Absolutely Right.™
Profitability of Star Trek Movies
- Thread starter Giarc1982
- Start date
- Status
Absolutely Right.™
The only problem is that eventually the "alternate" universe either goes away/disappears/is reintergrated/neutralized before the end of the episode or in rare cases (Mirror Universe) the implication is that eventually everything will be hunky dory and back to normal.
So as fans we are used to just waiting around long enough and the "normal" story will be restored.
With nuTrek... well this timeline looks like it is here to stay, and OH MY GOD so many things are different. I mean Spock and Uhura might have mixed race/mixed species babies! Vulcan is gone! The Enterprise has it's own brewery! Transwarp beaming!
The horror!
So am I, but if you have lived and breathed the "Prime" timeline to the point that a few obsessive fans have, seeing everything you know and trust and can recite from memory come crashing down can be very traumatic.
I for one appreciate the universe building they do on Star Trek. It's the only reason we have the cool time travel plot in JJ's trek and not just a complete reboot that ignores the original. It's why they bring back Khan in WOK and Into Darkness and not just rip the character off and slap a new name on him. There are people who do enjoy feeling like something is part of a big world, just ask LOTR fans.
And there are times when staying true to their own world would make better stories, like actually making Voyager's Tom Paris and Locarno in TNG the same character instead of just ripping off the character. Which the writers laughed about on the commentary track for First Duty.
And there are times when staying true to their own world would make better stories, like actually making Voyager's Tom Paris and Locarno in TNG the same character instead of just ripping off the character. Which the writers laughed about on the commentary track for First Duty.
+1
True, but at the same time, instead of crashing down, it could've faded away for good when ENT signed off for the last time. No more new Trek in any timeline to gripe about, ever. Personally, I like what happened instead.
I think Paramount was somewhat disappointed with the box office number of STID. Don't forget that a 3D ticket costs more than a 2D ticket. This means that not only a little less viewers went to the cinema domestically, but a more significant number. And on the other hand the increase in the rest of the world looks less impressive, because the overall number of cinema goers didn't increase as much as it may look on the first view.
The goal is always not to only make more money, but also to ideally get more loyal franchise fans, who will go to the next movie, too. A bigger number of people who have watched the last movie, may also help the next one, because of word-of-mouth recommendations. I mean film studios want to create a hype. They want as many people as possible to be invested in their franchises, so that others will get swept along with it. That not only helps to keep their movies profitable in the cinemas, but also helps with sales from all kinds of merchandise articles. They probably can also get more money from TV channels for TV airing rights. I suspect it depends somewhat on the popularity of movies.
ST09 had the disadvantage in many countries, that many weren't familiar with Star Trek at all. ST09 was big promotion for the next movie in this regard, because at the time STID got into the cinemas, ST09 had already aired world wide on TV and reached countless millions. And overall ST09 got quite positive reactions. I think this is another reason, why Paramount expected much more cinema goers for STID and with the increased ticket prizes therefore much more money.
Overall I think STID was profitable, but didn't fulfill high expectations from Paramount.
The goal is always not to only make more money, but also to ideally get more loyal franchise fans, who will go to the next movie, too. A bigger number of people who have watched the last movie, may also help the next one, because of word-of-mouth recommendations. I mean film studios want to create a hype. They want as many people as possible to be invested in their franchises, so that others will get swept along with it. That not only helps to keep their movies profitable in the cinemas, but also helps with sales from all kinds of merchandise articles. They probably can also get more money from TV channels for TV airing rights. I suspect it depends somewhat on the popularity of movies.
ST09 had the disadvantage in many countries, that many weren't familiar with Star Trek at all. ST09 was big promotion for the next movie in this regard, because at the time STID got into the cinemas, ST09 had already aired world wide on TV and reached countless millions. And overall ST09 got quite positive reactions. I think this is another reason, why Paramount expected much more cinema goers for STID and with the increased ticket prizes therefore much more money.
Overall I think STID was profitable, but didn't fulfill high expectations from Paramount.
Nope.
All empirical evidence suggested most people saw the film in 2D. Heck, I saw it opening night in the 3D theatre. (There was only one.) It was only about half-full, while the 2D theatres playing around the same time were packed. And they ended up pulling the 3D screen by the middle of the second week.
And 3D isn't as popular or ubiquitous globally.
A
Amaris
Guest
I saw it in 2D, too. I have no interest in 3D, as I wear glasses, so that's already annoying, and then I have to see a slightly darker, murkier film due to the 3D application process. On top of that I pay 50% more? Hell, no.
Where I live some cinemas show big blockbuster movies only in 3D. Most offer both, 3D and 2D, but 3D screenings happen more often than 2D screenings each day. My local cinema showed the STID premiere only in 3D and added later 2D screenings, but overall they do their best to encourage people to watch movies in 3D and not in 2D with the way they schedule them and the specific cinema halls they choose. The 2D versions are generally shown in smaller halls with less seats and even more important with a smaller screen.
When it comes to how ubiquitous 3D screens are globally, I recommend looking at this, page 6 and 7:
http://slideshare.net/Alexisgenauzeau/mpaa-theatricalmarketstatistics2013-032514v2
They really aren't rare anymore.
Either way I am not saying, that everyone watched STID in 3D, but for obvious reasons clearly more people watched STID in 3D than they watched ST09 in it.
And therefore the average ticket prize per cinema goer went up. If STID would have been only in 2D and got the same box office numbers, it would have meant a bigger increase in people having seen it.
Same applies to many blockbuster movies.Either way I am not saying, that everyone watched STID in 3D, but for obvious reasons clearly more people watched STID in 3D than they watched ST09 in it.
I went out of my way to find somewhere that was showing STID in 2D on opening night, after the blurred 'pop-up book' nonsense that was Iron Man 3 in 3D, there was no way I was going to have my beloved Star Trek ruined in this way. I knew the film had been converted post-production so there was no way I was going to risk it.
I saw it in 3D on opening day at 00:01, many factors can impact on the box office revenue. At the end of the day whilst Paramount might be dissapointed at the final take it did show an increase in boxoffice over the previous film, sure 3D might have played a part in that but out of interest what is the price difference between the two tickets 2D and 3D in various parts of the world?
3€ where I live, which is currently $3.60. The Euro rate went down though in recent times. When STID opened on the 9th May, 3€ were worth $4.14, so quite a bit more.
It still comes back to why does it matter? Obviously, disappointed or not, Paramount saw enough in the performance of Star Trek Into Darkness to decide to make another one. Going so far as to hire Orci as a writer/director before having a falling out.
I'm beginning to believe that if the film had cost $10 dollars to make and brought in a billion dollars, there would still be people trying to twist it as a failure.
- Status
Similar threads
