So what will Paramount do when Star Trek XI tanks?

[Basil]

Vektor said:

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.

I truly don't think the people who come to these boards are representative of the majority of Star Trek fans . . . if anything, they seem much closer as a group to that minority of hardcore fans we have described. Some posters seem even openly hostile toward fans, something just bizarre to me.

But at any rate, I suppose I might liken it to the folks in the stands at a sporting event. Most of them would say they're fans, some of them could additionally rattle off statistics about the team and players, and some further will paint their bodies and stand practically naked in 20 degree weather. As paying attendees, they're all important, but I wouldn't say the folks painting their bodies represent what most people feel.

And while the casual fans might stay home if the weather is too bad or something better comes up, the people with the body paint will show up no matter what. They'll probably also be the most vocal and perhaps even the most volatile. Their knowledge of the game probably borders on frightening, and they'll argue till the cows come home about why the losses of their team are somebody else's fault but the wins are entirely the team's doing.

If I was the team owner, and attendance had gone down dramatically, I wouldn't pay too much attention to what they say, but I also wouldn't write off all the other people once willing to buy tickets to see my team just because I think there are far more people outside the stadium that could be ticket buyers. I consequently wouldn't suddenly change team colors, rename the team, replace all the players, change the dimensions of the field, rewrite the rules of play, or reinvent statistics and team history just because I thought it might better please people with little or no familiarity with the team. I might fire the coaches and replace them with better ones or even trade the team to a different city, if those solutions made sense. I might even reinstate nostalgic uniforms or elements that had worked in the past but been changed during the period of decline.

If anything, I'd first want to keep the people I have, bring back the ones who were fans but abandoned the game, and then pull in as many additional ticket buyers as possible, not just because it's easier to keep customers than to find new ones but because there was obviously something fans once saw in the team that might be missing. If I can find what that is, I probably stand a better chance of bringing them back, contentious a group as they might be, than alienating them in exchange for someone not interested in the game in the first place.

Now, if I could never fill the stadium in the first place, I might alter the strategy, but unless that stadium were woefully underfilled, I'd start with the people who have already demonstrated an interest in the team.

 

[Basil]

Therin of Andor said:

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.

Interesting -- how scientific was that poll? If memory serves, even the highest rated TV episode of the time -- the finale to MASH -- only got about half of the U.S. to tune in. Seventy percent of the poll's respondents saying they were fans of some sort is a remarkable figure.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Basil said:
Seventy percent of the poll's respondents saying they were fans of some sort is a remarkable figure.

No idea on how scientifically accurate it was, but the average US citizen on the street - at least in the late 80s - was not embarrassed to say they liked and watched ST to some extent. It doesn't mean they actually tuned in to watch regularly, of course, or that they made sure to see "All Good Things..." on its premiere night, but they weren't averse to watching ST when they noticed it was on TV, or to saying they liked and recognized Kirk, Spock, Picard and Data. Again, this was a Richard Arnold anecdote, so it was a survey Paramount took seriously at the time. The period between the 20th and 25th anniversaries of TOS were big years for ST.

I think, too often, small sectors of ST fandom believe that everyone else in the general public think of them as geeks and nerds but when TOS was being syndicated in early weekday prime time in the US it led to TMP's financial success, and certainly TNG was the highest rating hour of weekly drama in syndicated TV for all of its seven-year run.

What was the very first highly-discounted sell-thru VHS?

"ST II: The Wrath of Khan" - closely followed a few weeks later by "Raiders of the Lost Ark". IIRC, it could be bought at that very low price ($19.95 when most new tapes were about $70) at US KFC outlets. I remember it well because here in Oz, we paid full price for ST II and "Raiders" got the discount treatment.

The late 80s were also a time when bookshops were putting TV media and ST tie-ins in very prominent positions in their stores, and book sections of places like Walmart and Target were making sure to stock the latest ST novels - at discount prices, and even backcopies of previous titles - in a bid to catch impulse purchasers and perhaps steal some regulars from the book chains.

The mass of casual ST appreciators certainly come out of the woodwork when there's an intriguing or fresh new ST to see at the cinema.

 

[Vektor]

Basil said:
I truly don't think the people who come to these boards are representative of the majority of Star Trek fans.

That's the point I've been trying to make: I don't think there is a "majority" of Star Trek fans that actually means anything. There are fans of the TOS era and fans of the TNG era and some of both. There are fans of each of the individual shows who hate some or all of the others. There are Kirk fans and there are Picard fans and there are Janeway fans. There are fans who loved Enterprise and fans who despised it. There are fans who think everything after TNG and beyond was silly, pie-in-the-sky stupidity and fans who think TOS was the height of unrealistic '60s hokiness. There are fans of each of the different versions of the Enterprise who have memorized the deck plans for each, but can't be trusted in a room alone together for fear they might kill each other. There are fans who love the books but can't stand the shows and fans who love the movies but have never even read a book. There are hardcore fans and obsessive fans and casual fans and used-to-be-but-aren't-anymore-but-might-be-again fans. And yes, there are hang-out-on-Internet-Websites-and-debate-all-day-over-who-the-fans-are fans. But is there a "majority" of fans at whom this particular movie with this particular setting and all its attendant pros and cons can usefully be targeted? I just don't think so. I think it would be a pointless, reckless exercise in futility. I think the best you can do is exactly what the producers have done: Look back on the defining elements of the entire Trek franchise that have the widest recognition and widest appeal among fans and non-fans alike, and try to use it as the foundation for a new Trek for a new generation.

If I was the team owner, and attendance had gone down dramatically, I wouldn't pay too much attention to what they say, but I also wouldn't write off all the other people once willing to buy tickets to see my team just because I think there are far more people outside the stadium that could be ticket buyers. I consequently wouldn't suddenly change team colors, rename the team, replace all the players, change the dimensions of the field, rewrite the rules of play, or reinvent statistics and team history just because I thought it might better please people with little or no familiarity with the team. I might fire the coaches and replace them with better ones or even trade the team to a different city, if those solutions made sense. I might even reinstate nostalgic uniforms or elements that had worked in the past but been changed during the period of decline.

I think a more accurate analogy would be to say that the reason attendance has gone down is because the team colors faded over time, the players lost their enthusiasm for the game, and the field dimensions and rules of play were changed in various ways that some people liked and some people didn't. The few fans that still show up for the games are bitter, disillusioned and divided and haven't really enjoyed being there in years, but they keep showing up because they are the diehards, the true sports fanatics and there is always a chance that the next game might bring back the old magic and make their lives meaningful again.

If I were the team owner, I'd try to bring back the color and the excitement of the old team and the way the game used to be played, as well as the original players that most people still remember, but I would also update it just enough to appeal to the generation or two of new sports fans out there who love the game but are accustomed to a different style of play and have never really been to one of my games before. What I would not do is allow the relative handful of hardcore hangers-on to dictate the ballance of new vs. old, not because I disrespect them or have any sort of contempt for them but because they can't even agree with each other on what they really want. It's all well and good if the changes I make wind up appealing to them as well, but I'm not going to let them hold me back from finding a way to pack the stands with ten times their number of new fans, even if I have to alter a few dimensions and tweak a few statistics to do it.

You can't give the "fans" who are obsessive and hardcore enough to still be in the stadium what they want because they all want too many different things. The best you can do is try to give them the most thrilling and exciting and satisfying game you can without sacrificing too much of what made them fans in the first place, in the hope that you will bring in legions of new fans who will fall in love with your team for basically the same reasons.

 

[Jax]

If it tanks it will be Paramount's fault for givin it a stupid big budget. Seriosuly I look at some films and wonder what they spend the money on, Paramount forget the good plot and all, TREK is not that popular anymore so don't expect a big hit.

 

[xortex]

It's going to be a retelling of the King's new clothes story except it won't be power that is feared it will be the promise of alot of money that is bringing so many new people into the abram's fold. I have a word for this when everybody convinces everybody else that something is great -That is 'Hoya' !! - the indian word for cow dung.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

NX_01 Mark said:
...TREK is not that popular anymore so don't expect a big hit.

Yeah...hardly anybody liked the character of 'Spiderman' except a few comic book nerds, so I wouldn't expect a Spiderman film to do that well.

The 'Batman' TV show may have been popular in the 1960's and early 1970's, but its popularity waned after that, so I wouldn't expect a 'Batman' film made in 1989 to be any good or make any money.

James Bond turned into a comic-book caricature of what he once was, and even a few good films with Pierce Brosnan couldn't help re-popularize the franchise -- I wouldn't expect a new 'grittier/more realistic' Bond to do any better.

p.s. I'm not positive that this will be a hit, but there is no reason why it couldn't be a hit. There are no outside forces/prejudices absolutely preventing that.

 

[Basil]

Therin of Andor said:

Basil said:
Seventy percent of the poll's respondents saying they were fans of some sort is a remarkable figure.

The mass of casual ST appreciators certainly come out of the woodwork when there's an intriguing or fresh new ST to see at the cinema.

Very interesting all around, but this last part connects to my point about who this film must capture -- or perhaps recapture -- if it's to succeed. I think there is a sizable audience of people who consider themselves casual fans of Star Trek but who were turned off for any number of reasons by the direction the last few series and films took. They are distinct from the people who have avoided Star Trek in any form. It'll be a lot easier to reach the former group than the latter, who may be larger in number but pass on Star Trek for reasons other than it isn't quality entertainment. The idea that it's the hardcore fan who nitpicks discrepancies is accurate; but my observation of casual fans is that they're even less forgiving -- if something doesn't sit well, they just stay home or change the channel.

 

[Basil]

Vektor said:

Basil said:
I truly don't think the people who come to these boards are representative of the majority of Star Trek fans.

Snip.

I don't think we're in disagreement about the hardcore fans alone not being the primary audience for the film, though perhaps for different reasons. My take is that they're a relative minority that's going to see the movie no matter what, perhaps multiple times, perhaps just to complain about it. But I do think the fans in general are going to be the largest audience, and they should be the primary audience.

You make the point that that can't all be pleased. Well, you're going to have the same problem with the elusive "non-fan" audience, in addition to any baggage they have about Star Trek in general. Your point about getting back to basics is a good one, but if the updates deviate too much from those basics, it will turn off some, perhaps many casual fans.

That's my take. I stand by it. A year from now, we'll see.

 

[Holytomato]

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

:cough: gotta change this-

Let's see protestors in 1964 Cage Starfleet uniforms out in front of the theaters - please!

 

[donners22]

Couple of points:

- It is tiresome to read people writing of "fans" hating certain things (Nemesis, Enterprise, etc). "Fans" do not have a single mindset, and should not be attributed one because it suits your argument.

I went to a premiere screening of Insurrection where the audience laughed at the right parts, cheered at the right parts and applauded it at the end. They had not been tearing the film apart a year before it screened. They just went there for a couple of hours of fun with familiar faces. Some no doubt liked it less than others, but didn't feel the need to burn down the theatre. At the same time on here, no doubt, there would have been threads calling for the heads of all involved.

- Aside from all the talk of core vs casual audiences, it is important to remember Star Trek has a glass ceiling. There is a certain number, and a significant number, who will not go to see a Star Trek film because it is a Star Trek film - ie. the mere Star Trek name will deter them from going, and that was recognised early in the film series.

I cannot comprehend why such a large budget was approved for this film when Star Trek simply does not have the proven box office drawing power to justify it. However, that will not prevent me from getting tickets to the first screening here, and enjoying it while I can.

 

[donners22]

Jackson_Roykirk said:
p.s. I'm not positive that this will be a hit, but there is no reason why it couldn't be a hit. There are no outside forces/prejudices absolutely preventing that.

Absolutely there are. I don't know about other people's experiences, but I have never had the sort of negative reaction telling people about my interest in Star Trek as with any other of my interests. Like it or not, it attracts sneers and disdain from a lot of people, for a variety of reasons. That imposes a limit on just how successful the film can be.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

donners22 said:

Jackson_Roykirk said:
p.s. I'm not positive that this will be a hit, but there is no reason why it couldn't be a hit. There are no outside forces/prejudices absolutely preventing that.

Absolutely there are. I don't know about other people's experiences, but I have never had the sort of negative reaction telling people about my interest in Star Trek as with any other of my interests. Like it or not, it attracts sneers and disdain from a lot of people, for a variety of reasons. That imposes a limit on just how successful the film can be.

You missed the whole point of his post. Go back and re-read it. Every other comment leading up to this one was ALSO filled with obvious irony. So clearly this one was as well.

 

[Therin of Andor]

donners22 said:
Like it or not, it attracts sneers and disdain from a lot of people, for a variety of reasons. That imposes a limit on just how successful the film can be.

I heard plenty of sneers and disdain about James Cameron's "Titantic" - and still do.

I still hear sneers and disdain about "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Plenty of people chose not to see those films you know, and they were still massive hits.

I know very few people who actually liked "Star Wars Episode 1" and yet there it is on the list of the Top Ten money-spinning films of all time.

I cannot comprehend why such a large budget was approved for this film when Star Trek simply does not have the proven box office drawing power to justify it.

Because ST does have proven box office. TMP overblew its budget by a mile and was the biggest budget ever for a Hollywood movie at its time, beaten only by the then-record holder "Cleopatra", IIRC, when corrected to account for inflation. Ultimately, TMP surprised everyone by making a handsome profit, and Paramount realised how much more it would have made with a tiny telemovie budget.

ST did not keep pace with the next few decades of blockbuster budgets, since it was doing excellent business with its modest budgets. ST IV's profits were outstanding, because the budget was so small, relatively. Eventually, ST got left behind.

But for at least a decade people have been saying that ST couldn't be competitive in the cinemas unless it had a budget to rival the new wave of blockbusters. Paramount has accepted the challenge. People thought they were mad for squandering the money on TMP. But it did pay off. A critically-slammed movie which made back its money and (eventually) a large profit.

 

[ancient]

Titantic is the most hated movie of all time. Too bad no one realized it at the time.

 

[Therin of Andor]

ancient said:
Titantic is the most hated movie of all time. Too bad no one realized it at the time.

Whether it's hated or not, it was still one of the most enjoyable big budget movies I've seen. The time just flew by; we came out of the cinema and suddenly realised how long the film had been.

A lot of people I hear sniping at the movie, and poor ol' Leonard DiCaprio's performance, end up admitting that they never actually saw the movie. The SPFX were amazing, some of the performances were excellent, the framing sequence with elderly Rose was a real tear-jerker. I was thoroughly engrossed by the story and suddenly I realized that the ship hadn't even hit the iceberg yet.

If ST XI can engross audiences as well there'll be no problem! Mind you, the marketing department for "Titanic" did its job well, too.

 

[donners22]

Cary L. Brown said:

donners22 said:

Jackson_Roykirk said:
p.s. I'm not positive that this will be a hit, but there is no reason why it couldn't be a hit. There are no outside forces/prejudices absolutely preventing that.

Absolutely there are. I don't know about other people's experiences, but I have never had the sort of negative reaction telling people about my interest in Star Trek as with any other of my interests. Like it or not, it attracts sneers and disdain from a lot of people, for a variety of reasons. That imposes a limit on just how successful the film can be.

You missed the whole point of his post. Go back and re-read it. Every other comment leading up to this one was ALSO filled with obvious irony. So clearly this one was as well.

Fair enough. I just glanced over the thread, and that bit caught my eye. Though I would think that making that bit ironic would actually contradict the point made by making the earlier bits ironic...

 

[donners22]

Therin of Andor said:

I heard plenty of sneers and disdain about James Cameron's "Titantic" - and still do.

I still hear sneers and disdain about "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Plenty of people chose not to see those films you know, and they were still massive hits.

I know very few people who actually liked "Star Wars Episode 1" and yet there it is on the list of the Top Ten money-spinning films of all time.

Two major differences. First, those films were still massive events, with huge budgets, top-notch effects and a lot of hype. XI will be above average in those areas, but not of the level of those filmes. Further, Star Wars had a far greater established fan base, Titanic had no general reputation of fans or the movie and Lord of the Rings had an established fan base and lacked the tarnish of the Star Trek name. I heard lots of people talking about going to those films, without any sort of reaction similar to when I tell people I'm going to a Star Trek film. The Star Trek name has a tarnish, a mostly ignorant one, but a tarnish nonetheless which turns people away from it.

Because ST does have proven box office. TMP overblew its budget by a mile and was the biggest budget ever for a Hollywood movie at its time, beaten only by the then-record holder "Cleopatra", IIRC, when corrected to account for inflation. Ultimately, TMP surprised everyone by making a handsome profit, and Paramount realised how much more it would have made with a tiny telemovie budget.

ST did not keep pace with the next few decades of blockbuster budgets, since it was doing excellent business with its modest budgets. ST IV's profits were outstanding, because the budget was so small, relatively. Eventually, ST got left behind.

Listen to Nimoy on the DVD commentary, and his various published comments about producing Trek films. The studio kept the budget low because it didn't think the films could ever break out - they had a fairly standard box office take, and didn't go far below or above it. Call it a chicken-and-egg situation perhaps, but there was a definite feeling there was a ceiling on Trek's potential audience. Considering how far ratings and box office takings have fallen since then, one might think the ceiling has lowered even further, or at least the safety net has disappeared.

But for at least a decade people have been saying that ST couldn't be competitive in the cinemas unless it had a budget to rival the new wave of blockbusters. Paramount has accepted the challenge. People thought they were mad for squandering the money on TMP. But it did pay off. A critically-slammed movie which made back its money and (eventually) a large profit.

Which came at a very different time, when interest in Star Trek was still building, a break-out blockbuster sci-fi film had just aired and there was plenty of hype about TMP. I'm just not sure this is the case here.

I'd be happy to see it succeed, and, unlike some, I won't gloat if it doesn't. I just can't see it happening.

 

[Balthier the Great]

I think a more accurate analogy would be to say that the reason attendance has gone down is because the team colors faded over time, the players lost their enthusiasm for the game, and the field dimensions and rules of play were changed in various ways that some people liked and some people didn't. The few fans that still show up for the games are bitter, disillusioned and divided and haven't really enjoyed being there in years, but they keep showing up because they are the diehards, the true sports fanatics and there is always a chance that the next game might bring back the old magic and make their lives meaningful again.

If I were the team owner, I'd try to bring back the color and the excitement of the old team and the way the game used to be played, as well as the original players that most people still remember, but I would also update it just enough to appeal to the generation or two of new sports fans out there who love the game but are accustomed to a different style of play and have never really been to one of my games before. What I would not do is allow the relative handful of hardcore hangers-on to dictate the ballance of new vs. old, not because I disrespect them or have any sort of contempt for them but because they can't even agree with each other on what they really want. It's all well and good if the changes I make wind up appealing to them as well, but I'm not going to let them hold me back from finding a way to pack the stands with ten times their number of new fans, even if I have to alter a few dimensions and tweak a few statistics to do it.

You can't give the "fans" who are obsessive and hardcore enough to still be in the stadium what they want because they all want too many different things. The best you can do is try to give them the most thrilling and exciting and satisfying game you can without sacrificing too much of what made them fans in the first place, in the hope that you will bring in legions of new fans who will fall in love with your team for basically the same reasons.

Honestly, the whole thing makes me chuckle. The Blues (and probably next year the STL Rams are going to be trying to woo back the fans. They took out ads showing the players standing outside former fans windows with flowers whining "We want you back".

My response was always the same. You want me back, bring the A game. Play the best damn hockey out there, make the playoffs. That's what Trek has to do in any case to get back the fans, wannabees and usedtobees. Make a great movie or a great series. I don't care about uniforms, the puck color, the names on the jersies. Just effing win the game.

Fundementals people. It's painfully simple.

But of course Paramount being the thickheads they are, they'll probably give us another movie with a "Bad Guy Who Puts Khan to Shame" featuring a CGI comic relief character and more Kirk sex-scenes then you can shake a tribble at. It will suck, and I won't watch it.

 

[donners22]

^ The Australian cricket team is the best in the world, by a significant distance. It is possibly the greatest side ever assembled, and plays at an exceptional standard. Yet attendances and ratings are terrible. Why? Because the fans have seen it all before.

What's a "great" movie or series, anyhow? You could go in every forum of these boards, and be told why a series is great or terrible, by people who genuinely believe each side of the argument. Same with each film. There's people who will tell you TMP was a masterpiece. I loved Nemesis. Hell, I think somebody out there may have thought TFF was a good film. There are vast divisions among fans as to what is good Trek and what isn't. With so much Trek available, there just isn't as much motivation for some to jump on board a new Trek project as there once was.

Besides, a quick look at box office takings and TV ratings would reveal quality is far from an essential factor in financial success...