• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why it is important some people are unhappy

Star Trek probably has millions of people that could be considered fans, but if we use Firefly as a model then we could at least say with some assurance that there are 1,000,000 hard core trek fans. That's probably a very low number, but let's go with it. If each of them went to the new movie twice then that's at least $20,000,000 in ticket sales. Let's say a film brings in total $100,000,000. The 20 million isn't an insignificant portion of that.

Yes, but you're still not recognizing that most fans - as far as we can tell, based on posts, polls, and activity on a variety of boards - are positively inclined toward the movie, and only ten to fifteen percent are showing up as either very skeptical or negative. So subtract the higher number from your 20,000,000 and you get a loss of - what, three million dollars in ticket sales? I imagine that if the studio had projections that looked anything like that - if that's the level of loss they'd have to trade off in the attempt to reach a bigger audience - they'd be pretty happy.

I'll tell you what, though - 4 million hard core trek fans in the U.S. is a more realistic number. So we're talking 80,000,000 dollars if they all saw the movie twice, against a loss of 12,000,000 dollars from the 15 percent who we'll assume - a bit unrealistically - won't even see it once (because remember, we're assuming that anyone who's expressing upset on the forums about the movie will really refuse to see it - not all that likely, IMAO).

That's still not going to be crucial.
 
me said:
I also suggest you take a quick look around. The fanbase is energized. Incredibly energized. And the ST fanbase is already spreading the word like fanboys did with TDK.

AudioBridge said:
I simply don't see that, either on the internet or in my personal encounters. But I hope you're right.


Firstly, I discount all personal encounters. I've found for every one "personal story" of blah blah, there is a contradictory story about blah blah. You'll never see me on here writing about friends of mine or people I've spoken with at the bar. However, I do take a look around at other forums and see what kind of vibes are out there, especially in non Trek forums. I think Paramount is doing a pretty good job so far. They're at least getting people talking about the movie, which is half the battle. 90 percent of the country isn't even aware of the Wolverine movie that comes out a week ahead. My point was; ultimately, Trek will do just fine if it's a quality movie (not necessarily a movie adhering to canon). A movie with characters the GP connects with and a story that'll keep them on the edge of their seats.
 
Hmm, I guess I'm just going to have to agree to disagree with most of the responses to my post. I think Enterprise was a deliberate attempt to appeal to people out of the Trek fanbase. The type of theme song was changed, the sex appeal was ramped up further than any trek before, etc. I've been watching Star Trek all my life, and I almost gave up on that show before Manny Coto came in and improved it.

Nemesis served the same function. They brought in a director with no Trek background and inserted pointless action items like off road vehicles in a future with transporters and warp engines. I think we can all agree that Nemesis was failure from a business sense, even if some Trek fans liked it.

The difference is that ENT and NEM both dumbed down the franchise WITHOUT being remotely exciting or entertaining in the process. Berman/Braga and Stuart Baird simply tried to inject a lot more sex and action into the same tired style. And all they ended up with was a generic, watered-down TNG.

Just from the trailer alone, it's clear Abrams has a MUCH better grasp on how to tell a fun and exciting adventure story.

And if you're going to say that Trek should never be dumbed down for a mass audience, take another look at the earlier Trek movies. Even the BEST ones (TWOK, TUC) were not terribly deep or profound; they were just fun action/adventure movies with a little bit of character drama sprinkled here and there. All I see Abrams doing is the same kind of thing. People need to stop blowing things out of proportion here.
 
that's the last thing Abrams needs. He needs an energized fanbase that will support this thing so that it can succeed. You build upon your base, not in spite of it.

Remember Aesop's "The Man, the Boy and the Donkey"? The moral was "Please all, and you'll please none."

I would guess JJ would want to make a film that polarises the audience, rather than make a film that is just a bit blah and safe and offends no one.

Wasn't Rick Berman criticised for playing "Voyager" and "Enterprise" too safe?

I know Pocket Books' Marco Palmieri has said he'd much prefer that the licensed tie-in fiction he edits gain both high praise and anger from readers rather than a piece of text that is not discussed at all.

Controversy gains attention, and attention sells tickets. JJ knew going in that, no matter what he did, he was going to annoy someone: either the tiny percentage of the total potential cinema-going public who are already ST fans, or the large percentage of the potential audience who seemingly believe that 60s TOS is old hat and has antiquated SPFX and sets.
 
There seems to be two camps on this board now - those that are unhappy about how the new film will screw with established Star Trek, and those that tell those people to get over it. Aside from the fact that Trek is personally important to some people there is a very valid reason that an unhappy fanbase is critically important.

The success of a new Star Trek venture is akin to the success of a political campaign. If you don't motivate your base and get a large turnout of your base you won't win. Many believe that a big reason McCain lost the presidential election is that the Democrat base was supermotivated, and the Republican base was undermotivated. Grabbing new voters or bringing people over from the other side is important, but it isn't how you win. (I DO NOT want this thread to degenerate into a political discussion, I'm simply using politics as an analogy). Star Trek isn't much different. Whether it is a new show like Enterprise or a movie like Nemesis that both fell short, success depends on repeat business by the fanbase. With fan support established you can work on expanding it.

Here's why you're wrong, as I wrote about a similar claim in another thread:

You know what the base of Trek fans are? 3 million. That's about how many people were tuning in to ENT at its lowest points in the ratings. So we know that there are around 3 million Trekkies out there who are more or less reliable at even the lowest points of Trek's popularity.

Guess what? This movie is going to need more than 3 million people to be profitable, let alone a hit. Let's say they want numbers akin to Abrams's and Orci's last big hits, Cloverfield and Transformers. If they want Cloverfield numbers, they're going to need to make $80 million; if they want Transformers numbers, they're going to need to make around $319 million. That's all just the domestic grosses.

Let's assume that there's not much repeat viewings and that most theatres are charging around $8 per ticket and that it's in wide release. That means that to reach Cloverfield numbers, they're gonna need to attract around 10 million theatre-goers. To make Transformers numbers, they're going to need to attract almost 40 million theatre-goers.

That means that to make the minimum threshold of success that this creative team has established for itself, they're going to need to attract 7 million more people than can be said to make up the "Trekkie fanbase." They need to attract more than twice as many people as are Trekkies just to meet the minimum threshold of success they've had in the past. To meet the maximum threshold of success, they'll need to attract 37 million more theatre-goers than make up the Trekkie fanbase.

Simply put, they're only going to need the Trekkie fanbase if they can't attract anyone else, and even then, the Trekkie fanbase won't save them. Trekkies can only break this film if it absolutely fails to attract non-Trekkies -- and they can't hurt it if it attracts just a few million more theatre-goers than Cloverfield did. And on top of that, a certain percentage of the fanbase is always going to show up, whether they like it or not, and another percentage is going to like what they see, irrelevant of what people on the Internet say.

Simply put, there aren't enough of us Trekkies to actually make a difference in Star Trek XI's popularity under anything other than a low-turnout scenario for this film, and even then, we aren't unified enough to really hurt or help it. If this film achieves its goal and gets mainstream success, it doesn't matter if every hard-core Trekkie, all 3 million of us, boycott the thing, because it will still attract tens of millions of others.
 
You know, it is funny... there are some people who will watch Trek no matter if it is compelling or not. And because those people are the most notable subgroup of Star Trek fans, most people assume that we all must fall into this subgroup.

Frankly, I don't think I fall into that subgroup of fans at all. When I look back on my Star Trek viewing history, I can see very specific ranges of Trek I liked and Trek I could do without (or even actively disliked). I generally liked the first two seasons of TOS (and actively watch those episodes today), but tend not to watch most of the third season episodes. I actively watched TAS when it aired, but have only really enjoyed a couple of those episodes enough to actively seek them out to watch since. ST:TMP was an okay movie, but at the time we were starved for anything Trek related, and ST:TWK was a more enjoyable film that I still watch regularly even today. Though I didn't dislike ST:TSFS, I haven't felt to good reason to watch it in the last 20 years, and while I liked ST:TVH more, I haven't seen it in more than 20 years too. I actively watched all of the episodes of ST:TNG when they originally aired, but today won't take the time to watch any of the first two seasons. ST:TFF was insulting and I hated it when I saw it in theaters and saw it once again a year ago to make sure that it was as repulsive as I had recalled). ST:TUC was a pleasant surprise and I have watched it quite a few times. ST:DS9 started out slow, but like ST:TNG I enjoy watching most of the later seasons over and over again. Most of the TNG based films (other than First Contact) seemed to be flash over substance, so I rarely saw them more than once in the theaters and put them into the same category as the first two seasons of the TNG series. ST:Voy was okay... but to date I haven't seen all the episodes as it wasn't especially compelling in some of it's earlier seasons. Same with ST:Ent, I haven't seen all the episodes and didn't find it compelling.

My feeling on this upcoming film... TOS didn't need a reboot, it was stale modern Trek that needed to go. Fan films have shown that the original look and feel of the series was pretty much fine.

So what am I worried about... that this film is going to be more of the same but using the original characters instead. If we get flashy battle, flashy battle, flashy battle linked together by pointless and uninspired plot devices, then the film will fail. The redesign was a pointless waste of effort that I'm afraid wasn't put into a compelling story.

For me, most of the best Trek ever had the least amount of special effects. If the story wouldn't stand on it's own as a non-Trek and non-SciFi story, it has no business being the foundation of either a Trek episode or Trek film.


As for the overall topic of this thread, Cary put it best in another thread a few weeks ago when he said (in effect) that some people get a sick sense of pleasure from the disenfranchisement of others. They are happiest when others aren't... which is why I tend not to post much in these discussions.
 
My feeling on this upcoming film... TOS didn't need a reboot, it was stale modern Trek that needed to go. Fan films have shown that the original look and feel of the series was pretty much fine.

I agree with this sentiment 100 percent. I stated something similar in another thread.

I still don't understand how Paramount's refusal to remove someone that was creatively exhausted (Rick Berman) somehow led them to the conclusion that Star Trek: The Original Series was the piece broken and in need of the overhaul we're seeing here.

Perhaps Modern Trek would still be going strong if Paramount had read the writing on the wall back during Insurrection and Voyager.

"Well Ma'am... you're brakes are bad so we're going to replace the steering wheel."
 
they're only going to need the Trekkie fanbase if they can't attract anyone else...

Simply put, there aren't enough of us Trekkies to actually make a difference in Star Trek XI's popularity under anything other than a low-turnout scenario for this film...
Following your logic, it hardly made sense for Paramount to make a Star Trek film at all.

(And when all is said and done, maybe they didn't.)

---------------
 
they're only going to need the Trekkie fanbase if they can't attract anyone else...

Simply put, there aren't enough of us Trekkies to actually make a difference in Star Trek XI's popularity under anything other than a low-turnout scenario for this film...
Following your logic, it hardly made sense for Paramount to make a Star Trek film at all.

(And when all is said and done, maybe they didn't.)

---------------

They wanted to tell their interpretation of Star Trek. Nothing wrong with that at all. It's done all the time.
 
Following your logic, it hardly made sense for Paramount to make a Star Trek film at all.
They wanted to tell their interpretation of Star Trek. Nothing wrong with that at all. It's done all the time.
And nothing wrong with me voicing my opinion of the leaked information either.

---------------


Not saying there is.

It's stuff like "Omg!!!! The Enterprise looks different. That means this movie will suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG! THEY DIDN"T INCLUDE ROBERT APRIL??!!!! THIS MOVIE BLOWS!!!"
 
And nothing wrong with me voicing my opinion of the leaked information either.
Not saying there is.

It's stuff like "Omg!!!! The Enterprise looks different. That means this movie will suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG! THEY DIDN"T INCLUDE ROBERT APRIL??!!!! THIS MOVIE BLOWS!!!"
You're contradicting yourself.

---------------

It makes people look like fanatics.

Reminds me of the "Bond not Blonde" people. "Casino Royale" certainly shut those people up.
 
Reminds me of the "Bond not Blonde" people. "Casino Royale" certainly shut those people up.

The hell it did. CASINO ROYALE did a huge disservice to Bond in two ways. The one that leaps out is casting an ugly Bond, but what was actually a lot worse was the juvenile take on the character, which would only have worked if they'd cast MUCH younger.

QOS addresses some of the latter more successfully, but I think that is mostly the director's influence. I'm sure the next Bond after QOS will probably be nearly as unwatchable as CR, since the formula is usually to make third Bond films big (as in GF, SWLM), and combining big with ill-considered sounds really bad to me.
 
Reminds me of the "Bond not Blonde" people. "Casino Royale" certainly shut those people up.

The hell it did. CASINO ROYALE did a huge disservice to Bond in two ways. The one that leaps out is casting an ugly Bond, but what was actually a lot worse was the juvenile take on the character, which would only have worked if they'd cast MUCH younger.

QOS addresses some of the latter more successfully, but I think that is mostly the director's influence. I'm sure the next Bond after QOS will probably be nearly as unwatchable as CR, since the formula is usually to make third Bond films big (as in GF, SWLM), and combining big with ill-considered sounds really bad to me.

It created a new fanbase. Plenty of people like myself never liked Bond UNTIL Casino Royale because he always seemed to be a very shallow character only held together by over the top wtf stunts and FX.

This Bond has a much more mature feel to him, far better written and acted and the action/story has alot more grounded in reality. Thus it brough a whole lot of people into the Bond fanbase. And by the way it gave me a much greater appreciation for the previous films.

Trek wins.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top