What about the blockbusting aspect is actually connected to "huge budget"?
Why wasn't TWOK more commercially successful?
- Thread starter Captain Worf
- Start date
and the 2nd most expensive movie to produce as well.
Incorrect. You love correcting me! And whenever you make a point of using my name like that, it sounds extra patronizing. Thank you so much. Really makes my night.
Now that I have more time, I'm happy to expand the thought. My comment was based on a convention anecdote by Walter Koenig, who visited Sydney after ST IV had been filmed, but before it had been released. He said that Paramount was so confident in the ST product they were about to unleash in cinemas (ie. ST IV) that we should not be surprised if ST soon made a return to the small screen. Obviously, he was privy to what was going on behind the scenes with Gene Roddenberry, and couldn't elaborate.
The pleasing box office success of ST IV did help greenlight TNG, although, yes, it was already in the planning stages. It was not yet set in concrete. ST IV's box office and critical successes renewed Paramount's confidence that they could make a new ST series work in first-run syndication, that they could encourage international markets to pre-purchase video releases of TNG before the new series played on TV in those countries, and that it probably had enough clout to be more than just a single telemovie.
It varies depending on a. the film, b. how it was financed, and c. what the advertising budget was. The listed "budget" is usually the negative cost, as they say, not the full investment in the film.I read recently that the current break-even formula is about 180 percent of production costs - and since I read it somewhere, probably on the Internet, it must be true.
My impression is that the negative costs of producing blockbuster films have run so far ahead of the costs of promotion and distribution in the last fifteen years that it outdated the older "two-to-three-times" rules of thumb for really big budget movies.
Last edited:
No, I don't. To be perfectly honest, I'd rather you wouldn't knowingly spread misinformation as you're wont to do.
Ian, I use you name because it's your name. No reason other than that. I like using people's names in conversation. It comes from having worked in sales and customer service for over a decade. Using names is a personal touch.
If you're reading anything into my use of your name, that's on you.
As for the rest, you're taking a source, that as you admit wasn't privy to anything, as definitely proof of your timeframe. But as I said, it's demonstrably false that Star Trek IV's box office success had anything to do with the development of Star Trek: The Next Generation; studios simply don't move that fast, and Paramount, as Dennis notes, had been trying to get something going for some time, and it's worth remembering that Roddenberry was not the studio's first choice to create the series.
Allyn, stop it. It is extremely rude to knowingly use someone's name online, particularly when they've asked you to not do that. I do not understand why the two of you have this feud, but I think it's more than beyond the pale to try to drag someone else's real life identity into the fray like this.
Taking this one to the mods. You both should be ashamed of yourself, but Allyn most particularly so.
Taking this one to the mods. You both should be ashamed of yourself, but Allyn most particularly so.
For what it's worth, Vance, I had no idea that it troubled Ian when I used his name in this forum. He goes by his full name in other forums, like Psi Phi. It never occurred to me that anyone could or would find the use of his own name to be rude and insulting.
My apologies, Therin.
Wait a minute. There was a series before TNG (and not Phase II) that was ultimately scrapped? Any details on this? I've never heard of it.
TWOK sold 26 million tickets worldwide, only TMP and STIV sold more tickets of the first 10 movies. Domestically its modern total would be about $192 million if adjusted for inflation, ranking 4th.
Star Trek's box office history is astounding...there are few ongoing franchises that spent as little and made as much...worldwide, gross is over $1.5 BILLION...only cost 1/3rd of that!
RAMA
Star Trek's box office history is astounding...there are few ongoing franchises that spent as little and made as much...worldwide, gross is over $1.5 BILLION...only cost 1/3rd of that!
RAMA
There's not a lot of details on the pre-Roddenberry development of Star Trek: The Next Generation. It gets mentioned in both of the Roddenberry biographies, Joel Engel's unauthorized Gene Roddenberry: The Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek and David Alexander's authorized Star Trek Creator. Interestingly, it gets more mention in the latter, as Alexander quotes at length from Roddenberry's dismissive letter about the series bible.
Paramount approached Harve Bennett about creating a Star Trek television series. He said no.
They approached Leonard Nimoy. He also said no.
They approached Greg Strangis, who would serve as a creative consultant on TNG and later create War of the Worlds. He said yes, and he was partnered with Rick Berman.
Based on Roddenberry's letter in Star Trek Creator, what they came up with was set about a century after Kirk's time, and it focused on a group of cadets, not unlike Star Trek II or Abrams' film. It also involved the Admiralty in some way, which Roddenberry felt was not Star Trek.
Obviously, the Strangis/Berman series never went into production. I don't know if any ideas carried over from it into Star Trek: The Next Generation, though it's possible because both Strangis and Berman worked on the first season.
After Strangis/Berman, Paramount approached Roddenberry. Maybe the studio had decided that no one other than Roddenberry could do it. Maybe they were afraid that fandom wouldn't watch a non-Roddenberry Star Trek series. Maybe Roddenberry's lawyer pulled strings to get Roddenberry dealt back in.
Why isn't the pre-Roddenberry history of Star Trek: The Next Generation better known? Probably for the same reason that our knowledge of Pelagianism and other early Church heresies is limited to the writings of their opponents -- the history's been scrubbed where it conflicts with the orthodox view of events. What we know of this "lost" series is what Roddenberry wrote when he railed against it, and were it not for David Alexander quoting from that letter, we might not know anything about it at all.
Actually, Therin, we had David Gerrold as a guest at a mini-con in early 1985, and he hinted that something big was in the works. He never said series, he never said what. But he said that the fans would be happy. I used to think he was talking about STIV. I now wonder if he was referring to his work on TNG.
I've never heard of the Strangis/Berman series, and I've seen a lot of unauthorized histories of ST, form the 80s onwards. While I have no doubts there may have been changes in plans for STNG-to-be, the only one I've heard is that Roddenberry originally turned Paramount down. Much more likely than your conspiracy theory is that the Strangis/Berman series was always tenuous and never really existed in any official capacity. The first time any real plans were drawn up was most likely STNG proper.
Edit: A 1986 issue of the Fan Club magazine states: .."Several parties have proposed the idea to Paramount and at this point, the studio is simply cconsidering their proposals." Doesn't seem like anyone was trying to hide there were different proposals.
RAMA
Memory Alpha says: "In 1987, Gerrold was hired as a story editor on Star Trek: The Next Generation, in which capacity he wrote many elements in the Writers' Bible for the series."
I would have thought end of 1986, but probably not 1985.
The first official news was in 1986. Aug or Sept.
The Oct/Nov Issue had a news flash as they went to press with this cover:
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/_...Official_Fan_Club_Magazine_issue_52_cover.jpg
Last edited:
Gerrold could easily have known about the intent to develop a series as early as 1985 without being directly involved in it.
Without checking my facts and relying upon my failing, aged memory - by far, my preferred means of operating - I'm going to say that TNG was publicly announced on October 15, 1986.
EDIT: Looked it up. The NYT has an announcement on October 12, though the AP source is dated October 10.
Without checking my facts and relying upon my failing, aged memory - by far, my preferred means of operating - I'm going to say that TNG was publicly announced on October 15, 1986.
EDIT: Looked it up. The NYT has an announcement on October 12, though the AP source is dated October 10.
Considering his (and DC Fontana's) involvement with the series ended up in litigation, I suspect that the show was in development in 1985, and that it eventually led to the announcement in 1986. I have no proof of it whatsoever. Just the impression that Gerrold gave his audience at the Draft Trek 85 in Atlanta.
Yup, the story says Oct 10th, very close!
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=4923073#post4923073
Your clippings at:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=4923073#post4923073 mention DC Fontana commencing work on December 22, 1986.
Fortunately, I've given you the sources so you can read and judge for yourself.
It certainly got far enough along in development for Roddenberry to feel it necessary to rail against it in a letter to Paramount, which Alexander quotes from.
There was certainly a version of Trek developed at least to the proposal stage before Roddenberry was brought in, and I'd imagine it's the Strangis version (I'd also expect, given the nature of his early involvement with TNG, that Berman's participation was as a studio executive managing the project rather than a producer). Back in the day, it was rumored that the version discussed with FOX would have featured some versions of the supporting characters from the movies - like Saavik - but that's all I heard. If so, the "hundred years later" proposal was a different iteration.
