Star Trek 2017 will not be set in the JJ-Verse

[Campe]

A movie ticket today costs about 20 bucks.

Where do you live where the average price of a movie ticket is $20? If you cared to do just a little research, you'd find the average ticket price to be $8.61.

Sorry, that was including 3D, IMAX and popcorn (the revenue of popcorn doesn't go to Pramount, though). Blockbusters are more expensive to watch than our 5-dollar tickets for an arthouse movie, but you'r right, while someone pays 20 bucks to see a blockbuster, there's probably only counting 12 - 15 of it as ''box office".

In other words, you are attempting to skew numbers to make a point you don't have adequate data to back up. The average ticket price presented does include all upcharges including 3D and IMAX. What that means is, more often than not, people are not seeing films in these formats as often as standard 2D.

Personally, as I hate 3D, for most films, I will not pay the upcharge to see it that way. Moreso, I have only seen one film in IMAX this year and will only see one other (Avengers and Star Wars). Everything else, I am perfectly content to see most films in standard 2D. I am not the exception to the rule.

What I probably am the exception to the rule is that I know that Carmike has a special from 4-6 everyday where a 2D show is only $5.75. (At least in Nashville.) Not everyone does. My fiancée and I typically go to those movies on the weekend. Why spend $18-$24 for both of us when we can pay $11.50?

Also, no, popcorn does not count in the ticket price and it's unfair to include that in your estimate. No one forces you to buy the bucket when you see movies.

 

[Rahul]

No, I'm skewing the numbers because I'm not from the states. I base my numbers on what my friends from there tell me a trip to the movies cost. And with popcorn/3D and stuff, those numbers are reasonable.


BTW I just realised: JJ-Star Trek IS Terminator:Genisys.
That one made 440 mil. $ worldwide. The Star Trek movies 426 mio. $ on average (467 and 386 mil. each). Both are 'in-universe'-Reboots. Both have a horribly convoluted, nonsensical plot. Both run pretty much entirely on brand recognition and action. And both are successfull enough to get a sequel. But you would never turn Terminator:Genisys into a series...

I'm pretty positive the new series was ordered out of the success of streaming old Trek. That's what will determine the projected viewership of a new series, and therefore the scale and the budget for it. And probably also the continuity of it...


edited: added box office numbers of both Star Trek movies

 

[Campe]

No, I'm skewing the numbers because I'm not from the states. I base my numbers on what my friends from there tell me a trip to the movies cost. And with popcorn/3D and stuff, those numbers are reasonable.

That's fair. Regardless, I think your friends are exceptions rather that the rule.

BTW:
I just realised: JJ-Star Trek Into Darkness IS Terminator:Genisys. One made 440 mio. $ worldwide. The other 467 mio. Both are 'in-universe'-Reboots. Both have a horribly convoluted, nonsensical plot. Both run pretty much entirely on brand recognition and action. And both are succesfull enough to get a sequel. But you would never turn Terminator:Genisys into a series...

Sorry. No.

I'm pretty positive the new series was ordered out of the success of streming Trek. That's what will determine the projected viewership of a new series, and therefore the scale and the budget of it. And probably also the continuity of it...

I disagree. I can't seem to find the article and my iPad is being difficult this morning but I seem to recall reading something stating that other streaming services (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon) were asking for new Star Trek which made CBS think the time was right.

 

[martok2112]

It's just another case of someone spitting out numbers that they haven't the slightest idea about to suit their own opinion to try and down play the popularity and success of the new Trek films. (IOW: JJ Trek sucks, so I'm gonna throw out some numbers to try and convince the unwashed masses that they're wrong for liking the new movies. )

Best just to ignore and move on.

 

[Rahul]

"Oh noes, he's using numbers to support his claims! Ignore him! Ignore him!"

Nobody says the JJ-verse isn't 'popular'. Hell, I watch them. As much as a lot of other smaller blockbuster franchises. But in the grand scheme of things, they aren't nearly as successfull or beloved as some dudes in this forum might want to make you believe.

In their popularity on a scale ranging from Jurrasic Park and Marvel at the top to Green Lantern and Lone Ranger at the bottom, JJ-Trek strikes right in the middle, together with most Tom Cruise-films, Pacific Rim and the X-men franchise, but below things like Fast and Furious, Man of Steel or The Amazing Spiderman.
Where they rightly belong - both quality wise and based on poularity.


edited: spelling

 

[Nerys Myk]

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Movies and TV show are apples and oranges.

Movies are judged by dollars not viewers.

STID was ranked as #11 in box office for 2013.

 

[Rahul]

The point is: There once was a time where the JJverse could have been the launching point for a new mega-franchise, involving movies, tv-shows, merchandise and other tie-ins.

That point was right after Star Trek 09 came out.

They blew the chance. They waited too long for a sequel, and audience interest faded in the US. And Abrams had a fallout with CBS because he wanted them to stop selling prime-universe merchandise. With which they rightfully disagreed, because that still sells a lot better than his new stuff. And they wouldn't have to pay him royalties.

At this point, the rebooted universe is by no means unsuccessfull. But it has declined to just one of many decently successfull franchises currently in cinema. And it will fade away and get rebooted again as fast as any other of those. And it is currently way to unstable to serve as a departure point for a new franchise.

With this reasoning, I agree with the Topic of this Trek: The new series will not be set in the JJ-Verse.

 

[Campe]

"Oh noes, he's using numbers to support his claims! Ignore him! Ignore him!"

Using numbers is one thing.
Using numbers accurately is something totally different and adds a lot of credibility to an argument.
You are not using numbers correctly.

If I can do a quick Google search and prove you wrong, I've done my job. You've made the claim that the rebooted Trek has not added that many fans from the Next Generation films. You are terribly wrong there. The TNG films lost much of the fanbase, going right down to the diest die hards there are. The JJ films attracted many new fans to the franchise. A box office comparison taking inflation into consideration between any of the TNG films and the JJ films can prove that to be true. You have made an incorrect assertion based solely upon anecdotal evidence in regards to an overly inflated movie ticket price and presenting it as fact.

In their popularity on a scale ranging from Jurrasic Park and Marvel at the top to Green Lantern and Lone Ranger at the bottom, JJ-Trek strikes right in the middle, together with most Tom Cruise-films, Pacific Rim and the X-men franchise, but below things like Fast and Furious, Man of Steel or The Amazing Spiderman.
Where they rightly belong - both quality wise and based on poularity.

Except quality is subjective and again, you provide no evidence to back up any assertions in regards to your argument. I could provide evidence to prove the JJ films are close to the top of the heap if I wanted to.

Regardless, we are continuing to veer off topic here.

 

[Rahul]

...

Except quality is subjective and again, you provide no evidence to back up any assertions in regards to your argument. I could provide evidence to prove the JJ films are close to the top of the heap if I wanted to.

...

That's not how numbers work

That would explain why you clamped to the wrong movie ticket prize, though. The 3D ticket prize is much higher than the average prize. And good luck finding enough theaters that show blockbuster in 2D in their main screenings

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/mar/25/3d-film-ticket-price-rise

(and I'm not going to collect all box office numbers of the movies I listed just for you. You can google that yourself. Just be aware: Ciritically and comercially they scored all about in the same league as I paired them together)

 

[Rahul]

Using numbers is one thing.
Using numbers accurately is something totally different and adds a lot of credibility to an argument.
You are not using numbers correctly.

Says the guy not knowing the difference between "number of viewers" and "percentage of viewership"

Also, you are apparently terribly bad at reading:

You've made the claim that the rebooted Trek has not added that many fans from the Next Generation films. You are terribly wrong there. The TNG films lost much of the fanbase, going right down to the diest die hards there are.

I said:

One of the biggest problems of the JJ-movies is that they didn't gain any new viewers. The first one (09) kinda' sorta' did. A little. But the audience of Into Darkness was pretty much entirely made out of people who already at one point have watched Star Trek on a regular basis.

At it's height, Star Trek had an average of 20 mio. viewers (TNG). LAter, in the 90s about 10. A movie ticket today costs about 20 bucks. That would make the ~220 mio. dollars box office Into Darkness made in the States. And that's why the audience of Into Darkness scored at "male" and "above 25 years old" on average.

The JJ-movies didn't attract a significant number of new viewers. Star Trek has been so long off air that it's old viewers returned back to check this new stuff out, because it said 'Star Trek' on the can and reminded them of what they saw when they were young.

Those guys are the same solid foundation for a new series. But a new television show also needs to attract new viewers to survive long term. And for them it would be best to start completely fresh, no mentioning of "alternate reboot universes as a result of time travel" or stuff like that that alienates new viewers when they first chek it out.

That was talking about the television series. Where I should have made the correct claim to say a 3D-ticket costs about 15 bucks, plus maybe IMAX (both of which Into Darkness heavily forced on viewers), and that the 20 bucks come from adding popcorn and coke, which aren't part of box office earnings. But again, I'm not american.

And at which point someone (*cough*) made the mistake of confusing Nielson ratings with actual viewership numbers (my numbers are correct, though).

That is something completely different. Nobody watched the TNG-movies in the cinema. They were a niche product. They never intended to be summer blockbusters.

The biggest acomplishment of JJ-Trek is basically to get (a lot) of those viewers Trek lost over the time back into a seat for two hours. And barely expand at that.

 

[Squiggy]

Most of the Viewers in the US were already fans of Star Trek. .

Except anyone under the age of 20 who really never grew up with Star Trek.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't think a movie makes over 200,000,000 dollars by appealing to existing Trek fans.

 

[Rahul]

Most of the Viewers in the US were already fans of Star Trek. .

Except anyone under the age of 20 who really never grew up with Star Trek.

That's why it was such a big problem that Into Darkness' core audience was way above 25 (aka more than 75% people who watched Star Trek as kids and now came back).

http://www.thewrap.com/star-trek-da...ger-audience-fast-furious-hangover-iii-92796/

And I'm really getting tired of having to repeat myself over and over because people don't read the arguments, but still have the desire to counter-argue.

 

[martok2112]

**yawn**

 

[Trekkin]

Common mistake: Nielson ratings show the PERCENTAGE of total viewers. Not actual viewership numbers...

"Encounter at Farpoint" had 27 mio. viewers, and a Nielson rating of 15.7%

Urgh, you're right and I bloody knew that too. Doh.

However, you really can't count 'Encounter's...' numbers as the average. It wasn't even the average for S1!

Rest of the post wasn't addressed though. The part where I said all your numbers could be correct (they're not) and it still doesn't prove what you're saying?

Also, you are aware that the 'over 25's' who saw STID, may not have been over 25 when they saw 09? That article even notes there was a 10% shift from one to the other, that may account for that (or may not). I'm also curious how they got their information, and whether it's of the domestic or international audience. They don't say.

You know what's funny? That article mentioned Fast and Furious, which also skewed nearly 60% in favor of over 25's and only earned 10 million more than STID domestically. I guess it's audience were all old Star Trek fans coming back as well.

 

[martok2112]

I think we can all agree on the bottom line: As long as the stories are good and entertaining, it doesn't matter when or what universe it is set in.

 

[Rahul]

**yawn**

What a meaningfull and intelligent addition to a discussion

BTW what the hell are you doing in a thread whose TOPIC it is wheather or not the new series will take place in the JJverse? When apparently you neither want to read nor talk about that?

If you just want to bitch about people not loving the JJ-movies as much as you think they should, guess what, you can create a new Thread for that.


EDIT:

You know what's funny? That article mentioned Fast and Furious, which also skewed nearly 60% in favor of over 25's and only earned 10 million more than STID domestically. I guess it's audience were all old Star Trek fans coming back as well.

Dude, how often are you going to edit your post again? Makes answering really hard...
Fast and Furious is a movie series that started more than 14 years ago. Of course the fans grow older. It's a testament to it that it gained 40% new viewers for movies they were too young to see when they first were in cinema! While Into Darkness LOST viewers in the 4 years after Star Trek 09.

 

[Squiggy]

The point is: There once was a time where the JJverse could have been the launching point for a new mega-franchise, involving movies, tv-shows, merchandise and other tie-ins.

That point was right after Star Trek 09 came out.

They blew the chance. They waited too long for a sequel, and audience interest faded in the US. And Abrams had a fallout with CBS because he wanted them to stop selling prime-universe merchandise. With which they rightfully disagreed, because that still sells a lot better than his new stuff. And they wouldn't have to pay him royalties.

What the what?

They are launching a new franchise, with new movies and tv-shows. Merchandise means dick to Trek. It's never been as important as it is to Star Wars.

With this reasoning, I agree with the Topic of this Trek: The new series will not be set in the JJ-Verse.

That's not reasoning. That's ignoring all the evidence to the contrary to support your position that nuTrek didn't work. You already had your mind made up and even bullshat out some numbers that supported it because of what your friends told you.

"Oh, the average cost is under half of what I said which completely negates my already weak argument? IRELEVANT!"

If ONLY there was some sort of network of computers where you could type in the "average cost of a movie ticket in the US" to see if your claims could be supported. Alas, there is not. Oh well.

 

[martok2112]

**yawn**

What a meaningfull and intelligent addition to a discussion

BTW what the hell are you doing in a thread whose TOPIC it is wheather or not the new series will take place in the JJverse? When apparently you neither want to read nor talk about that?

If you just want to bitch about people not loving the JJ-movies as much as you think they should, guess what, you can create a new Thread for that.

Oh, my. I find I am beside myself with shame after your admonition. What shall I do? My character has been successfully and efficiently assassinated. [/sarcasm]


I don't mind discussing anything, as long as it's with people who can substantiate their so-called arguments with actual facts. Otherwise, all you have are opinions, so please, kindly refrain from trying to disguise them as anything above that. As long as you remember that all you have offered are opinions, then all is well.

[friendly mode]
I don't mind if someone dislikes the JJ Trek films. Again, it's all just opinions. As long as that someone doesn't try to tell me that I'm wrong for enjoying whichever forms of Trek I prefer, then we'll get along famously. (And I have a preference for all of them. )

The JJ Trek movies opened up to, welcomed, and created a wider audience. Some folk who didn't give two craps about Trek before suddenly took a larger interest in it, and found almost 50 years of undiscovered entertainment for themselves. Not everyone took off and ran with it, but it was certainly more than enough to warrant CBS/Paramount to try and bring Trek back to Internetelevision.

The thing I have a problem with is the folk who go around and say: "These people who got hooked on Star Trek because of the JJ movies know nothing about what makes it so special in the first place." (I haven't read enough of your posts to ascertain that that is your position, so please don't think I am saying that that is your position. )

Well.... d'uh! Now they're learnin', aren't they?

Again, I think we can all agree that it doesn't matter when or what universe the show is set in as long as the stories are good and entertaining.

 

[Trekkin]

I'm skeptical about that number because I'm having a hard time finding the source for it. On the internet there's a lot of people repeating it yes, but they're not contemporary sources and I've also seen people say over 30 million. I might be wrong and it's on the bluray, so I'm happy if somone actually has the numbers from a source other than Wikipedia and a reasonably recent Entertainment Weekly.

Regardless, going by the ticket price average for the US (now 8.17, which is actually higher than in 2012) that puts STID as having more viewers than Encounter.

Here's the thing Rahul - why should I believe that the people seeing STID are the roughly 16% of viewers that watched the pilot of TNG, and not the 74% that didn't? Those odds are not good.

Keep in mind that 74% technically should be a larger number, and 16% smaller due to aging and deaths. The pool of people who watched first-run TNG will only have gotten smaller in the intervening years, whilst the pool of people who didn't will only have gotten bigger.

Fast and Furious is a movie series that started more than 14 years ago. Of course the fans grow older. It's a testament to it that it gained 40% new viewers for movies they were too young to see when they first were in cinema! While Into Darkness LOST viewers in the 4 years after Star Trek 09.

EDIT: The 09 audience would have aged as well. And that percentage of F&F's older audience is much larger than the number of people who have stuck with it from the beginning, so 'ageing' fans doesn't quiet cut it.

I'm curious about what 'over 25's' is supposed to be as well. It could simply mean a majority was in the '25-34' range, which wouldn't quiet match what you're claiming.