Variety: 'Star Trek' moved from Christmas '08 to May '09

[Sharr Khan]

There is no inherent reason this film should fail. Simply being Trek isn't a reason, its an excuse of low expectations on the part of those making the assertion because its Star Trek its destined to bomb and the general audience won't care. That model has long since left the building - you see if Paramount thought that they wouldn't have greenlit this project period.

Moreover a move to SUMMER (movie primetime) is a show of faith and liking what they see. Summer isn't where movie's studios expect to be bombs go to die. There's no way around it they wouldn't have wasted a slot on the release schedule where they could have put a film that Paramount would have thought would do better then "Star Trek" and made them more money. If there was a more likely money maker it would be in Star Trek's slot.

Oh on that note someone made the absurd claim that "yeah there's placing it in the summer so they can cause the illusion of having higher returns..." that is just another way of saying: "Oh I know its going to be a success but now I've set it up so when it is I can claim because of its success its really a failure"

Ah its a movie, its supposed to make as much money as it can.

 

[Tralah]

I still find it amusing that some people think they're a better judge of the film's potential to succeed or fail when they haven't seen the script or the dailies and the people who made this decision have.

 

[StarTrek1701]

Moreover a move to SUMMER (movie primetime) is a show of faith and liking what they see. Summer isn't where movie's studios expect to be bombs go to die. There's no way around it they wouldn't have wasted a slot on the release schedule where they could have put a film that Paramount would have thought would do better then "Star Trek" and made them more money. If there was a more likely money maker it would be in Star Trek's slot.

Oh on that note someone made the absurd claim that "yeah there's placing it in the summer so they can cause the illusion of having higher returns..." that is just another way of saying: "Oh I know its going to be a success but now I've set it up so when it is I can claim because of its success its really a failure"

I honestly do not get the ideologies of Trek fans at all. Its as if they actually want this movie to fail and have no faith in the makers. I understand to an extent about the bad taste left in our mouths for nearly a decade of Voy and Ent, but please, let Abrams make this movie and then we can like or dislike it. It should be that simple.

 

[Tralah]

It really is bizarre to me too how some have made up their minds that this movie is already going to be a disaster just based on the vague plot outlines we've heard rumored, tiny scraps of information from interviews, a few spy shots, and a brief teaser trailer. One would think most people would wait until we get the full fledged trailer that shows actual scenes from the movie before coming to such dire conclusions.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Maybe this was already brought up, but a May film release brings the added benefit of the DVD release coinciding with the Christmas Season (...and it makes a great stocking stuffer!).

I suppose they could have held the DVD release until Christmas 2009 even with a Christmas 2008 film release, but I'm sure they would rather sell the DVD's "while the iron is still hot" 6 months after the film opens.

 

[ktanner3]

On one hand, a May opening could be a sign of confidence in Star Trek's ability to win at the box office, and this is happening early enough that it shouldn't adversely affect Paramount's marketing plans.

Of course, this also means that I now have to wait until May to see it.

That was precisly my thoughts.I like the gumption and faith that the studio is putting in this movie by pitting it against the big heavyweights in the biggest movie time of the year. The only trouble is, who will Star Trek be competing against at the box office that weekend?

 

[Utopianvista]

The studio finally realized this flop will be frontloaded and it NEEDS to make its money in its first few days. December releases need legs, which this turkey won't have, and a May release increases the front loaded gross of the movie.

Its a smart move in that respect.

It'll still flop though. But it probably won't flop as bad now.

 

[Sharr Khan]

It'll still flop though. But it probably won't flop as bad now.

yawn... No.
For people who claim to like Trek so much there sure are a very vocal group out there saying absurd stuff like this.

Trust me placing it in the Summer if they believed it a "flop" (and it only seems those who were agianst this at all are even saying stuff like that - surprise... not really) would be only a way to make it look worse not better.

Really lets recall how much more of a risk LoTR was for New Line, yeah that was popular among the mainstream audience - well not really until Peter Jackson made it popular by being a good film series.

If and when Paramount doesn't allow critics to preview screenings I'll buy into this flop nonsense until then its just a bunch of people pre-hating the film for a host of reasons that have nothing to do with its quality or lack thereof.

Even then I'll judge it after seeing it...

Sharr

 

[cardinal biggles]

That was precisly my thoughts.I like the gumption and faith that the studio is putting in this movie by pitting it against the big heavyweights in the biggest movie time of the year. The only trouble is, who will Star Trek be competing against at the box office that weekend?

The release dates are subject to change, of course, but this is what it looks like right now:

May 1: X-Men Origins: Wolverine
May 8: Star Trek
May 15: Angels & Demons
May 22: Night at the Museum II: Escape from the Smithsonian
​

 

[StarTrek1701]

The studio finally realized this flop will be frontloaded and it NEEDS to make its money in its first few days. December releases need legs, which this turkey won't have, and a May release increases the front loaded gross of the movie.

Its a smart move in that respect.

It'll still flop though. But it probably won't flop as bad now.

I hope you are being sarcastic. How can you truly hate a movie even before the completion of primary photography?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I honestly do not get the ideologies of Trek fans at all. Its as if they actually want this movie to fail and have no faith in the makers.

Some do, whether they're conscious of it or not.

If Trek becomes a mainstream hit, the last illusions of fannish "ownership" of Trek - and the suggestion of control that includes - are shattered.

 

[cardinal biggles]

But that's okay... then they'll be able to bitch about how they loved Trek when it was "pure" and "untainted by the masses."

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Have you seen how angry some folks become about Trek shows and movies that don't fit what they consider to be appropriately "Star Trek?"

It would not be easy to have the most hugely successful Trek production ever - if that's what it is, and there's a good possibility that it will be - something that succeeded by breaking the "rules."

 

[cardinal biggles]

But it'll sure make for some entertaining threads here on or about May 8th, 2009.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But it'll sure make for some entertaining threads here on or about May 8th, 2009.

We are going to have "experts" explaining to us for weeks that the film is a bomb because its box office doesn't meet some percentage or another that's derived from a twenty-year-out-of-date rule-of-thumb and guesswork.

 

[Balthier the Great]

There is no inherent reason this film should fail. Simply being Trek isn't a reason, its an excuse of low expectations on the part of those making the assertion because its Star Trek its destined to bomb and the general audience won't care. That model has long since left the building - you see if Paramount thought that they wouldn't have greenlit this project period.

Moreover a move to SUMMER (movie primetime) is a show of faith and liking what they see. Summer isn't where movie's studios expect to be bombs go to die. There's no way around it they wouldn't have wasted a slot on the release schedule where they could have put a film that Paramount would have thought would do better then "Star Trek" and made them more money. If there was a more likely money maker it would be in Star Trek's slot.

Oh on that note someone made the absurd claim that "yeah there's placing it in the summer so they can cause the illusion of having higher returns..." that is just another way of saying: "Oh I know its going to be a success but now I've set it up so when it is I can claim because of its success its really a failure"

Ah its a movie, its supposed to make as much money as it can.

As Ive said before, I think SciFi, particularly Space Opera is a niche product. I just don't think Paramount quite gets that point. If you look at the ratings of modern Trek versus other shows, it doesn't do especially well. Other than Star Wars, no Space Operas have done well at the box office. Serenity didn't do very well, and no other Space Operas have even been made since Nemisis. I just don't see a big Summer Blockbuster out of a Space Opera that most mainstreamers think is uncool. It will probably be a decent movie, it just isn't going to make a ton of money in the theaters up against X-Men:Wolverine and Angels and Demons.

I'd be shocked if the ST:XI movie made $100 million with that kind of mainstream competition. Outside of the circle jerk of Trekdom, ST:XI isn't anticipated, most conversations about it are laughing at it. At Christmas, it might have made $300, there wasn't much competition for the movie.

 

[Sharr Khan]

most conversations about it are laughing at it. At Christmas, it might have made $300, there wasn't much competition for the movie.

I'm sorry I haven't seen anything to back this statement up by any degree. Slashdotters don't count, since much like those who frequent this board they're more then likely to be "nerds" and therefore apt to be nitpicky idiots then objective in the matter. That is I'll trust Paramount's marketing research over anyone on the web.

Show me someone in the mainstream, a host or something tangible to back up this claim that "most are laughing at it". Please don't say everyone you know...

Agian nothing inherent in Star Trek prevents it from becoming a success. If a movie like Transformers can have a broad appeal (which is why it became a blockbuster old and young were attending) Star Trek can as well. The premise is mostly sound and done right it can be enjoyable to anyone not already a Trek fan.

Plus assuming that only Star Wars can do it you're bound to lose by coming at the franchise from that point of view.

If its a compelling story and gets good buzz it will be a success.

Sharr

 

[Garth Rockett]

We are going to have "experts" explaining to us for weeks that the film is a bomb because its box office doesn't meet some percentage or another that's derived from a twenty-year-out-of-date rule-of-thumb and guesswork.

No doubt. There was some anti-Daniel Craig Bond fan who was proclaiming Casino Royale a failure because it didn't perform as well as its opening week competition, Happy Feet. Never mind that they were aimed at entirely different audiences and Casino Royale is the highest grossing Bond film of all time (unadjusted for inflation). The haters will find something to back them up, logic be damned.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Agian nothing inherent in Star Trek prevents it from becoming a success. If a movie like Transformers can have a broad appeal (which is why it became a blockbuster old and young were attending) Star Trek can as well. The premise is mostly sound and done right it can be enjoyable to anyone not already a Trek fan.

I've always used the first Spiderman and the first Pirates of the Caribbean as examples of films that had little or no built-in fanbase but still managed to do well at the box office. Spiderman had only fans of the comic book and two bad cartoons as its fanbase, and Pirates only had Depp fans as its base.

Heck, while we are at it, there is no reason why the original Star Wars film did well in 1977 (except that it was a good film) -- it had nothing specific going for it at the time it opened that would make people want to see it.

 

[Sharr Khan]

I've always used the first Spiderman and the first Pirates of the Caribbean as examples of films that had little or no built-in fanbase but still managed to do well at the box office. Spiderman had only fans of the comic book and two bad cartoons as its fanbase, and Pirates only had Depp fans as its base.

Heck, while we are at it, there is no reason why the original Star Wars film did well in 1977 (except that it was a good film) -- it had nothing specific going for it at the time it opened that would make people want to see it.

Judging from JJ Abrams words on the matter, to the extent he has spoken at all about this issue the best and most likely way to go about making Trek appeal to more then Trekkies is to move ahead as if this is the first time anyone ever heard of a show Star Trek and they have to go about making an audience care about it.

This blasts away preconceptions of what this film should be and how it should be presented.

Star Wars, Transformers, Lord of the Rings, Batman... all of this things are "niche" and have been successful films - previous Star Trek movies and tv shows stumbling blocks isn't the material itself but that its more concerned with being "Star Trek.tm" rather then simply just being a good movie or tv show.

I used to cringe when someone in charge of Trek would say things like: "You can only tell a Star Trek story a certain way" or "Yeah it was a good script but not good Star Trek". Thinking like that shows those running things aren't concerned with good writing and storytelling first but rather obeying a list of preconceptions about what Trek should be. It keeps you from doing anything dangerous or turning assumptions on their face.

Give me a compelling story first that just happens to be labeled "Star Trek". The other way around produces rather meh material.

Sharr