Star Trek 4 Hits A Snag

[Gingerbread Demon]

It could end up being city on the edge of forever with father son bonding instead of of Edith Keeler.

Isn't "City On The Edge Of Forever" what Tarrantino wanted to do?

 

[Ovation]

Incorrect. You have to adjust for inflation and even then it's not a perfect metric because of the population variance.

Adjusting for inflation across decades for entertainment comparisons (especially for movies) is a flawed exercise unless it takes into account a considerable number of variables relating to changes in social behaviour, competition for entertainment dollars across a multitude of alternatives not then available and so on. It is hardly a straightforward exercise, particularly when going back more than 20 years.

It's not anywhere near the most success Trek movie financially. To put it into perspective TWOK had the highest open weekend of all time, of any movie, EVER when it came out.

And how does it compare to contemporaneous (plus or minus five years) films for financial success overall? Moreover, while I've come across many claims about the relative success (or failure) of Trek films, this claim is new to me. Any suggestion as to where I could learn more about it?

There's a recency bias with critics (and moviegoers). To illustrate my point, do you actually think STB, STID & ST09 are all better films than TWOK?

No. Not Beyond. But yes for the other two (and I've seen them all in their respective eras--I've been watching Trek since 1973).

This is an opinion.

That Into Darkness was both popular and commercially successful is a fact. That you didn't like it does not make it either financially unsuccessful or lacking in general popularity.

If was so well liked than the franchise wouldn't have run out of steam immediately after it was put out and there wouldn't be countless press about its problems.

This statement, however, is opinion.

 

[mos6507]

If was so well liked than the franchise wouldn't have run out of steam immediately after it was put out and there wouldn't be countless press about its problems.

This statement, however, is opinion.

A correct one. You can argue all you like over the dividing line between financial success and failure all you like but ST4 would not be dangling by a thread if the series were not falling into the usual law of diminishing returns.

It's something Star Trek has experienced before. Trek V left Trek VI in shaky territory and they had to pull it off on a relative shoestring. But the Trek VI actors were not as bankable as Kelvin, so it was still doable.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Yet, here we are, with Kelvinverse’s future uncertain.

 

[Mudd]

It's not anywhere near the most success Trek movie financially.

Yes it is. You're just wrong.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

Well, I posted this in the DS9 caption thread, but I don't think anyone got it....

Sisko: "Remember when Scotty said 'Up your Shaft' ? Well, that's exactly what I'm doing. You can call me John...."

That would be the Ben Sisko that wanted to call the Defiant the USS Ben Sisko's Motherblanking Pimp Hand.

 

[JKM]

I think that is a factor in beyond's relative failure. It was a 'who cares' kind of story.

Not just the story. My biggest issue with Beyond was that these people could have been anybody. With the exception of like three scenes, these people could have been perfect strangers to each other. It's like they didn't even care about each other any more. It just felt so weird/off. Especially since they were supposed to be making a movie about coming together and what it meant to be in the Federation. Such an Epic fail there.

Compare that to STID my competing favorite Star Trek movie of all time where these people were like a family and showed it and that to me is one of the things I loved about TOS. The only thing I can really say nice about Beyond was it was 'pretty'. Awesome space shots and Yorktown and the Nebula, but ultimately with a story that fell flat and with hollow characters.

 

[jaime]

Isn't "City On The Edge Of Forever" what Tarrantino wanted to do?

Crossed with yesterday’s enterprise allegedly.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Crossed with yesterday’s enterprise allegedly.

Uuum OK "scratches head" now how would that work

 

[Smellmet]

Not just the story. My biggest issue with Beyond was that these people could have been anybody. With the exception of like three scenes, these people could have been perfect strangers to each other. It's like they didn't even care about each other any more. It just felt so weird/off. Especially since they were supposed to be making a movie about coming together and what it meant to be in the Federation. Such an Epic fail there.

Compare that to STID my competing favorite Star Trek movie of all time where these people were like a family and showed it and that to me is one of the things I loved about TOS. The only thing I can really say nice about Beyond was it was 'pretty'. Awesome space shots and Yorktown and the Nebula, but ultimately with a story that fell flat and with hollow characters.

We clearly have a different opinion here, I thought the cast and characters was one of the best aspects of the film. It felt like a big screen TOS episode to me.

 

[JKM]

We clearly have a different opinion here, I thought the cast and characters was one of the best aspects of the film. It felt like a big screen TOS episode to me.

Probably so. Don't get me wrong, I think the cast did a great job with what they were given, I just think what they were given was a poor script to my mind. I could almost see them checking off having all the cast in certain scenes. I agree it was like a TOS episode but that doesn't work for broader audiences or those who may not be a hard core Trek fan, not to mention in a movie you have a shorter time frame to show character growth as Paramount is not releasing these movies weekly. Not a good formula for the big screen.

 

[Smellmet]

Probably so. Don't get me wrong, I think the cast did a great job with what they were given, I just think what they were given was a poor script to my mind. I could almost see them checking off having all the cast in certain scenes. I agree it was like a TOS episode but that doesn't work for broader audiences or those who may not be a hard core Trek fan, not to mention in a movie you have a shorter time frame to show character growth as Paramount is not releasing these movies weekly. Not a good formula for the big screen.

Fair points. Despite a lack of 50th anniversary promotion for the film, it's still a bit of a love letter to trek fans though, but I concede that may not have been the best approach.

 

[BillJ]

I hold people who say Into Darkness wasn't a success in the same regard as those who say Discovery isn't: they simply aren't in touch with reality. And anyone who goes to the Discovery forum knows exactly what I think of it. I'm simply not interested in deluding myself because something doesn't work for me.

 

[Khan 2.0]

I agree it was like a TOS episode but that doesn't work for broader audiences or those who may not be a hard core Trek fan, not to mention in a movie you have a shorter time frame to show character growth as Paramount is not releasing these movies weekly. Not a good formula for the big screen

Fair points. Despite a lack of 50th anniversary promotion for the film, it's still a bit of a love letter to trek fans though, but I concede that may not have been the best approach.

instead of a big budget extended episode (like Insurrection) think they needed to go the Dr Who 50th ann approach - something involving previous incarnations of Trek in a celebratory fashion, but not neccesarily 85y old Shatner returning to kick ass with Pine and Co. Something like Quinto finding the Trek V photo scene - but for the whole movie. e.g. Pine or the JJPrise ends up in Primetimeline somehow and encounters TOS or Movie TOS stuff in a BTTF2/AGT/Trials&Tribulations style way. (might've been better to spend the 185m on CG deaging of TOS actors and recreating Prime sets/models/scenes than Kralls swarm/Yorktown).

 

[Uhura's Song]

I hold people who say Into Darkness wasn't a success in the same regard as those who say Discovery isn't: they simply aren't in touch with reality. And anyone who goes to the Discovery forum knows exactly what I think of it. I'm simply not interested in deluding myself because something doesn't work for me.

While I tend to agree with your post overall, I do think it is a bit more complicated than that.

First off, I think franchise films can benefit (or suffer) from the success (or failure) of the previous installment. STID got a big boost from Star Trek. Search for Spock got one from Kahn. Undiscovered Country suffered.

Second, overall saturation can have an impact. Trek fans were inundated with Trek in the 90s and in a desert when ST09 came out. STTMP benefitted here as well.

Third, as the series progresses, it gets tougher. A big new take/reboot can seem fresh at the start, but 3/4 films in there has to be some progress.

Fourth, how you crunch the numbers impacts as well. Adjusting ticket prices for inflation (and cost) provides a cleaner picture.

Lastly, so does the worldwide adkusted gross. Beyond and STID made more overseas than domestically, the only 2 Trek films to do so. If talking profitability of the various films, the fact that films make a LOT more money overseas than they used to has to be factored in.

 

[Relayer1]

We clearly have a different opinion here, I thought the cast and characters was one of the best aspects of the film. It felt like a big screen TOS episode to me.

Nah. I'd hoped for that, but didn't get it.

 

[Uhura's Song]

One more point on filn profiability, many more streams of income now (stream, rent, BLblu ray, etc) than before (box office only). Do not know the extent these other streams are counted.

I was able to find #s for domestic gross, domestic adjusted gross, worldwide gross, and cost with only a little variance.

Could not find worldwide adjusted. But I applied the same adjusted % as the domestic adjustment and got the following for worldwide net.

1. TMP: $360.4 mil
2. STID: $327.5 mil
3. ST09: $311.0 mil
4. TVH: $278.3 mil
5. TWOK: $274.2 mil
6. FC: $244.4 mil
7. GEN: $208.5 mil
8. TSFS: $203.0 mil
9. BEY: $189.1 mil
10. TUC: $167.0 mil
11. INS: $143.1 mil
12. TFF: $99.9 mil
13. NEM: $25.9 mil

Domestic Adjusted Net:
1. TVH: $221.5 mil
2. TWOK: $220.9 mil
3. TSFS: $174.0 mil
4. ST09: $152.0 mil
5. TMP: $150.8 mil
6. FC: $123.3 mil
7. TUC: $118.2 mil
8. GEN: $110.5 mil
9. STID: $62.8 mil
10. TFF: $57.9 mil
11. INS: $50.7 mil
12. BEY: -$12.0 mil
13. NEM: -$12.1 mil

That foreign box office makes a big difference. Almost nada early on save for TMP (TUC did not even have one, I think).

STID goes from 2nd to 9th, and much closer to 11th than 8th.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Instead of number crunching and trying to make sense of magic Hollywood accounting where they try and lose as much money as possible to avoid paying taxes, I go by the following metric: If they make more of them, they did "well enough". We got three huge budget Trek movies, and now Paramount are trying to cut back indicating things didn't do so well with Beyond. But at the same time they've already announced the next movie after this one, which is more of a long term plan than Paramount's ever really had for Trek before.

 

[dahj]

The last Star Trek movie made almost as much money as the last Star Wars movie.

Fact!

 

[Khan 2.0]

The last Star Trek movie made almost as much money as the last Star Wars movie.

Fact!

yeh its hard to believe we now live in a world where a Trek movie has totally outgrossed a (proper) Wars movie - both ww (ID) and domestic (ST09)