Yeah, that's what I'm wondering. People are celebrating -- and should -- because it had a strong opening weekend and, I guess, less loss of viewers for the second weekend than is more common, but how is it doing in both adjusted dollars and compared to its production and marketing costs? I suspect it's a success regardless, but I wonder if the elusive "mainstream viewer" has truly shown up in large numbers or if a lot of this is still being driven as always by ardent fans seeing it a half dozen or more times, only this time along with a much smaller number of general moviegoers than could be hoped.
Has irreparable damage been done to Star Trek's brand?
- Thread starter Norrin Radd
- Start date
I don't know if fans can carry a film to figures as strong as the ones this film has come up with. I could be wrong, but from what I'm seeing on Facebook and the like, it seems like this really is going over big with non-fans. Enough that they're going to see it more than once as well.
You'd have to posting from the mirror universe to think that this film has damaged the brand - it's the reverse, it's clear application of brand extension. Star Trek had become a joke and something for sad nerds to argue about - how could it get anymore damaged than that?
It's always been kind of a joke to non-fans. The stereotypical Trekkie image has been pretty consistent for the last twenty-plus years.
The audience around me seemed to be having a good time. Plus the glowing reviews of just about everybody on the planet, seem to indicate Star Trek's brand name is well on its way to being restored. Those new to the franchise will ironically, go on to seek out the series they missed while waiting for the next feature. They may even discover from a fresh perspective, how the alledged perpetrator of irreparable damage - Enterprise, did no such thing at all...
Could just have no fans at all.
But honestly the fans for Star Trek don't seem near as isolated to me as the Star Wars or X-Files fans.
It has made $216 million in 10 DAYS!!!!! No ST movie made more than $150 million in 29 YEARS!!! If anything it creates a higher expectation for the sequel.
RAMA
Its really hard to take "adjusted" figures seriously. They only adjust for inflation, while NOT taking into account a number of other factors in regards to cost. Its also nearly impossible to accurately adjust the figures thanks to things like matinee viewings, and promotional viewings where companies paid for tickets at a reduced rate to give away, but are not counted to totals.
People were saying the same thing during the first two seasons of TNG. Many fans were sure those awful episodes would kill Star Trek. But in reality, it just was not what some vocal die hard Star Trek fans wanted or expected from the new series. It seems that the same thing is happening with the new movie. But it is enough of a hit that I bet the second movie is already moving forward.
Seriously....I was going to leave this but this is just ridiculous.
Do people even bother to proof read their own posts?!?
This is all but unintelligible.
"You minds"?!?
How do ideas possess being tolerant?
Not another one of these subjects!
"Irrepairable damage"? Hardly. More like brought back to life after the sainted "Trek brand" died in some very painful death throes. None of you new movie-naysayers did much for it back then.
Now it's been given a shot in the arm, bit of plastic surgery, and is looking the best it's been since 1996 (or even before!).
I'd like to thank everyone behind the movie for reviving something that meant a lot to me.
"Irrepairable damage"? Hardly. More like brought back to life after the sainted "Trek brand" died in some very painful death throes. None of you new movie-naysayers did much for it back then.
Now it's been given a shot in the arm, bit of plastic surgery, and is looking the best it's been since 1996 (or even before!).
I'd like to thank everyone behind the movie for reviving something that meant a lot to me.
It's true enough that no one movie has a high probability of hanging on to the #1 spot at the box office for very long, but that doesn't mean that the mass audience just forgets movies the instant a new one comes out or that you can't have the phenomenon of "sleeper hits" -- i.e., a film that stays consistently popular for a long stretch at the box office even if it doesn't dominate a la The Dark Knight.
If Star Trek proves as popular this year as Iron Man did last year, then it'll have done just fine. It will have established itself in the minds of the audience and ensured the survival of the Trek franchise.
Did anyone think there would be a "huge" renaissance? Did anyone say that?
WTF?
CBS has spent the last three years producing and releasing remastered episodes of TOS and creating and editing in new visual effects -- creating remastered editions of the episodes with AND without new VFX -- and then releasing them into syndication for the first time in decades. TNG reruns all the time on the Sci-Fi Channel. VOY and DS9 are on Spike. Paramount just re-released the entire Trek movie line on Blu-ray, with new special features and commentaries. What the hell are you talking about in saying that Paramount and CBS want people to forget about the old stuff? You are literally just imagining things at this point.
Of course, you once claimed there was a conspiracy to put sex scenes into some TOS novels based upon "The City on the Edge of Forever" solely because the publisher thought it would sell some books, denying the possibility that the author was accurately describing his motivations for making the storytelling choices he made and insisting that he must have been lying to you. So, it's not like you don't have a history of imagining things and then insisting they must be true.
Well, considering that they didn't stop using the original cast until around 25 years after TOS ended, and then didn't replace them until almost 20 years after that film, I'd say that that means that Pine, Quinto, and company are secure in their jobs until at least 2035 and won't be replaced until at least 2055....
Oh come on! You can't tell me you don't recognize the quote and what he was trying to say. So what if he didn't run it through spell check?
If course I KNEW what he was trying to say. My point is, I just DO NOT understand why people don't go back and look at their post and proof read it. I guess I just care more about getting people to understand me because I would be embarrassed if I put out something which was barely readable.
I guess I just care more about being able to communicate effectively. L33t speak and text speaking be damned.
I guess I just care more about being able to communicate effectively. L33t speak and text speaking be damned.
1996. Or, to a lesser extent, 1998.
^Oh come on. I'll give you FC because it had a decent opening weekend (over $30 mil) and was quite well-received (91% RT); it was released at the very apex of Trek's peak in the 90s. However, Insurrection did not get very good reviews (55% RT) and was greeted by fans with a lot of yawning. It debuted at #1, but it was up against basically nothing and grossed only $22 million.
The movie did make money, contrary to popular belief, but it's kind of missing SFRabid's point to even bother mentioning it in the context of this discussion.
The movie did make money, contrary to popular belief, but it's kind of missing SFRabid's point to even bother mentioning it in the context of this discussion.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Star Trek XI has revitalized star trek - the critical acclaim and the box office numbers ensure the franchise's future on the big screen. Perhaps we'll even see a new star trek series someday. One may not like the movie -but that doesn't change the above-stated facts.
Last edited:
Similar threads
