Then 4 or 5 people around here will die from happiness.
I think and hope they will remain as miserable as they have been ever since all the good words and reviews started coming out a couple of weeks ago.
If Star Trek Has A Disappointing Box Office...?
- Thread starter Dayton3
- Start date
- Status
Then 4 or 5 people around here will die from happiness.
I think and hope they will remain as miserable as they have been ever since all the good words and reviews started coming out a couple of weeks ago.
I think if it has a truly disappointing box office take then it will be the end of Star Trek. I expect it will.
I'm curious and don't have the patience to search, but have you seen the movie?
CRA's "estimates" of what the film needs to make are uninformed and wishful nonsense; this movie can make a great deal less than 300 million domestic box office and be considered a success by the studio. Applying popular and unexamined formulae that have been floating around in the fannish aether for thirty years or more yields no real insight. 
No, he hasn't.
Hollywood has shown over and over that once something goes stale or does badly, its tendency is to let it stay buried for a while and then have at it again (with varying success). "Batman", "Punisher" and "Hulk" are all recent examples of this.
If "Star Trek" failed financially, my guess would be that Paramount would go back to the drawing board and try to figure out another way get it profitable around whether it's TV movies, a TV show or another movie etc. Novels, comics and toys would continue to be made, bringing in some revenue and Creation cons will continue as well. Trek would not "die" if this film fails.
If "Star Trek" failed financially, my guess would be that Paramount would go back to the drawing board and try to figure out another way get it profitable around whether it's TV movies, a TV show or another movie etc. Novels, comics and toys would continue to be made, bringing in some revenue and Creation cons will continue as well. Trek would not "die" if this film fails.
Not even the same beat: 2 1/2 hour + movie with nearly zero brand recognition outside of a fanboy base that was ready to shred if it was off. It wasn't, but with an R Rating and fewer screenings it isn't even setup for the same dynamic...
Yes, but the last Batman movie before Begins was atrocious, same with the other two. This one is getting phenomenal reviews.
Oh sure. Just saying that Hollywood recognizes the value of "brand recognition" and would never say "We're never ever making another Trek film again!". They'd try to find ways to revive the entertainment portion of the franchise. It's way too valuable.
My point is that I think that because of the reviews this one is getting that if it fails, I think they will cease to see it as valuable...
Ah, that's different. I don't see it that way only because my friend who works on Trek product tells me they still make a good amount of money on the merchandise (which is what Trek has been living on as a franchise for ages). Between statues, props, toys, comic books etc. there is clearly viable product there.
I would dare argue that if this doesn't work (which I personally would be confounded by), then Paramount's likely reaction will be "This whole reboot thing didn't work the way we expected." and I could see a new mini-series or TV movie about a later 24th century crew or something on a new Enterprise.
Personally, I hope in a few months this thread will just be speculation and not reflective of reality!
I would think internal would be just about right, the amount of hype/ads etc that they have pushed for this was well done.
everyone has compeition in the summer. All it needs is a big opening weekend, and good legs, and it will be a smash.
How did you come up with this figure? 300 million?
Are you excluding international receipts? dvd sales? Merchandise?
He's only partially right: I've heard 150 for the film + 150 for marketing. Hollywood rules are 150% of that total to see a profit (including DVDs) so that number is closer to 450 worldwide.
I would expect it's opening to beat over half the total grosses of all the Trek films, and when the dust settles the highest grossing of all.
CaptainHawk1
Commodore
As previously noted, he makes shit up and expects the reader to take his speculation as fact.
I went to ST:5 as one of the first dates I had with the man I would later marry. It was the first Trek movie we saw together and he did get laid that night; it was a fabulous way to erase "row, row, row your boat" from our minds. Now our 11YO son is taking me to see Star Trek on Mother's Day (and hubby & I have tickets for tomorrow, too).
Occasionally, it works out.
CaptainHawk1
Commodore
Bullshit. it had it's lowest ratings in season 4 and Coto took over midway through season 3.
It had NO BUZZ except for among Trek fans and the reason for this is exactly as the previous poster suggested. ENT, despite Coto's influence was the exact same damned incrnation of Trek as it was in 1987 and by 2005 completely alienated the modern audience comprised of 98% casual viewers.
Don't delude yourself into thinking that it would have been a success if Coto was the from the beginning or of it had been given just one more season. It's simply not true.
Completely agree. If this film flops, Paramount will spend time licking their wounds and wondering what they did wrong (and given how much positive press this film is getting, the execs will be VERY confused). They'll create some sort of B.S. explanation (too much competition, bad timing, poor economy, lack of a "big" star, or whatever else they can put a spin on).
Then Trek will go back into the freezer and lay on ice for a few more years. Then, inevitably, someone will pull it out and try again. It may take five or ten years, but someone will try to re-make Trek again. In the meantime, we'll continue to get novels 'n such just like we've been getting for the last several years. And Abrams' Trek reboot will just get swept under the rug and forgotten about.
Hopefully this will not be the case at all. We'll find out this weekend.
Actually TV is all about ratings, the fact that there are plenty of shit relality shows that out do well produced shows so it's not about money.
Trek really ran most of it's audiance away with bad writing and Viacom (which is now really a seperate entity than Paramount) isn't really willing to take a chance on a new TV show that my do poorly in the ratings. Meanwhile a shot at a movie franchise, especially well done movies (Not a statement on this movie as I haven't seen it yet) can return a heafty chunk of change for the home Studio and all involved. So there's actually less risk in doing a movie than a TV show.
Think about it you build sets and get a budget together for 26(A standard season) Episodes that's alot more logistics and money to dole out than then you would for a movie. Especailly since on the TV show you have to make it affordable for a network to want it, or if it's syndicated affordable enough for individual stations to buy it. (And TV Stations use the Advertisers dollar to pay their paychecks so if the Advertiser don't like it they won't by ad time during it and you don't have the money to buy shows.)
Just an observation.
- Status
Similar threads
