )

The Abrams films rank 8th and 10th in terms of worldwide profitability among Trek films. (Although I think it's correct to say that they relied much more on international markets to reach those totals than previous films. So strictly-speaking it's probably accurate to say this version of the franchise is more internationalized.)

 

[The Doctor]

That's all well and good, but doesn't actually respond to my post in any way. I didn't make any claims about profit margins or inflationary adjustments. STiD took in more money than any other Trek movie, even when 'adjusted for inflation.' It did more business internationally than any other Trek film and built and audience for Trek around the world that didn't exist before.

 

[BigJake]

That's all well and good, but doesn't actually respond to my post in any way.

You were claiming that STiD made more money than ST09. In terms of net profits, which is what "making money" generally refers to, that is false. (And I don't know why you're scare-quoting "adjusting for inflation." Adjusting for inflation is in fact how you make meaningful comparisons between box office takes in different years.)

 

[Sindatur]

I don't se any evidence there that they are also adjustng the budget for inflation? It appears they are only adjusting the Box Office take for inflation, and then comparing that against the actual budget?

They should be taking the Box Office Gross and multiplying it by the Inflation factor, then taking the Budget and multiplying it by the inflation factor, and then subtracting The Adjusted budget from the adjusted box office and comparing that for comparitive Profit Margin.

Talking about percentages is merely talking about Profit Margin, not actual Profit

 

[BigJake]

It would be surprising to me if they weren't adjusting the budget totals as well. TMP's budget total is definitely adjusted; there's no way it cost 112 million to make in 1979, its budget unadjusted would be under 50 million.

Talking about percentages is merely talking about Profit Margin, not actual Profit

Profit Margin is how you calculate actual profitability, which obviously is the point of article. (It's of course quite easy to convert the profit margin percentages into actual dollars*.

(*EDIT: Actually, why not do this? Gimme a sec.)