So what will Paramount do when Star Trek XI tanks?

[Basil]

Sharr Khan said:

But there's a reason there's a separate section in the bookstore, video store, and many libraries that separate sci-fi from general interest

Mostly that's about categorization and ability to find what you want at the moment. "General interest" isn't a real category: it has Westerns, biographies, and historical fiction (and all the same rules apply to any kind of fiction), Fantasy, cook books.

If the story is good and is entertaining or holds some kind of artistic merit those not into "scifi" will go or "Star Wars", "ET" and "Close Encounters" wouldn't become iconic films.

At one point in time there wasn't a "Star Trek" to fit into any category and no fans of such - those fans had to come from someplace and don't doubt there are cross overs there since humans are by nature dynamic beings.

Sharr

No, mostly that's about genre because genres have definitions and expectations for content -- and audiences typically know this. That's why sci-fi aficionados generally make a beeline for the sci-fi section while generalist readers may stop first at the best-selling books display. When there is no general interest category it's because that's a given -- the subgroups, or genres, are the ones noted because they are the exceptions, not the rule.

Works do crossover now, but they still tend to be identified for their primary intended audience. Thus a murder mystery that takes place aboard a futuristic spaceship isn't likely to be found in the mystery section but in the sci-fi section.

Movies tend to be grouped similarly. Want evidence? Where is the trailer for Star Trek going to be shown? Before Love in the Time of Cholera or Cloverfield?

 

[Sharr Khan]

Movies tend to be grouped similarly. Want evidence? Where is the trailer for Star Trek going to be shown? Before Love in the Time of Cholera or Cloverfield?

Well ah - there's a more impotent correlation at work here: Abrams is affiliated with both films, that is likely more then anything the driving decision here for placing said trailer where its going since they want to cash in on the overlap with his name (which does likely have a broad appeal). Also I'm sure it'll be on more then that one film...

No, mostly that's about genre because genres have definitions and expectations for content -- and audiences typically know this. That's why sci-fi aficionados generally make a beeline for the sci-fi section while generalist readers may stop first at the best-selling books

There's no such thing as a a "general reader" since we all do have certain likes/dislikes or interests but I've yet to meet anyone limited by them but for "fans" who can't see beyond their own noeses. Genres are no more then (generalized) categorizations and more then a few books do and should cross genres.

Lets return to your example of Starship Troopers. Imagine for a moment that pitch meeting. From what you've said I get the impression you think some guys gathered in an office and said something like: "Hey we've got this script, it'll be fantastic the next Star Trek but this is better it'll appeal to those droves of Heinlein fans clamoring for an adaption of Heinlein's book."
Suit behind the desk: "Oh yeah bringing in all those Heinlein fans will make us loads of money"

I think it happened more like:
"Hey we've got this script, it'll be a fantastic hit everyone will come to see it, its got action, sex, drama."
Studio guy: "Ah so you're giving us a summer blockbuster? Cool"

I don't think the bean counter much thought about Heinlein during the pitch meeting.

Sharr

 

[Vektor]

Let’s break this debate down to some specifics.

Basil, you have stated repeatedly that the “fans” will make or break this film. Depending on how broadly you define the term, you could be talking about anywhere from the 2.5 million diehards that hung on to the bitter end of Enterprise to the tens of millions—at least—who ever caught part of an old TOS rerun and were mildly entertained by it. Unless we can quantify the Trek fans you speak of in some meaningful way, this debate is irresolvable.

From the perspective of the studio, the viability of the existing fan base as their target audience is probably best judged by the performance of the last Trek movie, since the hardcore fans are pretty much the only ones who turned out to see it. Nemesis made about $67 million dollars worldwide according to Box Office Mojo. If that’s how much the “fans” can be counted on to contribute to the new film’s success then they are worth about a quarter of what it will need just to break even, assuming a budget of around $125 million and the usual “two times what it cost to make” formula.

How many people are we actually talking about? If everyone who went to Nemesis paid an average of $8 per ticket, that’s a little over 8 million people. If we assume that 1 or 2 million of them went back to see it at least once, we’re left with 5 or 6 million. In terms of the “fans” who can really be counted on to go see a new Trek film, these are probably the only ones who really matter.

Every single one of those 6 million or so hardcore fans would need to go back to see the new Trek film at least five times apiece in order to make it profitable. Despite the fact that I know Trek fans who will probably do that—and that I may well be one myself if the movie is truly good—it doesn’t strike me as the kind of calculation J.J. Abrams and the Paramount bean counters ought to be relying on.

Now, if I understand your recent arguments correctly, you’re not necessarily saying that the “fans,” however you define and enumerate them, will determine the success or failure of the film single handedly. I think what you’re saying is that non-fans and general audience members will not bother to see it unless the word-of-mouth from the “fans” is really good after the movie opens. Then and only then will the great unwashed masses turn out to see it and put it over the top. If that is, indeed, what you are saying then… well, I think you’re dead wrong.

That scenario is not impossible, but it’s the last and least likely thing anybody connected with this film ought to be counting on for its success, not the first and most likely thing. If they have any brains at all, they will do everything they possibly can to promote this film to general audiences beforehand and make it look like the kind of uber-cool, non-geeky, sci-fi adventure spectacular that they would want to see, with or without—maybe especially without—the recommendation of their friendly, neighborhood Trek nerd.

There’s just no way I can envision that the existing fan base, when quantified in terms of historical box office performance, is large enough or important enough anymore to be anything but merely tangential to this film’s success or failure.

 

[Basil]

^^I'm glad you made the point about Abrams -- I doubt very much anyone but a fan of his would make the connection -- or care. For all the hype, he's certainly not Spielberg or Coppola. So if selling Star Trek to an audience is based on a fan connection rather than the simple appeal of the trailer regardless of audience, I think that eminently supports my point. And Abrams deals in genre work, whether it's "spy" with sci fi overtones (Alias, MI:3) or sci-fi/fantasy (Lost, Star Trek), meaning there's a good chance that his fans are much the same people that go to see sci-fi movies.

At the same time, regardless, are you really saying you don't think there's overlap between an audience that goes to see a sci-fi/horror film (Cloverfield) and a sci/space opera (Star Trek). Wow. You might read some of the industry papers, like Variety or Advertising Age, to see how markets are segmented. There's a good article in the October or November issue of the latter about how Abrams is even taking a role in the marketing of his films on the Web and through the trailers.

There are generalist readers -- they tend to stick to works that have mass appeal: Best sellers, Oprah's booklist, self help, biography, fiction with no discernible genre qualities (slice of life, for instance). Other readers tend to be more specialized, reading primarily in genres. There's nothing to stop readers from crossing over, but it's about tendencies, as a friend who is a librarian and another who runs a bookstore tells me. It's why things are grouped by genre and not simply alphabetized by author names or titles.

Regarding Starship Troopers, my example was not about selling to Heinlein fans (which is fairly obvious since Verhoeven largely satirized Heinlein's conservative viewpoints) but about how there was an attempt to create something that had more or less the Star Trek setup (a futuristic service with space ships, academies, warp drive, etc.) but was trying to reach a mainstream audience (simplistic plot with little science, soap opera quality actors, lots of shooting, gore, and sex). Heck, they even made Johnny Rico a kind of Aryan ideal instead of the Filipino he is in the book. But the point you make is closer to mine than you think. I do think it was attempt to mainstream a Star Trek-like concept -- just add "and not just nerdy Trekkies" before "it's got" in your dialogue exchange.

 

[ChristopherPike]

If it tanks, I expect Paramount will build a franchise around Simon Pegg instead. Depends how much showboating he can do as Scotty. They haven't had a decent A-list comedian on the payroll since Eddie Murphy.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Well my point was "Abrams" is its own brand name to a degree and carries weight in and of itself since he is known for things as diverse as "Alias" & "Felicity". He's possibly the most well known director/producer Trek has ever had and likely more familiar to general audiences then most.

Sure there's a broad target here but its less about "Scifi fan" vs "General audience" as it is about age ranges or sex.

I assure you when they gear up the ad campaign its not us they're going to be aiming it at (we on this board are almost a given to see the thing though I'm sure Abrams will put out stuff for us to geek out on as well) but those who only have vague notions about Star Trek and it will be those people they're counting on to make this a winner.

Funny you should mention Oprah, I was thinking that's what this film needs, an endorsement from her.

Any successful endevour with this film should and must carry a broad appeal. The writers love to go on and on about how it will indeed appeal to established fans and "those new to Star Trek" so that tells me - we're not the main target here since we'll mostly be there regardless.

Sharr

 

[Basil]

Vektor said:
Let’s break this debate down to some specifics.

Basil, you have stated repeatedly that the “fans” will make or break this film. Depending on how broadly you define the term, you could be talking about anywhere from the 2.5 million diehards that hung on to the bitter end of Enterprise to the tens of millions—at least—who ever caught part of an old TOS rerun and were mildly entertained by it. Unless we can quantify the Trek fans you speak of in some meaningful way, this debate is irresolvable.

From the perspective of the studio, the viability of the existing fan base as their target audience is probably best judged by the performance of the last Trek movie, since the hardcore fans are pretty much the only ones who turned out to see it. Nemesis made about $67 million dollars worldwide according to Box Office Mojo. If that’s how much the “fans” can be counted on to contribute to the new film’s success then they are worth about a quarter of what it will need just to break even, assuming a budget of around $125 million and the usual “two times what it cost to make” formula.

How many people are we actually talking about? If everyone who went to Nemesis paid an average of $8 per ticket, that’s a little over 8 million people. If we assume that 1 or 2 million of them went back to see it at least once, we’re left with 5 or 6 million. In terms of the “fans” who can really be counted on to go see a new Trek film, these are probably the only ones who really matter.

Every single one of those 6 million or so hardcore fans would need to go back to see the new Trek film at least five times apiece in order to make it profitable. Despite the fact that I know Trek fans who will probably do that—and that I may well be one myself if the movie is truly good—it doesn’t strike me as the kind of calculation J.J. Abrams and the Paramount bean counters ought to be relying on.

Now, if I understand your recent arguments correctly, you’re not necessarily saying that the “fans,” however you define and enumerate them, will determine the success or failure of the film single handedly. I think what you’re saying is that non-fans and general audience members will not bother to see it unless the word-of-mouth from the “fans” is really good after the movie opens. Then and only then will the great unwashed masses turn out to see it and put it over the top. If that is, indeed, what you are saying then… well, I think you’re dead wrong.

That scenario is not impossible, but it’s the last and least likely thing anybody connected with this film ought to be counting on for its success, not the first and most likely thing. If they have any brains at all, they will do everything they possibly can to promote this film to general audiences beforehand and make it look like the kind of uber-cool, non-geeky, sci-fi adventure spectacular that they would want to see, with or without—maybe especially without—the recommendation of their friendly, neighborhood Trek nerd.

There’s just no way I can envision that the existing fan base, when quantified in terms of historical box office performance, is large enough or important enough anymore to be anything but merely tangential to this film’s success or failure.

I've explained my points enough times already, so I'll simply say I stand by what I wrote.

I will offer that the poor performance of both Nemesis and Enterprise was affected, in part, by some, perhaps many, fans choosing not to come to the table. I also wonder if everyone is using the term "fan" the same -- I include both casual and hardcore fans (and everything in between). Casual fans I know tune in for the shows when flipping through channels or go see the movies if the buzz is good. Hardcore fans are more like the people trying to ferret out every detail about the movie a year before it opens -- and then see it multiple times no matter how much they denigrate it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Basil said:
I will offer that the poor performance of both Nemesis and Enterprise was affected, in part, by some, perhaps many, fans choosing not to come to the table.

Except that it's not true. The domestic take of the film represents mainly hard core fans...and not a whole lot of anyone else.

The importance of Trek fans to the acceptance and possible success of this film is negligable - Vektor is right, that it might even help the film to be rejected by a portion of fandom - as long as they do it as loudly and as ridiculously as fans tend to (see the publicity bonanza generated for Moore's BSG when Edward James Olmos advised "original BSG" fans not to watch it).

Let's see protestors in Starfleet uniforms out in front of the theaters - please!

 

[Basil]

North Pole-aris said:

Basil said:
I will offer that the poor performance of both Nemesis and Enterprise was affected, in part, by some, perhaps many, fans choosing not to come to the table.

The domestic take of the film represents mainly hard core fans...and not a whole lot of anyone else.

I'd accept that -- I posted earlier that I'm not just talking about hardcore fans when I use the term "fan." I'd guess that they're in the minority of fans, the ones who doggedly kept watching or buying tickets when the others just shook their heads.

 

[StarMan]

qstor said:
I'll watch it on tv when it comes out.

Mike

Nope. You'll be in the theater, along with the precogniscent Tralah.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Basil said:
I'd guess that they're in the minority of fans, the ones who doggedly kept watching or buying tickets when the others just shook their heads.

Richard Arnold, when he was ST Archivist, used to quote some Paramount Marketing estimates on their research into the makeup of ST movie audiences - mind you, this is from (my) memory, and is pre-DVD (ie. we know that the spectre of a new film coming out on DVD affects how many times fans of a movie are willing to pay full-ticket prices for their repeat cinema experiences).

Essentially, 10% of the people going to see popular ST movies in cinemas are assumed to call themselves avid Star Trek fans. Now, this figure is quite rubbery, because some of these go back time and again.

1% of the audience is thought to be a regular attendee of ST conventions, and who buys lots of ST merchandise. And a very small number of that 1% would be the completist collector who buys everything labelled ST.

To be successful ST movie, it needs to garner many more than the 10% and their friends and family. But even a critically lambasted ST movie, such as ST:TMP, drew enough of a large and curious general audience, some of whom became ST fans as a result of their positive experience.

Many of these, even though they haven't particularly bothered with ST since "First Contact", will be curious to see JJ Abrams' movie - especially if it has a blockbuster premiere and holds its numbers through the first weekend or two.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That big general audience out beyond the "10%" is actually much much more easily satisfied as far as "Star Trek" is concerned - because they're casual about it, and they don't really care about the minutae.

Give the "casual fans" an entertaining film with some scope and they won't give a damn what the costumes or the ship look like or whether the writers got Kirk's mother's maiden name right.

 

[ancient]

Since there is a finite number of hard-cores and a MUCH larger number of potential viewers, they'll definitely want to make it easy for non-fans to understand. Everything I've heard shows that it'll be an introduction to potential new viewers, but also true to fan desires (not the unbendable, easily breakable fans, the other 99%).

It'll have to be a lot more appealing to the wider audience to be a success. No Trek film has ever gone near the $300M mark that this one will need to shoot for.

 

[The Doctor]

North Pole-aris said:

Basil said:
I will offer that the poor performance of both Nemesis and Enterprise was affected, in part, by some, perhaps many, fans choosing not to come to the table.

Except that it's not true. The domestic take of the film represents mainly hard core fans...and not a whole lot of anyone else.

The importance of Trek fans to the acceptance and possible success of this film is negligable - Vektor is right, that it might even help the film to be rejected by a portion of fandom - as long as they do it as loudly and as ridiculously as fans tend to (see the publicity bonanza generated for Moore's BSG when Edward James Olmos advised "original BSG" fans not to watch it).

Let's see protestors in Starfleet uniforms out in front of the theaters - please!

I've been saying this since day one. The absolute best thing that could happen to this movie from a PR standpoint would be a massive internet backlash from the uberfans. Trek needs to distance itself from its 'niche' status in order to really have a good shot at making the kind of money that Paramount seems to expect.

 

[Basil]

Therin of Andor said:

Basil said:
I'd guess that they're in the minority of fans, the ones who doggedly kept watching or buying tickets when the others just shook their heads.

Richard Arnold, when he was ST Archivist, used to quote some Paramount Marketing estimates on their research into the makeup of ST movie audiences - mind you, this is from (my) memory, and is pre-DVD (ie. we know that the spectre of a new film coming out on DVD affects how many times fans of a movie are willing to pay full-ticket prices for their repeat cinema experiences).

Essentially, 10% of the people going to see popular ST movies in cinemas are assumed to call themselves avid Star Trek fans. Now, this figure is quite rubbery, because some of these go back time and again.

1% of the audience is thought to be a regular attendee of ST conventions, and who buys lots of ST merchandise. And a very small number of that 1% would be the completist collector who buys everything labelled ST.

To be successful ST movie, it needs to garner many more than the 10% and their friends and family. But even a critically lambasted ST movie, such as ST:TMP, drew enough of a large and curious general audience, some of whom became ST fans as a result of their positive experience.

Many of these, even though they haven't particularly bothered with ST since "First Contact", will be curious to see JJ Abrams' movie - especially if it has a blockbuster premiere and holds its numbers through the first weekend or two.

Appreciate the figures -- the hard core types are a little fewer in percentage than I'd have thought, but the proportions aren't far off.

 

[Vektor]

Basil said:
I posted earlier that I'm not just talking about hardcore fans when I use the term "fan." I'd guess that they're in the minority of fans, the ones who doggedly kept watching or buying tickets when the others just shook their heads.

And here we see the usefulness of a moving target like the word "fan." We can keep adding these little qualifiers like "hardcore" and "casual" and "not rabidly opposed to" until the definition includes however many people are necessary to give the "fans" credit for the film's success, while simultaneously justifying the argument that they damn well better be making this film for the "fans" or its doomed to fail. This is really no different than all the arguments over whether it's going to be a "reboot" or a "reimagining" or a "re-whatever." Unless you can define--and agree upon--who the "fans" really are and how many of them there are, you'll never arrive at any objective conclusions.

Not everybody likes Star Trek or sci-fi in general, just like not everybody likes horror movies or docudramas or romantic comedies or whatever, but the fact is that sci-fi/fantasy is pretty much king of the box office these days and has been for quite a while. Just look at the top ten money makers of all time: Titanic, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Jurassic Park, and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (IMDB). Only Titanic is not in the sci-fi/fantasy category but it was a movie about grand spectacle, which is right in-line with what sci-fi/fantasy usually does best.

Sure, some people just won't go to see certain types of movies no matter what, but I think most people will go see whatever sufficiently intrigues them, and that's where the marketing campaign for this new Trek film comes in. Word-of-mouth is certainly important, but if only the "hardcore fans" go to see it on opening weekend and it gets beat out by the next Maid in Manhattan, it's gonna take a whole lot of good word-of-mouth to recover from that.

 

[Basil]

North Pole-aris said:
That big general audience out beyond the "10%" is actually much much more easily satisfied as far as "Star Trek" is concerned - because they're casual about it, and they don't really care about the minutae.

Give the "casual fans" an entertaining film with some scope and they won't give a damn what the costumes or the ship look like or whether the writers got Kirk's mother's maiden name right.

The funny thing is that my experience they're more particular in some ways than "hardcore" fans.

For instance, many hardcore fans will do somersaults to rationalize differences and inconsistencies; they'll focus on scientific accuracy in the technobabble or admire the practicality of wearing jumpsuits rather than tunics. Casual fans either like what they get or don't.

After watching the Enterprise premiere with a mixed group, for instance, the reaction I got from the hardcore fans was mostly positive; the casual fans either thought the show was too much like the other Star Treks/not enough like the original and/or colorless/boring. It wasn't just the scripts or the acting, as some people argue, but the characters and the aesthetics which, indeed, included things like the costumes and the sets. They'd been primed for what they thought was going to be high adventure. As one person put it, instead they got "bald guy lite." The hard core fans disagreed, of course, and the rest is history.

Nothing scientific in these observations, but I think the casual fan has far less patience with Star Trek. I think the casual fans will react much more positively to the familiar rather than have to figure out why things look different than they remembered or thought it would. Many are still interested in what they see as "canon" or continuity, and they tend not to parse things out by reading into lines what they want to find. If Spock, for instance, says invisibility is theoretically possible, they take that to mean it's not been done before.

The people who don't care at all I wouldn't classify as fans but the mainstream audience that by and large avoids Trek.

 

[Basil]

Vektor said:

Basil said:
I posted earlier that I'm not just talking about hardcore fans when I use the term "fan." I'd guess that they're in the minority of fans, the ones who doggedly kept watching or buying tickets when the others just shook their heads.

And here we see the usefulness of a moving target like the word "fan." We can keep adding these little qualifiers like "hardcore" and "casual" and "not rabidly opposed to" until the definition includes however many people are necessary to give the "fans" credit for the film's success, while simultaneously justifying the argument that they damn well better be making this film for the "fans" or its doomed to fail.

No offense, but it's silly to assume all Star Trek fans enjoy the show equally, and I think it's a big mistake to equate the ones who watch the shows/movies with the ones who also attend conventions, collect memorabilia, and read the fan magazines. Yet, they're all potential ticket buyers. However, if you ask me which is more likely to pass if they don't like what they see, I'd say it isn't the latter.

 

[Vektor]

Basil said:
No offense, but it's silly to assume all Star Trek fans enjoy the show equally, and I think it's a big mistake to equate the ones who watch the shows/movies with the ones who also attend conventions, collect memorabilia, and read the fan magazines. Yet, they're all potential ticket buyers. However, if you ask me which is more likely to pass if they don't like what they see, I'd say it isn't the latter.

I don't assume that all Star Trek fans enjoy the show equally. It's patently and indisputably obvious that they don't. My point was that it's meaningless to say that the "fans" will make or break the next Trek film when there is no objective definition of who the "fans" are.

What we're really talking about is who the film should be targeted at. My understanding of your original argument was that Paramount should be thinking of the fans first and foremost because they are most significant to its success. The problem is, as anyone who reads these boards should know, pleasing Trek fans is about as feasible an endeavor as hearding cats. I would hazzard to say that pleasing the average non-fan out there, the people who don't know or particularly care about all the intricate details of Trek lore and continuity and visual style and whatever else, is probably easier and more do-able than pleasing the so-called "fans!" I would also submit to you that, ultimately, there isn't that big a difference between the fans and the non-fans when it comes to what will get their butts in the theater seats and make them glad to have been there: A well-written story, compelling characters, and a bit of awe-inspiring spectacle worthy of the big screen. The people who hate sci-fi/fantasy will stay home no matter what, but they're not even in this equation, just like they weren't in the equation for movies like Star Wars or [/i]Lord of the Rings[/i] or most of the others in the top 10 I mentioned up-thread.

They have to actively, pre-emptively convince the reachable masses that this movie is worth seeing and then deliver on the promise, not make a movie for a bunch of obsessive Trek geeks who's combined ticket sales won't even cover the catering and then hope they'll talk everyone else into seeing it.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Basil said:
The people who don't care at all I wouldn't classify as fans but the mainstream audience that by and large avoids Trek.

However, there was also a poll during the height of TNG's popularity where something like 70% of USA residents surveyed said they thought of themselves as "ST fans" and "liking ST" due to seeing TNG on TV. (That doesn't mean they watched it every week, but they certainly didn't react in horror when it came on.)

However, as the producers of Playmates action figures found out, once TNG left TV for the cinema these new "fans" were ready to try something else, something on TV that was "not Star Trek". So for many fans, five years following a show is probably about their limit - they simply move on to another stage of their lives. Coincidentally(?), most TV shows sign up their casts into five-year contracts.