The First Trailer

[Squiggy]

Justin Lin Box Office: $1,961,769,603

Star Trek Box Office (All Movies): $1,919,548,708

Did you adjust for inflation so all the movies are in current dollars and then sum the current dollars?

Mr Awe

I feel like adjusted for inflation numbers are fairly moot, no?

It's just a hypothetical "what if" scenario of "if the movie were made today it's box office would have been this".

Irrelevant unless you adjust for inflation.

Nope - "inflation adjustment" is a dodge used for purposes of argument. There are so many other factors to adjust for over time that doing a little simplistic math on the gross is meaningless.

Nope. You're just plain wrong on this Dennis. The box office for older Trek movies are based on *very* deflated dollars and have to be adjusted to provide for a valid comparison.

Mr Awe

These are Trek's domestic gross adjusted to 2013:

TMP: 263,819,320
TWOK: 190,243,371
TSFS: 171,578,085
TVH: 232,953,893
TFF: 97,998,261
TUC: 127,970,316
GEN: 118,849,068
FC: 136,698,224
INS: 100,213,938
NEM: 55,992,832
Prime Trek Total: $1,496,317,308

ST09: 279,740,162
STID: 228,778,661

Star Trek Total: $2,004,836,131

 

[Overmind One]

...these movies starting in 2009 are simply not Star Trek in the spirit of Gene Roddenberry. They argue (convincingly) that the purpose of making movies is to make money...

...But they are not Star Trek.

Here's where you lose your credibility. Roddenberry made Trek to make money and fuck girls. Don't ever confuse yourself thinking that it was anything more than that.

I doubt you are in a position to question my credibility, since I met Roddenberry when Nichelle Nichols was still his girlfriend before he married Majel Barrett, and I talked to him personally at two separate conventions. His vision for Trek was what we saw in TNG, much more so than when it started at Desilu for the original series. He was trying to introduce a whole new genre of show when westerns were the order of the day. I also have one of the original run The Making of Star Trek (Whitfield and Roddenberry) where it is spelled out in print.

And I'm the one who gets accused of being adversarial and condescending? Please....

 

[Mr Awe]

Nope. But I also didn't subtract TMP, 2009 or Into Darkness, when talking about director comparisons.

Why would you subtract those?

Because we were comparing Trek directors not named Wise or Abrams to Justin Lin.

Ah, gotcha, I missed that part of the dialog!

Mr Awe

 

[CorporalCaptain]

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

That music is awful.

 

[Mr Awe]

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.

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

Do you know if anyone has done an adjusted dollars thing for the older movies?

I'm sure someone has. It's very easy to do. You just take the box office amount and plug it into an inflation calculator and shazaam, you can get the box office in current dollars.

Mr Awe

 

[Mudd]

Well, I like the name Enterprise GT. So at least Overmind has contributed that much.

I think I'll call the Enterprise that from now on: Enterprise GT.

Or maybe Enterprise 350R.

Shelbyprise 500?

It seems somewhat in keeping with Lin as the new mastermind behind Star Trek...although something like Camaroprise might better fit his legacy.

 

[Trekkin]

That is the goto argument for the NuTrekkers. They have a point in terms of dollars, but as far as Star Trek, these movies starting in 2009 are simply not Star Trek in the spirit of Gene Roddenberry. They argue (convincingly) that the purpose of making movies is to make money, and the 2009 movie made almost as much by itself as all the previous movies in unadjusted dollars.

But they are not Star Trek.

How do you explain WHY they are not Star Trek to people who are not really science fiction fans from when scifi was still science fiction and not soap fi action flicks in space? We are relics....

There is the adversarial and condescending tone. You're on a Star Trek board full of Trekkies that happen to disagree with you. Don't kid yourself that anything more is happening than that.

And I don't think you want to play the 'Trek is true scifi' game. That encourages people to show their knowledge of scifi (esp. Scifi lit) and Trek is not going to be looking good by the end of the discussion.

 

[Overmind One]

So THAT's where they got the idea for Zefram Cochrane!

Yeah, the way Cochrane in FC built the warp drive just to become super rich and get women but then after the trip, it becomes something so much greater, was a clear allegory for Roddenberry and Trek. Cochrane represents Roddenberry and the warp drive represents Star Trek. Like the warp drive, Roddenberry created Trek to get rich and get laid but the show later became the incredible franchise that it is today.

I like this analogy....

 

[Squiggy]

That is the goto argument for the NuTrekkers. They have a point in terms of dollars, but as far as Star Trek, these movies starting in 2009 are simply not Star Trek in the spirit of Gene Roddenberry.

Half of Star Trek under Gene Roddenberry wasn't Star Trek in the spirit of Gene Roddenberry.

 

[Mudd]

This is sad. For those of us in the science and technology fields, what you are calling "technobabble" was the reason we watched...

Well, stipulating that it should read "For some of us..." rather than "For those of us..." if technobabble is the reason you watch an adventure TV show then you are, indeed, doomed to be disappointed. No entertainment corporation on the planet is trying to serve that demographic.

 

[Overmind One]

That is the goto argument for the NuTrekkers. They have a point in terms of dollars, but as far as Star Trek, these movies starting in 2009 are simply not Star Trek in the spirit of Gene Roddenberry. They argue (convincingly) that the purpose of making movies is to make money, and the 2009 movie made almost as much by itself as all the previous movies in unadjusted dollars.

But they are not Star Trek.

How do you explain WHY they are not Star Trek to people who are not really science fiction fans from when scifi was still science fiction and not soap fi action flicks in space? We are relics....

There is the adversarial and condescending tone. You're on a Star Trek board full of Trekkies that happen to disagree with you. Don't kid yourself that anything more is happening than that.

And I don't think you want to play the 'Trek is true scifi' game. That encourages people to show their knowledge of scifi (esp. Scifi lit) and Trek is not going to be looking good by the end of the discussion.

So, if the majority of you HERE on this website disagree with me, I am supposed to shut up and accept your opinions? I will continue to disagree, because I do not like the new films. I will never attack anyone here in particular, and I will not troll. But I will not swallow the Kool Aid either. To me, anyone in love with the new films is a NuTrekkie. That is not necessarily a bad thing. But it is much different than being a Trekkie from before Abrams.

I miss Trekweb,

 

[Mr Awe]

Did you adjust for inflation so all the movies are in current dollars and then sum the current dollars?

Mr Awe

I feel like adjusted for inflation numbers are fairly moot, no?

It's just a hypothetical "what if" scenario of "if the movie were made today it's box office would have been this".

Nope - "inflation adjustment" is a dodge used for purposes of argument. There are so many other factors to adjust for over time that doing a little simplistic math on the gross is meaningless.

Nope. You're just plain wrong on this Dennis. The box office for older Trek movies are based on *very* deflated dollars and have to be adjusted to provide for a valid comparison.

Mr Awe

These are Trek's domestic gross adjusted to 2013:

TMP: 263,819,320
TWOK: 190,243,371
TSFS: 171,578,085
TVH: 232,953,893
TFF: 97,998,261
TUC: 127,970,316
GEN: 118,849,068
FC: 136,698,224
INS: 100,213,938
NEM: 55,992,832
Prime Trek Total: $1,496,317,308

ST09: 279,740,162
STID: 228,778,661

Star Trek Total: $2,004,836,131

Awesome, thanks! This shows that the only old movies that came close to the new movies were TMP and TVH.

Mr Awe

 

[Squiggy]

To me, anyone in love with the new films is a NuTrekkie. That is not necessarily a bad thing. But it is much different than being a Trekkie from before Abrams.

Someone can't be both?

 

[BillJ]

To me, anyone in love with the new films is a NuTrekkie. That is not necessarily a bad thing. But it is much different than being a Trekkie from before Abrams.

This is part of the condescending attitude. Why should people who have been watching for as long as you have (or almost as long) be shunted into a special group because of movies you don't like?

I'm every bit the Trekkie you are.

As I type this, I'm drinking Coke out of my "I'm a Doctor, not an Engineer" glass.

 

[Overmind One]

This is sad. For those of us in the science and technology fields, what you are calling "technobabble" was the reason we watched...

Well, stipulating that it should read "For some of us..." rather than "For those of us..." if technobabble is the reason you watch an adventure TV show then you are, indeed, doomed to be disappointed. No entertainment corporation on the planet is trying to serve that demographic.

My point exactly (underlined). The closest we got to that was Star Trek TNG and perhaps a bit of it in Voyager. And it was scifi/adventure with lots of drama...to be exact. There was a good deal of decent science in Stargate SG-1 for the first two seasons, but they introduced Treknology around season 4. Star Trek TOS and TNG made some great social commentary in that scifi universe too, something that NuTrek is not doing either.

Opinions are opinions. I am respecting the opinions of others here but I definitely do not share them with those who like NuTrek. Is that going to be a problem here?

 

[CorporalClegg]

I fucking hate it when people go on line and try to quantify their fandom over others'.

 

[BillJ]

Awesome, thanks! This shows that the only old movies that came close to the new movies were TMP and TVH.

Mr Awe

If you compare only for inflation, the four TNG films suffer badly against the first four TOS films.

Makes sense why they went back to TOS.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

To me, anyone in love with the new films is a NuTrekkie. That is not necessarily a bad thing. But it is much different than being a Trekkie from before Abrams.

Someone can't be both?

I am a fan of the original and the new movies. I grew up watching TOS —*that's my "Star Trek." These new movies have come closest to replicating the color, excitement and adventure of the original more so than the 70s/80s films or any of the 80s/90s/00s shows.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Star Trek is not The Fast and the Furious.

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.

The Mona Lisa isn't Van Gogh's Sunflowers.

More people in the world will instantly recognise and be able to name the Mona Lisa. Should we paint over Vincent's not quite as well known hundred million $ masterpiece with a fake copy of the Mona Lisa?

What's been painted over, exactly? Someone built a new wing next to those paintings to display new art that's brought in a bunch of new visitors, money, and critical acclaim, while also bringing in new fans to appreciate the older works and keeping the museum operational so it can develop future exhibits.

 

[Mudd]

To me, anyone in love with the new films is a NuTrekkie.

You've been misinformed. Some of us have been fans quite a bit longer than you have.

The Mona Lisa isn't Van Gogh's Sunflowers.

Star Trek isn't the Mona Lisa. It's not Shakespeare - whose work, BTW, has been reinterpreted in thousands of ways. Star Trek is a piece of popular entertainment, owned entirely by the people who invest the resources to create and distribute it, and has never produced anything to earn the comparisons with fine art that some fans like to so casually make to buttress otherwise threadbare arguments.