So what will Paramount do when Star Trek XI tanks?

[aridas sofia]

North Pole-aris said:

Trekzilla3k said:
This is all useless speculation
Let's just make sure to go see it, and make it a hit so more will come, and the Franchise lives on

If it's up to us fans to make it a hit, we should be prepared to each see it - and pay full price - about twenty times.

It'll have a chance, then.

I saw TMP in the theatre in its first run 24 times IIRC. Does that mean I can get partial credit for making it a hit?

I dragged my girlfriend to about ten of those, and by the end she was ready to kill me. She still married me, but she wanted to kill me.

My wife hopes this movie isn't any good, btw.

 

[Opus]

ancient said:
HATS NOT CANON.

So I'm confused. Are you saying, "HATS ARE NOT PART OF CANON", or that you prefer hats over canon as in, "HATS! NOT CANON!"?

 

[number6]

Cannons are harder to wear on your head.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Sorry, but fans are going to be the lion's share of the audience, the ones who are there on opening weekend, the ones who see the film more than once, the ones who create the buzz in the precious early days to promote the film by word of mouth. And Paramount knows this.

I disagree, strongly or honestly they'd just hand things over to the New Voyages guys. You don't make a movie and gear it at the "fans". True among the fans there will be repeat viewings... but that's not what they're counting on here. If so they've placed way to much cash into this venture.

Do you think everyone who went to "Transformers" was a Transfan casual otherwise? They're trying to make the same kind of money with "Star Trek" here.

So, as I stated before, the fans are the critical audience here.

Actually they're the least important factor since they'd show up regardless of its content and Paramount knows that. Paramount hopes new "fans" will spring from this venture and is clearly banking on it.

Sharr

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yule Gibbons said:
My wife hopes this movie isn't any good, btw.

Why, will she only have to see it 23 times if it's bad?

I saw TMP four times in first run, I think. I remember that it was the very first movie I saw on videotape, at a University of Maryland Trek convention in 1980 or 1981.

 

[Opus]

Kegek Kringle said:
Actually, we'd be whining about how terrible Palestrina's polyphonic music is, and how hymns had better go back to one tone like they were always meant to be.

Well, actually Palestrina's polyphony was a traditionalist reaction to the more radical polyphonic styles written by his contemporary Giovanni Gabrieli.

 

[Therin of Andor]

North Pole-aris said:
No, actually the version broadcast in the U.S. showed about the same regard for continuity as every other "Star Trek" series - and had considerably better continuity within itself than TOS did.

That was my point.

 

[FordSVT]

CindyLouWho said:
Someone upstream made a good point - when the first LOTR film came out, I'd never even heard of pretty much any of those actors. Now? Most of them have excellent name recognition, and a few of them have become outright A-list stars.

Think of all the recent movies WITH name actors that have completely bombed. Dozens of them, literally. A good concept, a good script and appropriate advertising is what a movie needs to be big. Spending $15 million to get Matt Damon to play Kirk isn't going to guarantee its success, it's only going to guarantee they have less money for other things.

 

[CaptainDonovin]

Sharr Khan said:
What gets me is, there is a certain vocal group of "fans" who want this to fail so they can gloat and say "I'm right." not unlike occurred with "Enterprise". Been there... have no wish to be there again.

I'm reaching the point where I'm finding people like that to be unnecessary killjoys.

Sharr

I am in total agreement and just don't understand the logic in that. If you're a Star Trek fan I'd think you'd want the next thing to be a hit. But there I go thinking again...

 

[Basil]

Sharr Khan said:

Snip.

If that were true, then Nemesis would have been a big hit, and Enterprise wouldn't have been cancelled. The loss of fans for a film and TV series, respectively, no one else was interested in were the primary reasons both tanked.

Put another way, if a space opera flick tailored for "mass appeal" was a bankable idea, then Starship Troopers, which was 90210 meets Aliens, would have been the biggest hit of the decade.

I'd be happy if without sacrificing what makes Star Trek special to so many it could find a wider audience, but I doubt very much that's going to happen. If it's lucky, there will be enough fans to merit repeat viewings, along with a sizable casual viewer audience that comes along with them, to turn a profit. But am I anticipating Cory and Kelli Suburban are going to skip the latest Kate Hudson or Adam Sandler cinematic abortion to see Star Trek?

 

[Cranston]

Santa T. Claus said:
If Sherman Hemsley drives a tank in Star Trek XI, I will boycott this movie.

Mark my words. Mark 'em, Weezy!

If Sherman Helmsley drives a tank in Star Trek XI, I will absolutely pay to see it!

I mean, George Jefferson. In a tank. With space stuff. Brilliant!

 

[Sharr Khan]

If that were true, then Nemesis would have been a big hit, and Enterprise wouldn't have been cancelled. The loss of fans for a film and TV series, respectively, no one else was interested in were the primary reasons both tanked.

Put another way, if a space opera flick tailored for "mass appeal" was a bankable idea, then Starship Troopers, which was 90210 meets Aliens, would have been the biggest hit of the decade.

And this might well still hold mass appeal. None of us can know if it will or not.

Do you really think Starship Troopers got greenlit on the premise that only Heinlein fans would go see it? I don't, it wasn't aimed a specific fanbase - though it should be noted that film is generating some form of sequels...


We are not the target, nor are we going to bring in the broader bucks Paramount needs to make this worthwhile for them. Broadening the audience is the intent here.

Nemises was total inside Trek (it was after all sold to the us as "A Generations final journey begins..." how much more inside can you get?) and for that matter so was Enterprise even before season 4.

Clearly at one time Trek had to have had some broader appeal otherwise none of us would be here now. Its time for it to find that broad appeal and bring make new fans or maybe call back some others. Don't be so myopic to think we're the consumers this film is intended for.

The writers have more or less said: "If you're already a Trek fan you'll see a different movie then a new viewer since your perception of what's going on will be different" That tells me "We" aren't the primary targets but they've know enough to include "inside info for Trek fans to geek out on".

And if these writers can turn giant robots into a hit (that even seemed cross age differences) I have no doubt they can give "Star Trek" broad appeal and get people looking at who might otherwise not do so.

Sharr

 

[Kegek]

OphaClyde said:
Well, actually Palestrina's polyphony was a traditionalist reaction to the more radical polyphonic styles written by his contemporary Giovanni Gabrieli.

Don't confuse these hypothetical proto-fans with anything resembling facts!

Therin of Andor said:
Unfair. I think I've seen everything Orlando has done since LotR, including "Ned Kelly" (filmed here on Oz), "Troy", the "Priates" trilogy and "Elizabethtown". He does great work.

I've got three words for you.

Kingdom of Heaven.

I've seen Bloom in Troy and the first Pirates movie, as well as the three LOTR films. I wasn't particularly impressed, although he only really bothered me when he was given more pivotal roles. He's was born to play small, ensemble parts.

Kingdom of Heaven is a case in point: This film really should have been about Ghassan Massoud's Saladin, who outacts Bloom in every scene he's in, but, as with The Last King of Scotland, the film has a brilliant biopic depiction of a character put to the sidelines to focus on a boring and semi-fictional white man.

 

[Vektor]

Basil said:
Sorry, but fans are going to be the lion's share of the audience, the ones who are there on opening weekend, the ones who see the film more than once, the ones who create the buzz in the precious early days to promote the film by word of mouth. And Paramount knows this.

If Paramount is relying on word of mouth from Trek fans after the movie is released then it is already doomed. Fortunately, I think they are a bit smarter than that. I have been saying for a long time that, in addition to the film’s inherent quality, the make-or-break aspect of this whole project is going to be the way they market it in the lead-up to its release. Before the curtain ever rises on the first showing on December 25th, 2008, they need to paint a picture of J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek as the must-see movie of the year. We need teasers, trailers and TV commercials that make it look cooler than all hell. We need magazine articles, Leno and Letterman appearances to introduce the new actors and maybe some members of the production team and make them household names even before the premier. And schmaltzy as they may be, some Christmas season merchandising tie-ins, Happy Meal toys and such probably wouldn’t hurt either.

Then, if the movie actually lives up to the hype and turns out to be a rollicking good flick, it will be followed up by all those “Number one film in America!” TV promos. All those people who were never big fans but thought it was pretty darn good—and therefore have enhanced credibility among their peers—will spread the word to back up the promos and still more people will go to check it out on weekend number two. Next thing you know, Paramount’s got a bona fide hit and financial success on their hands and Star Trek is back with a vengeance.

On the other hand, Paramount could choose not to promote the film at all and just rely on the word-of-mouth from those 2.5 million or so hardcore fans, probably at least half of whom will hate it no matter what and take every opportunity to say so. The rest will love it beyond all measure and annoy everyone they know to the point of justifiable homicide trying to convince them to go see it, but it will fall on the deaf ears of those who know better than to listen to a movie review from a Trekkie. It’ll make about 20 million bucks on its opening weekend then fall off 50% by week number two and be gone from theaters within a month.

If I were laying out the strategy for this, I know which option I would go with.

 

[HRHTheKING]

Considering the no name actors and piss-poor, rehashed storyline, Trek XI is a probable disaster akin to the failure that was Nemsamess.

Just like the "no-name" actors Patrick Stewart and William Shatner when they first joined Star Trek?

Or were they colossal stars at the time?

As for the storyline, we know very little at this moment. A few blurry photographs and nothing more.

 

[Basil]

Sharr Khan said:

If that were true, then Nemesis would have been a big hit, and Enterprise wouldn't have been cancelled. The loss of fans for a film and TV series, respectively, no one else was interested in were the primary reasons both tanked.

Put another way, if a space opera flick tailored for "mass appeal" was a bankable idea, then Starship Troopers, which was 90210 meets Aliens, would have been the biggest hit of the decade.

Do you really think Starship Troopers got greenlit on the premise that only Heinlein fans would go see it? I don't, it wasn't aimed a specific fanbase - though it should be noted that film is generating some form of sequels...

That's actually my point. Starship Troopers was an attempt to create more or less a Star Trek movie aimed at mass audiences -- with "teenagers" of the ilk on Melrose Place (and the same level of complexity of concepts . . . look healthy and pimple free and shoot anything that moves or is different) and the amped up sex and violence of a mainstream film. Heck, it even lampooned itself.

But it was not the hit everyone had hoped. Sci-fi audiences generally avoided it because they thought it was dumb; mainstream audiences largely avoided it because they thought it was geeky sci-fi . . . like Star Trek. (I rather enjoyed it, recognizing it was like Star Trek would have been had Kirk stopped Edith Keeler from getting run over by a delivery truck.)

Star Trek is absolutely going to need the fanbase to succeed because I doubt very much there will be enough mainstream audience members that are willing to shell out $8 to $10 to see it . . . that audience will largely stay home and catch it on cable or DVD, if they watch it at all.

I'm not sure how many people in the U.S. would admit to being a Star Trek fan, but let's for argument sake say 15 million (5 percent of the nation). I think that's generous, but I thought I read a factoid somewhere that said 1 in 10 Americans is a Star Trek fan, so if that's true, this is a conservative estimate of potential movie-goers.

If every one of them goes to see the movie once, at, say $8 a ticket (an average taking into account the broad range of movie ticket prices in the U.S.), that's $120 million. If a quarter of them sees the movie again, that's another $30 million. If a quarter of that sees it a third time, that's another $7.5 million. So from the fans alone, Star Trek could make $157.5 million, and that's assuming sharply dwindling numbers of repeat viewings and no one seeing it past three times.

Even if it's a great film, I doubt it'll generate more than $100 million in ticket sales from mainstream audiences. With a budget of $160 million, it'll need every penny to recoup its production and marketing costs (the rule of thumb being to double the production cost before a profit can be shown, so $320 million). With overseas and DVD sales, earning $257.5 million at the domestic box office would likely position it to be in the black, but alienate the fans and I doubt it.

I could be wrong. It could be the next Star Wars. But by making a film that will try to stay "in universe" with previous Star Trek incarnations (by having Nimoy at the very least) rather than a complete reimagining, I doubt it. Like it or not, fans are still going to be the sizable audience.

 

[Basil]

Vektor said:

Basil said:
Sorry, but fans are going to be the lion's share of the audience, the ones who are there on opening weekend, the ones who see the film more than once, the ones who create the buzz in the precious early days to promote the film by word of mouth. And Paramount knows this.

If Paramount is relying on word of mouth from Trek fans after the movie is released then it is already doomed. Fortunately, I think they are a bit smarter than that. I have been saying for a long time that, in addition to the film’s inherent quality, the make-or-break aspect of this whole project is going to be the way they market it in the lead-up to its release. Before the curtain ever rises on the first showing on December 25th, 2008, they need to paint a picture of J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek as the must-see movie of the year. We need teasers, trailers and TV commercials that make it look cooler than all hell. We need magazine articles, Leno and Letterman appearances to introduce the new actors and maybe some members of the production team and make them household names even before the premier. And schmaltzy as they may be, some Christmas season merchandising tie-ins, Happy Meal toys and such probably wouldn’t hurt either.

Then, if the movie actually lives up to the hype and turns out to be a rollicking good flick, it will be followed up by all those “Number one film in America!” TV promos. All those people who were never big fans but thought it was pretty darn good—and therefore have enhanced credibility among their peers—will spread the word to back up the promos and still more people will go to check it out on weekend number two. Next thing you know, Paramount’s got a bona fide hit and financial success on their hands and Star Trek is back with a vengeance.

On the other hand, Paramount could choose not to promote the film at all and just rely on the word-of-mouth from those 2.5 million or so hardcore fans, probably at least half of whom will hate it no matter what and take every opportunity to say so. The rest will love it beyond all measure and annoy everyone they know to the point of justifiable homicide trying to convince them to go see it, but it will fall on the deaf ears of those who know better than to listen to a movie review from a Trekkie. It’ll make about 20 million bucks on its opening weekend then fall off 50% by week number two and be gone from theaters within a month.

If I were laying out the strategy for this, I know which option I would go with.

Even with a strong marketing campaign, it'll be word of mouth that ushers holdouts into the theaters -- and those holdouts will be the so-called mainstream audiences that are unfazed by the advertisements.

 

[Sharr Khan]

That's actually my point. Starship Troopers was an attempt to create more or less a Star Trek movie aimed at mass audiences

Oh and here I thought it was just Paul Vehoven being who he was... I'm sorry I can't imagining any studio bean counter green lighting *any production* because of X fanbase, be it Star Trek, Starship Troopers, or ah The X-Men - studios gain more my bringing in broader audiences not by catering to single groups.

Even with a strong marketing campaign, it'll be word of mouth that ushers holdouts into the theaters -- and those holdouts will be the so-called mainstream audiences that are unfazed by the advertisements.

"Holdouts" are in my opinion more likely to come among the "fanbase" then the general audience. Do you think it was Transfans alone that made "Transformers" a money maker?

But it was not the hit everyone had hoped. Sci-fi audiences generally avoided it because they thought it was dumb; mainstream audiences largely avoided it because they thought it was geeky sci-fi . . . like Star Trek. (I rather enjoyed it, recognizing it was like Star Trek would have been had Kirk stopped Edith Keeler from getting run over by a delivery truck.)

I'm sorry you feel that away about "general audiences" (a highly misapprictiad group around these parts - again geeky elitism rearing its head ) A "dumb" movie alone doesn't a failure make, I've observed sometimes its the dumb movies that end up paying off better the so called "smart ones".

Star Trek is absolutely going to need the fanbase to succeed because I doubt very much there will be enough mainstream audience members that are willing to shell out $8 to $10 to see it . . . that audience will largely stay home and catch it on cable or DVD, if they watch it at all.

Don't agree at all, and neither it seems do the writers/director or studio backing them. Its the the fans are a blip compared to the general audiences. Speaking its wasn't just LoTR's fans that made those movies sell tickets either...

I could be wrong. It could be the next Star Wars. But by making a film that will try to stay "in universe" with previous Star Trek incarnations (by having Nimoy at the very least) rather than a complete reimagining, I doubt it. Like it or not, fans are still going to be the sizable audience.

You can do both, provided you are somewhat smart and creative.

Sharr

 

[WeAreTheBorg]

You really gotta love it... the movie is supposedly already a disastrous failure and its not even finished shooting.

 

[Jon1701]

Basil said:
Like it or not, fans are still going to be the sizable audience.

Then we are fucked. May as well stop now.

If you are aiming your movie at "the fans", then you are probably looking at a net loss of $100 million already. Star Trek fans alone cannot make this movie profitable.

Also, this isnt a word-of-mouth movie. This isnt a slow burner. This is a "burst-on-your-screen-with-special-effects-and-explosions-the-must-see-movie-of-the-year" type of movie.

Whether the trek fans like it or not is a side issue.