Why wasn't TWOK more commercially successful?

[gottacook]

It was also produced by the television arm of Paramount, with a lesser-known director, and was originally intended to be a telemovie, with potential for an international feature release in cinemas, just like "Duel", "Battlestar Galactica" "Buck Rogers" and "Mission Galactica: The Cylon Attack".

What is this "was originally intended to be a telemovie"? I have never heard or read this before. I'm aware of the theatrically edited versions of the TV episodes of Battlestar Galactica and Buck Rogers that you mention (none of these ever played in U.S. theaters, although I could be wrong about that). However, I don't think TWOK was ever intended for TV first, despite being produced by Paramount's TV arm.

Duel was a TV movie in the U.S. that was successful enough to earn a theatrical release in other markets; IMDB claims a U.S. theatrical release in the 1980s but I'm not sure that's correct, although I did see it in a university film series (on a very weird but interesting double bill - with Patton.)

One aspect of TWOK's earnings not mentioned here yet: In the U.S., it was the first film to be released on home video (VHS) at a popular price, one-half to one-third of the usual price for a feature film; sales were brisk.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

TWOK was, indeed produced by Paramount's television arm and was originally greenlighted as a TV movie with a budget of about nine million dollars.

The story as it's been told is that after seeing the early rushes, the studio decided the film had theatrical potential and increased the budget by two million dollars.

There was some terribly, terribly cynical speculation that the studio had always planned a theatrical release but had greenlighted the movie as a television project because guild and union rates for television were (and are) lower and Paramount saved themselves a good deal of money by signing and hiring everyone for a telemovie. One assumes that the actors might have had contract clauses that would increase some of their fees in that case, but the crew wouldn't.

 

[Potemkin_Prod]

I honestly think someone's always working on a Star Trek project, be it Planet of the Titans, Phase II, In Thy Image, the Revenge of Khan, etc. Gerrold in 85, Fontana in 86. Hell, I'm sure someone's working on something now other than the next movie. Cartoon series, perhaps? A new series, maybe?

And considering the cost overruns from TMP, can you blame Paramount for handing Star Trek over to the TV production division, with a rather solid TV producer Harve Bennett at the helm?

 

[Shon T'Hara]

TWOK was, indeed produced by Paramount's television arm and was originally greenlighted as a TV movie with a budget of about nine million dollars.

The story as it's been told is that after seeing the early rushes, the studio decided the film had theatrical potential and increased the budget by two million dollars.

I find that unlikely. Khan was filmed in Cinemascope, the widest of wide screen ratios -- the pan-and-scan version loses almost half the horizontal picture. If it had originated as a telefilm, they would've used the then-standard 1.33:1 TV ratio and cropped it to about 1.85:1 for the theatrical release.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

TWOK was, indeed produced by Paramount's television arm and was originally greenlighted as a TV movie with a budget of about nine million dollars.

The story as it's been told is that after seeing the early rushes, the studio decided the film had theatrical potential and increased the budget by two million dollars.

I find that unlikely.

You're welcome to do so.

 

[RAMA]

TWOK was, indeed produced by Paramount's television arm and was originally greenlighted as a TV movie with a budget of about nine million dollars.

The story as it's been told is that after seeing the early rushes, the studio decided the film had theatrical potential and increased the budget by two million dollars.

I find that unlikely. Khan was filmed in Cinemascope, the widest of wide screen ratios -- the pan-and-scan version loses almost half the horizontal picture. If it had originated as a telefilm, they would've used the then-standard 1.33:1 TV ratio and cropped it to about 1.85:1 for the theatrical release.

If you think about it for a minute...it makes more sense that the studio would use cinemascope as the backup plan to go to the big screen if the tv movie version worked out all right! Why? Because it would have been easier if it wasn't turning out well to crop it like ANY other film of the time for TV...but by filming it the way they did, they could easily upscale it to theaters. Win-win.

Filming

Principal photography began on November 9, 1981, and ended on January 29, 1982.[29] The Wrath of Khan was more action-oriented than its predecessor, but less costly to make. The project was supervised by Paramount's television unit rather than its theatrical division.[30] Bennett, a respected television veteran, made The Wrath of Khan on a budget of $11 million—far less than The Motion Picture's $46 million.[11] The budget was initially lower at $8.5 million, but it rose when the producers were impressed by the first two weeks of footage.[18] Meyer utilized camera and set tricks to spare the construction of large and expensive sets. For a scene taking place at Starfleet Academy, a forced perspective was created by placing scenery close to the camera to give the sense the set was larger than it really was. To present the illusion that the Enterprise's elevators moved between decks, corridor pieces were wheeled out of sight to change the hall configuration while the lift doors were closed.[10] Background equipment such as computer terminals were rented when possible instead of purchased outright. Some designed props, such as a redesigned phaser and communicator, were vetoed by Paramount executives in favor of existing materials from The Motion Picture.[31]

 

[Maurice]

Really? CinemaScope? TWOK appears to have been shot in 2.2:1, while CinemaSscope is usually 2.35:1 or 2.39:1, and refers to shooting with 'Scope anamorphic lenses (long retired) ...albeit it seems anamorphic prints are now lumped in as 'Scope.

I can't speak to whether or not TWOK was actually intended to be shot for TV, but it does makes sense that a cost conscious studio would have it produced by the TV division, which likely had cheaper labor and would be used to shooting a much higher per day page count than would be typical on a feature.

 

[Xerxes1979]

TWOK was, indeed produced by Paramount's television arm and was originally greenlighted as a TV movie with a budget of about nine million dollars.

The story as it's been told is that after seeing the early rushes, the studio decided the film had theatrical potential and increased the budget by two million dollars.

I find that unlikely. Khan was filmed in Cinemascope, the widest of wide screen ratios -- the pan-and-scan version loses almost half the horizontal picture. If it had originated as a telefilm, they would've used the then-standard 1.33:1 TV ratio and cropped it to about 1.85:1 for the theatrical release.

No it was filmed in Panavision. It is plain as day in the end credits.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I can't speak to whether or not TWOK was actually intended to be shot for TV, but it does makes sense that a cost conscious studio would have it produced by the TV division

Also remember that Harve Bennett's background was television production, and he was hired by Paramount for their television division.

 

[Botany Bay]

TWOK was, indeed produced by Paramount's television arm and was originally greenlighted as a TV movie with a budget of about nine million dollars.

The story as it's been told is that after seeing the early rushes, the studio decided the film had theatrical potential and increased the budget by two million dollars.

There was some terribly, terribly cynical speculation that the studio had always planned a theatrical release but had greenlighted the movie as a television project because guild and union rates for television were (and are) lower and Paramount saved themselves a good deal of money by signing and hiring everyone for a telemovie. One assumes that the actors might have had contract clauses that would increase some of their fees in that case, but the crew wouldn't.

Well, call me a cynic, but I find this terribly, terribly plausible

I mean, it's unlikely Paramount would have demoted Trek straight to TV movies just because Roddenberry's lack of experience as a film producer saw TMP go off the rails.

They would have seen its impressive box office, and realised a more experienced hand who could keep a firmer grip on costs could make some very tidy profits for them with further theatrical releases. Enter Harve Bennett, the man for the job.

 

[JarodRussell]

TWOK was, indeed produced by Paramount's television arm and was originally greenlighted as a TV movie with a budget of about nine million dollars.

The story as it's been told is that after seeing the early rushes, the studio decided the film had theatrical potential and increased the budget by two million dollars.

I find that unlikely. Khan was filmed in Cinemascope, the widest of wide screen ratios -- the pan-and-scan version loses almost half the horizontal picture. If it had originated as a telefilm, they would've used the then-standard 1.33:1 TV ratio and cropped it to about 1.85:1 for the theatrical release.

No it was filmed in Panavision. It is plain as day in the end credits.

"Filmed in PANAVISION" doesn't say anything about the apect ratio it was filmed in, though. The final movie is in 2.35:1, the shots are all laid out for that format. No way it was shot for TV screens.

 

[BillJ]

"Filmed in PANAVISION" doesn't say anything about the apect ratio it was filmed in, though. The final movie is in 2.35:1, the shots are all laid out for that format. No way it was shot for TV screens.

I think Paramount was "hedging their bets" with Star Trek II. Have it produced by the TV division, with one eye towards the big screen if it turned out well.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Well, call me a cynic, but I find this terribly, terribly plausible

As I said earlier, ST II was originally intended as a US telemovie that could be screened theatrically internationally. It did switch to a US feature very early in the piece, perhaps even at final scripting stage. I seem to recall Meyer calling for "more blinkies, more blinkies", partly to make the bridge busier for the cinematic screen.

I mean, it's unlikely Paramount would have demoted Trek straight to TV movies just because Roddenberry's lack of experience as a film producer saw TMP go off the rails.

There was a very real possibility that "Phase II" would be resurrected as a series of US telemovies, and there was a grooming of Saavik and David to be the new young TV leads, in case Nimoy again refused and Shatner kept to his promise of staying only for a short time or guesting as "the Admiral". Remember, TMP started life as "In Thy Image", alternatively as a telemovie pilot and also a low budget feature.

They would have seen its impressive box office, and realised a more experienced hand who could keep a firmer grip on costs could make some very tidy profits for them with further theatrical releases. Enter Harve Bennett, the man for the job.

Ah, but ST:TMP was also a bit of a sleeper. I recall a quote from a Paramount person in "Starlog", about eight months after the premiere, saying that the film was slow to make the last leap into very solid profits, due to Paramount's creative accounting.

Oh, and anyone see the new SF comedy, "Paul"? In the background, a sign for "Duel" has it screening as a double feature at a US cinema.

As I said, "Duel" was released theatrically here (Down Under) not long after its US TV premiere.

The final movie is in 2.35:1, the shots are all laid out for that format. No way it was shot for TV screens.

It was shot for international cinema screens.

 

[Greg Cox]

Oh, and anyone see the new SF comedy, "Paul"? In the background, a sign for "Duel" has it screening as a double feature at a US cinema.

As I said, "Duel" was released theatrically here (Down Under) not long after its US TV premiere.

.

FYI: extra footage was added to the theatrical release of DUEL to pad it out for international markets.

 

[gottacook]

Therin seems to be be bringing Duel into the argument to buttress the idea that the same pattern was (initially) planned for The Wrath of Khan.

Is there evidence that Duel had always been planned for a theatrical release in addition to its U.S. TV showing? Had Universal ever done such a thing before, either planned during production or decided upon after a TV showing? (Of course Universal was also responsible for the Battlestar and Buck Rogers TV series/movie re-edit, but that was some years later.)

Not to mention, of course, that Steven Spielberg (age 22) was still one of Universal's TV directors at that point, although he had already directed 90-minute TV episodes such as the futuristic "L.A. 2017" episode of The Name of the Game during its third and final season, 1970-71 (I saw it at the time). I find it implausible that Universal had planned an international theatrical release for this quickly produced TV movie before its TV success showed them what a talent they really had in Spielberg.

 

[Greg Cox]

Is there evidence that Duel had always been planned for a theatrical release in addition to its U.S. TV showing?.

No. The new scenes were added afterwards. According to Dennis Weaver and Richard Matheson, who are quoted in the book Richard Matheson on Screen, Universal got excited about the movie after they screened the finished tv-movie, then got everybody back together for some reshoots to pad the film out to feature-length for the overseas market. (The three new scenes were not written by Matheson, btw.)

The decision was made after the fact.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Therin seems to be be bringing Duel into the argument to buttress the idea that the same pattern was (initially) planned for The Wrath of Khan.

No, I just brought it up as an example. I've known people to get very angry at the mere suggestion that US telemovies can sometimes end up on the big screen in some distribution areas.

Is there evidence that Duel had always been planned for a theatrical release in addition to its U.S. TV showing? Had Universal ever done such a thing before, either planned during production or decided upon after a TV showing?

I thought the international release happened because of excellent TV ratings in the US. Australia's release date isn't even on IMDb, but it seems there was a two-year lag:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067023/releaseinfo

I find it implausible that Universal had planned an international theatrical release for this quickly produced TV movie before its TV success showed them what a talent they really had in Spielberg.

There's not going to be any hard-and-fast rules. If someone perceives a market, all bets are off.

 

[Captain Worf]

Wasn't WOK in the Top Ten or something that year? What more do you want?

By that logic, since TMP was in the top 5 for 1979, why would the studio consider it a disappointment?

Yes, I know, because of the production costs, and they were probably hoping for success on the level of Star Wars.

 

[Therin of Andor]

By that logic, since TMP was in the top 5 for 1979, why would the studio consider it a disappointment?

Because critics kept telling the general public it was boring - and yet people went in droves anyway. Many of these people were seeking a ST fix (Roddenberry had recommended that TOS be pulled from syndication for several months before the movie's premiere, to increase their hunger), and some diehard fans went back week after week. I knew "Star Wars" fans that went to see TMP over and over because they missed their previously weekly SW fix.

Yes, I know, because of the production costs, and they were probably hoping for success on the level of Star Wars.

Yep, it was a huge, risky outlay. ST II showed that a lower budget could increase profitability and reduce risk.

 

[MacLeod]

Wasn't WOK in the Top Ten or something that year? What more do you want?

By that logic, since TMP was in the top 5 for 1979, why would the studio consider it a disappointment?

Yes, I know, because of the production costs, and they were probably hoping for success on the level of Star Wars.

Successful to a studio could simply mean it made a decent amount of money, dissapoint is basically it dind't make as much profit as we wanted.