Repeating something doesn't make it true.
Oh and, by the by SPECTRE has collected $821,022,256 (estimated) in world wide box office receipts. That's about $280 million off of Skyfall's pace.
The First Trailer
- Thread starter Squiggy
- Start date
Repeating something doesn't make it true.
Oh and, by the by SPECTRE has collected $821,022,256 (estimated) in world wide box office receipts. That's about $280 million off of Skyfall's pace.
There are a ton of other factors at play, though. Length of time in theaters and length of time between theatrical and home video release were both significantly different in the '80s (and even the early '90s) than they are today, for example. The splits between exhibitors and the studios were calculated and managed differently. The marketing machine is a completely different beast today than it was even ten years ago, to say nothing of 1979. Overseas box office wasn't A Thing back then. And so on. Just doing some "What X in 1982 would mean in 2015" adjustment doesn't really offer anything of real value to an argument.
So...so out of touch.
Still looks like crap to me, but at least there's an edit with better music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qULdofE03c4&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qULdofE03c4&feature=youtu.be
Star Trek Enterprise?I guess that was to be expected.
This is a real eye opener to see so much support for non-Trek here. But hey, I am not a hater, so I will read the comments here and then give my full on rants at my website.
.
You're trying too hard to make a name for yourself here by being adversarial and condescending. It's not a good strategy if you want people to take you seriously. Dial the "real Trek for real fans" and "I've been watching since '66" rhetoric back a bit, please.
What I meant was it is a fact that these shows with technobabble have directly inspired people to leave their beds at home for their chosen careers. Overmind One is one of them. I am another. Same thing for lots of folks at NASA and all over the world. It's not about the gobbledygook. I don't believe you misunderstand that, but there you go.
EXACTLY. The level of hate generated by the short 1:54 minute trailer is the absolute WORST that I have ever seen in Trek fandom. Far far beyond the vitriol thrown at STID. I think it is warranted. Who wants to see 2 Fast Trek 2 Furious Guardians of the Stars? That short trailer may have killed millions in revenue. I think that any more trailers will only make things worse.
That is true. The Fast and the Furious franchise is far more successful and has a broader appeal. It also attracts a lot more media attention and foreign box office receipts.
WTF are you talking about? Nothing of the sort is happening other than a few blowhards here at this BBS and any other pointless internet discussions.
So what? The nuTrek films did what they were supposed to do: reinvigorate enough interest in Star Trek so that CBS would see that a new TV series was viable. It doesn't matter now if there will be any more Trek movies or not (although there most definitely will be, since the cast was signed to four films.)
That's not true at all. Being "faithful" to Trek had nothing to do with why the show failed.
Star Trek Enterprise?
You're trying too hard to make a name for yourself here by being adversarial and condescending. It's not a good strategy if you want people to take you seriously. Dial the "real Trek for real fans" and "I've been watching since '66" rhetoric back a bit, please.
Adversarial and condescending? Really? How do you figure that? I do not agree with anyone here who thinks these NuTrek movies are good. That is my opinion. I have not directed it at anyone (not adversarial). And condescending, well that seems to be the tack of some of you who are responding to my comments as though your opinions are better than mine. They are not. They are simply your opinions. I do not need to make a name for myself here. I have my own fan website. I came here because I love Star Trek, and my site is a Stargate/Scifi website not dedicated to Trek.
Can you stop being adversarial and condescending please?
And? What's your point? Sorry, but I'm old enough to not be painfully hip and worry overmuch about what other people think of my taste in music. I was the right age to be in their target audience when their stuff started coming out. I've never like them and I think their "music" sucks.
Every song they've ever done is a vague remix of the same song. One raps a line. Two raps a line. Three raps a line. All three rap a line. One raps a line. Two raps a line. Three raps a line. All three rap a line. Oh... oh... here's some variety... Two raps a line, then one raps a line, and now three raps a line. But then all three still rap a line together. Man. Such variety. Such music. Such crap.
No, it's not moot. The dollars used way back in 1979 when TMP was released are very deflated. This means that what a dollar bought in one decade can have a very different amount of purchasing power in a different decade.
If you want to compare money across decades for anything, you have to adjust for inflation. This makes it an apples to apples comparison.
Just for example. The $82,258,456 domestic box office that TMP had in 1979 is equivalent to $264,119,207 in 2014 dollars (the latest year you convert to).
If you don't convert, any comparison is apples to oranges.
Mr Awe
Way to diss a moderator. I see you'll be having a long and fruitful life here at the TrekBBS.
Better music! MUCH BETTER! But the stuff in that trailer still looks like crap, unfortunately.
. I wonder if they are going for a scenario like The Arena here?Adversarial and condescending...I have re-read my posts here and I do not see that. So, if I have differeing opinions on Trek, that is "adversarial"? I do not see it. And I am an older guy, and I have been involved in Trek since it was new on the air. If that seems condescending, that is not my fault. I can see that many of you here only seem familiar with NuTrek. I don't have a problem with that, but I am not going to tow a line because the Mod feels differently. I am not disrupting things or trolling here.
That may all be true. But, the fact remains that if you want to compare dollars for anything over decades, you have to convert them to a constant year. Otherwise, it's an apples to oranges comparison. The dollar simply has different purchasing power in different decades. The difference is huge across multiple decades.
It's a simple matter to take the domestic box office in 1979 and convert that purchasing power to 2014. That's all you're doing so it's on a level playing field. The box office in 1979 would have a very different purchasing power today and that's what you're figuring out.
Mr Awe
Because we were comparing Trek directors not named Wise or Abrams to Justin Lin.
It's so funny when things get to the point where people are arguing with a straight face that 'it made gobs of money, therefore it's quality'.
Yep. Just like 50 Shades of Grey sold more than Harry Potter. So clearly 50 Shades is better than Harry Potter.
Similar threads
