Measuring success with box office earnings is flawed.

[Ryan S]

So there has been quite a bit of spirited debate between the supporters and detractors about old vs new Trek so I offer this thread as a new POV on the subject. We all know STXI's budget and that most of that money was used to create the visual elements that have made this film appealing to a wider audience, to the detriment of other areas. Nevertheless it appears that STXI will generate a healthy return for Paramount.

But was it really necessary to create a $150 million summer popcorn flick to 'reboot' the franchise. No Star Trek movie has ever lost money. Nemesis was the only one to come close, just barely breaking even.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/StarTrek.php

Many fans are quoting the high box office gross this movie has generated as proof positive that they got it right. That the franchise was dead and this was the only way to save it. I argue that the Star Trek we new was and has always done quite well, even at it's worst! It was never necessary to stray so far from the original formula.

I certainly believe a prequel/reboot with a new cast and storyline that didn't stray from the more traditional themes and structure with some updated cinematography would have worked, and probably at half the budget. It almost certainly would have made a profit . It's obvious from the reactions in this forum and elsewhere that there was a pent up demand for anything with Trek.

Once again I concede I am in the minority but I guess I should be happy the movie has done well. I am very curoius about how STXII will turn out. Does anyone think Paramount is going to gamble another 150 million on this franchise? Reports are Abrams ran out of money with this feature (thus the refinery/ engineering room and other such shortcuts). How can he possibly do anything with less?

What kind of Star Trek will be left with now if they pull back the budget?

 

[aeriolewinters]

No, It's flawed because it's not exclusive now. That's why you want it to be average on the general public.

It's easy to understand: Trek needed to become relevant again in the grand scheme of things. That's why they needed to do this. It's just old fans not wanting Trek to become mainstream.

 

[Silent_Bob]

No, It's flawed because it's not exclusive now. That's why you want it to be average on the general public.

It's easy to understand: Trek needed to become relevant again in the grand scheme of things. That's why they needed to do this. It's just old fans not wanting Trek to become mainstream.

Who cares if its mainstream or not, i just want it to be good. This film wasnt.
If the new film had been done well i dont think you would see half as many complaints. Instead we are left wondering why it was necessary to change anything, when the result was something almost as bad as Nemesis.

Measuring success with box office earnings isnt flawed. If a film makes a lot of money= its a success. What is flawed is trying to judge quality with Box Office earnings, in which case Titanic is the best film ever made.

 

[Nomad8324]

No, It's flawed because it's not exclusive now. That's why you want it to be average on the general public.

It's easy to understand: Trek needed to become relevant again in the grand scheme of things. That's why they needed to do this. It's just old fans not wanting Trek to become mainstream.

Who cares if its mainstream or not, i just want it to be good. This film wasnt.
If the new film had been done well i dont think you would see half as many complaints. Instead we are left wondering why it was necessary to change anything, when the result was something almost as bad as Nemesis.

Measuring success with box office earnings isnt flawed. If a film makes a lot of money= its a success. What is flawed is trying to judge quality with Box Office earnings, in which case Titanic is the best film ever made.

It cant be all that bad or it would have bombed.

Not to mention a ton of people like the new movie and what it brings to the table.

I loved the "old" trek as some have put it . But it was hardly doing well and I don't think a movie based solely "old" universe would have gotten anywhere near what this movie has earned and the fans it has created.

If Star Trek is gonna be around for any amount of time it DESPERATELY NEEDED to loose the NERD ONLY image.

SO between a universe that was run into the ground over the years and being perceived the way it was this needed to happen.

And to those who go "this movie could have been done in the 'old' universe!" I say no it couldn't it would have been more closely linked to the old universe and the NERD image.

Besides what hadn't been done. We did the next generation, We did lost in the middle of nowhere, we went back to the past, ETC.

I could go on but hopefully you catch the point. What were they gonna do have a series based off the Borg? How exciting today they assimilated this planet. yawn.

Bottomline if Trek didn't reinvent itself soon it was dead FOREVER.

Even now I cant see them as making a new TV series. The groundwork just isn't there IMO. Right now ALL I can see them doing is making a few more movies. IF by some miracle the next few movies do great like this one then maybe just maybe I can see them trying another TV series.

 

[Silent_Bob]

No, It's flawed because it's not exclusive now. That's why you want it to be average on the general public.

It's easy to understand: Trek needed to become relevant again in the grand scheme of things. That's why they needed to do this. It's just old fans not wanting Trek to become mainstream.

Who cares if its mainstream or not, i just want it to be good. This film wasnt.
If the new film had been done well i dont think you would see half as many complaints. Instead we are left wondering why it was necessary to change anything, when the result was something almost as bad as Nemesis.

Measuring success with box office earnings isnt flawed. If a film makes a lot of money= its a success. What is flawed is trying to judge quality with Box Office earnings, in which case Titanic is the best film ever made.

It cant be all that bad or it would have bombed.

Not to mention a ton of people like the new movie and what it brings to the table.

I loved the "old" trek as some have put it . But it was hardly doing well and I don't think a movie based solely "old" universe would have gotten anywhere near what this movie has earned and the fans it has created.

If Star Trek is gonna be around for any amount of time it DESPERATELY NEEDED to loose the NERD ONLY image.

SO between a universe that was run into the ground over the years and being perceived the way it was this needed to happen.

And to those who go "this movie could have been done in the 'old' universe!" I say no it couldn't it would have been more closely linked to the old universe and the NERD image.

Besides what hadn't been done. We did the next generation, We did lost in the middle of nowhere, we went back to the past, ETC.

I could go on but hopefully you catch the point. What were they gonna do have a series based off the Borg? How exciting today they assimilated this planet. yawn.

Bottomline if Trek didn't reinvent itself soon it was dead FOREVER.

Even now I cant see them as making a new TV series. The groundwork just isn't there IMO. Right now ALL I can see them doing is making a few more movies. IF by some miracle the next few movies do great like this one then maybe just maybe I can see them trying another TV series.

Perhaps you should reread my post and try to see what i actually wrote instead of lumping me in with those who despise the new film because it doesnt follow "teh canon!!?!". I have nothing against a reinvention, or a reboot. I just wanted a good film, this wasnt it.

Not everyone who dislikes the film is desperately clinging to how Trek used to be. Some of us dislike the film because we dont think it was a good enough quality.

 

[RoJoHen]

Everyone I know who has seen it (mainstream people who have never watched an episode of Star Trek in their life) think this movie is awesome. That is all the measurement I need to judge its success.

 

[Nomad8324]

I'm not lumping you into that group. I'm saying if your right and the move was of so low quality why did it earn what it has and why is it rated so well?

as per the first two (2) lines of my post or did you not read it?

It cant be all that bad or it would have bombed.

Not to mention a ton of people like the new movie and what it brings to the table.

 

[Silent_Bob]

I'm not lumping you into that group. I'm saying if your right and the move was of so low quality why did it earn what it has and why is it rated so well?

Same reason why dreck like Alien Vs Predator can get a sequel. It appeals to the lowest common denominator, the guys and girls who love "kewl" effects, lens flares and women showing off their bra's every fifteen minutes.

Perhaps i am wrong in wanting a well made film ,whose plot can stand up to more than fifteen minutes of scrutiny before gaping holes appear. As it is the new film doesnt do that.

That is not to say i wont be viewing the sequel. The film was crap, but it still had glimmers of potential. And besides i saw Nemesis in the cinema, and this was slightly better, so cant really justify not turning up to the next one.

 

[Nomad8324]

Cant make a movie that appeals completely to everyone.

No movie is prefect. Not to mention I have heard of them recalling alot of them films and sending out reprints a few days after the release. Who knows what they changed supposedly other the the gun already on the platform when kirk jumps after nero.

 

[Cdr MacDuff]

I think at this point in time Star Trek needed a action blockbuster success to get back into its saddle. It was a fun action movie. I still feel the movie could have a little more depth. Movies like the Matrix, 12 Monkeys and even The Island provide a better mix.

 

[Dale]

Measuring quality by box office receipts is flawed. Measuring success by box office receipts is not. If lots of people want to pay to see your movie, you've been successful.

 

[Nomad8324]

Measuring quality by box office receipts is flawed. Measuring success by box office receipts is not. If lots of people want to pay to see your movie, you've been successful.

Exactly

 

[Vigilance]

I'm not lumping you into that group. I'm saying if your right and the move was of so low quality why did it earn what it has and why is it rated so well?

Same reason why dreck like Alien Vs Predator can get a sequel. It appeals to the lowest common denominator, the guys and girls who love "kewl" effects, lens flares and women showing off their bra's every fifteen minutes.

Perhaps i am wrong in wanting a well made film ,whose plot can stand up to more than fifteen minutes of scrutiny before gaping holes appear. As it is the new film doesnt do that.

That is not to say i wont be viewing the sequel. The film was crap, but it still had glimmers of potential. And besides i saw Nemesis in the cinema, and this was slightly better, so cant really justify not turning up to the next one.

The movie has made a lot of money.

The movie ALSO has gotten really good reviews from film critics.

This means it plays to both the groundlings and the guys in the stadium box seats.

That's as objective a measure of success as one can have.

Doesn't mean YOU have to like it. It just means your tastes aren't universal.

 

[Silent_Bob]

Never said they were. Neither are yours however. You will also notice i said the takings show the film is successful, which is what this thread is about. I merely commented how it is flawed to measure quality in the same way.

 

[Vigilance]

Never said they were. Neither are yours however. You will also notice i said the takings show the film is successful, which is what this thread is about. I merely commented how it is flawed to measure quality in the same way.

If that were the only way folks were judging the quality of the film, as you intimated, then yes, it would be flawed.

For my part, I am hearing from quarters that don't normally give a heck about trek that they saw the movie and loved it, reading excellent reviews overall (it's metacritic rating is in "universal acclaim" territory from critics) and seeing from the box office that a LOT of people went to see it.

All those combine to a fairly objective measure of quality whether you personally like the movie or not.

Those in the minority can feel special and take comfort in the fact that they alone understand how their favorite franchise was ruined while the groundlings go see it for a 3rd time.

 

[aeriolewinters]

Never said they were. Neither are yours however. You will also notice i said the takings show the film is successful, which is what this thread is about. I merely commented how it is flawed to measure quality in the same way.

Nope, this thread was born from the simple misconception that people were grading it on how much it has made. And again, seeing your signature just reeks of "troll" and please... don't go hiding on the fact that you are assuming that other people have lower intellect than what you have. Because merely lamenting on this "fact" is a sign that you are belittling the people's intellect.

 

[Pingfah]

We all know STXI's budget and that most of that money was used to create the visual elements that have made this film appealing to a wider audience, to the detriment of other areas.

No, we don't all know that, whether it was to the detriment of anything is your opinion, not a fact. If you want opinions you might start by not telling people what they think.

 

[KiraDax]

Yes, it was necessary. Trek was flat-lining.

Not losing money and not MAKING money are pretty much the same thing. The studio doesn't like either.

Few outside the insular fan society were at all interested in the franchise...heck, a lot of FANS weren't interested in it any longer.

Without a full reboot the franchise was kaput. Changing just the actors and a few details wouldn't have meant anything if the same old, tired, bland ideas were left in place. Gene Roddenberry had a great vision...but unfortunately, it becomes increasingly evident that it wasn't a very realistic vision. If his creation was to appeal at all to a wider audience in this day and age, it had to be modernized.

As to whether future Trek can live up to the hype of this one...I don't know, but i say we at least give it the chance. I've never seen so many people want something to fail with no evidence at all that it will fail in my life.

 

[Squiggy]

No Star Trek movie has ever lost money.

Because they never put any money into it. The movies all had next to nothing in the budget department. If you spend 30 mil on a movie, don't advertise, but make 35 million...true you've made 5 million but you haven't done dick in regards to saving or helping anything.

If you want to make money, you have to spend money. You can't get a good, modern sci-fi flick today without throwing down some cash.

 

[Nomad8324]

No Star Trek movie has ever lost money.

Because they never put any money into it. The movies all had next to nothing in the budget department. If you spend 30 mil on a movie, don't advertise, but only make 35 million...true you've made 35 million but you haven't done dick in regards to saving or helping anything.

Exactly.

Whats the point of making movies that barely make anything? You screw up then and it is dead for sure.