Should it have been a straight reboot?

[Therin of Andor]

Budgets are misleading. IIRC, Star Trek The Motion Picture barely broke even despite HUGE box office returns.

While these days the main focus is on a do-or-die, huge opening weekend, TMP was more of a "sleeper" hit. It ran in some cinemas for over six to eight months - and I seem to remember a short piece in "Starlog" whereby Paramount execs expressed surprise that TMP had actually made a profit after all, despite its over-inflated budget and Paramount's creative accounting to write-off its "Phase II" development money.

 

[urbandk]

I think it should have been a gay reboot.

 

[trevanian]

Budgets are misleading. IIRC, Star Trek The Motion Picture barely broke even despite HUGE box office returns.

While these days the main focus is on a do-or-die, huge opening weekend, TMP was more of a "sleeper" hit.

Not in the US. Of the 55 or 56 mil it made in domestic rentals (not gross, rentals), 39 of that came in 1979 between 12/7 and 12/31. The 'biggest opening ever' was something like 950 or 1000 screens here.

Domestically, the film was playing to empty theaters everywhere in January, but the theaters had to carry the film (i think it was something like a 12 week or longer guarantee, but most places flaked on it.)

 

[EnsignRicky]

I think it should have been a gay reboot.

A Rebooty

 

[I am not Spock]

It will be great in 2029, or 2039, when the next reboot of Trek happens. We'll have people saying 'Blasphemy! It won't be a patch on Abrams vision' and 'Whoever this new Kirk is, he ain't no Chris Pine!'

Someone will say 'Well, you know, there was this earlier version of Trek' and get nothing but blank stares.

Trekkies are eternal. We'll have people fighting over who is the definitive Kirk, three, four, reboots down the track; and hundreds of years from now.

 

[Cyke101]

It will be great in 2029, or 2039, when the next reboot of Trek happens. We'll have people saying 'Blasphemy! It won't be a patch on Abrams vision' and 'Whoever this new Kirk is, he ain't no Chris Pine!'

Someone will say 'Well, you know, there was this earlier version of Trek' and get nothing but blank stares.

Trekkies are eternal. We'll have people fighting over who is the definitive Kirk, three, four, reboots down the track; and hundreds of years from now.

Well, if you ask me, I prefer Pierce-Brosnan-Kirk but I'm leaning towards Daniel-Craig-Kirk.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Of the 55 or 56 mil it made in domestic rentals (not gross, rentals), 39 of that came in 1979 between 12/7 and 12/31.

Well, I seem to remember it was many, many months before Paramount was declaring it a profitable movie.

 

[trevanian]

I think it should have been a gay reboot.

A Rebooty

A Schumacher Trek

 

[trevanian]

Of the 55 or 56 mil it made in domestic rentals (not gross, rentals), 39 of that came in 1979 between 12/7 and 12/31.

Well, I seem to remember it was many, many months before Paramount was declaring it a profitable movie.

That probably had more to do with their reluctance to pay net profit percentages ... didn't the principals get together to do an audit of the first few pics before TVH or SFS, and then right before the accountants went to work, par announced, 'hey these things are in profit.'

I mean, on the 2.5 to 3 multiplier rule for rental-to-gross (which is a lot like the 2.5 budget to returns profitability rule), that would have tmp at 100 to 117 mil domestic gross after 23 days, which would have put it close to breakeven before international sales or anything in 1980. Of course you've got TMP's budget all over the place between 35 mil and 46, but even so, the early return was good, especially given the bad word of mouth and general reviews.

The rental numbers are straight from Variety by the way. A friend of mine at the time subscribed to THR and VAR and tracked all this stuff for me.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I think it should have been a gay reboot.

A Rebooty

A Schumacher Trek

Syndicated on Bravo

 

[trevanian]

A Rebooty

A Schumacher Trek

Syndicated on Bravo

Queer Eye for the Wormhole Guy

 

[Therin of Andor]

didn't the principals get together to do an audit of the first few pics before TVH or SFS, and then right before the accountants went to work, par announced, 'hey these things are in profit.'

In order to make sure everyone signed for ST V, William Shatner fought for hefty contractual pensions for De Kelley and "the gang of four". They'd really been left behind in comparison with movie contracts of the day.

Of course you've got TMP's budget all over the place between 35 mil and 46

And they were also rather pleased to get it into the Guiness Book of Records, ousting "Cleopatra" as most expensive film.

 

[darkshadow0001]

I guess the most disappointing thing for me is I was looking forward to an "origins story" of Kirk and company, but this wasn't it.

It's not the origin of TOS characters at all - the core of the characters are changed and altered beyond recognition. Only the names survive.

I dunno, I think it worked out ok. Because it would of screwed with everyone's heads if this wasn't in an alternate timeline. I know I was confused with it before I found out it was an alternate timeline, because the story didn't coincide with TOS. So it actually worked out pretty well.

 

[RandyS]

For example, I'm a huge fan of original Battlestar Galactica. Did I complain that nuBSG wiped it out? Of course not, because it didn't. The two versions can and do coexist, in parallel realities. Nothing is ever wiped out.

The difference there is the New Galactica is a remake as opposed to a reboot, which is what Star Trek XI was.

 

[Mach5]

I like it just the way it is. Trek got rebooted, yet "Enterprise" remained a legitimate prequel to both Abramsverse and the old school.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

For example, I'm a huge fan of original Battlestar Galactica. Did I complain that nuBSG wiped it out? Of course not, because it didn't. The two versions can and do coexist, in parallel realities. Nothing is ever wiped out.

The difference there is the New Galactica is a remake as opposed to a reboot, which is what Star Trek XI was.

I view those terms as the same.

Although, going by your definition, ST XI would have been just fine as a remake.

 

[RandyS]

For example, I'm a huge fan of original Battlestar Galactica. Did I complain that nuBSG wiped it out? Of course not, because it didn't. The two versions can and do coexist, in parallel realities. Nothing is ever wiped out.

The difference there is the New Galactica is a remake as opposed to a reboot, which is what Star Trek XI was.

I view those terms as the same.

Although, going by your definition, ST XI would have been just fine as a remake.

But they're not the same. If they were, Leonard Nimoy would not have been in the new movie talking about the past, and how it was changed. That's what makes it a reboot.

Galactica, on the other hand, told more or less the same story as the first show, but used different variations of characters and settings. That's what makes it a remake.

But I agree with you on Star Trek. It should have been a straight remake. As it is, the movie made Spock look stupid. Everytime on TOS there was a potential change in the timeline, Spock was the one who said "History must not be changed". But in XI, when the changes included the death of his mother 60 years before she died originally, and the death of his homeworld presumeably eons before that was supposed to happen, he just accepts it. Makes no sense to me, but there it is.

 

[StarTrek1701]

Batman Begins should've began with the Scarecrow going back in time to the 60's Batman movie and altering the time-line to the current Begins/Dark Knight one. Adam West could've had a cameo.

Why didn't that happen? Because it's retarded.

I.... don't think I understand what you are trying to imply here. The Batman series and the Batman movies aren't even in the same sphere as the entirety of the Star Trek universe.

 

[Mach5]

The Batman series and the Batman movies aren't even in the same sphere as the entirety of the Star Trek universe.

Exactly. The Batman franchise consists of comics, the 60's TV show, god knows how many animated shows, four movies seemingly set in the same continuity (though I doubt Tim Burton seriously considers Joel Schumacher's films to be sequels to his movies, I most certainly don't), and Chris Nolan's movies. All of these are separate, independent entities/universes. Star Trek only has one universe (well, actually it's a multiverse, but you get my point).

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

As it is, the movie made Spock look stupid. Everytime on TOS there was a potential change in the timeline, Spock was the one who said "History must not be changed". But in XI, when the changes included the death of his mother 60 years before she died originally, and the death of his homeworld presumeably eons before that was supposed to happen, he just accepts it. Makes no sense to me, but there it is.

Maybe Spock Prime realized what I have always suspected: History won't be changed, since he and Nero emerged into the past of a different universe (thanks to the black hole). It wasn't just time travel, it was inter-universal travel as well. It would certainly explain why the Prime universe can continue to exist - since Spock and Nero didn't travel to its past.