The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Canon-fans: Why have you been abandoned?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12-05-2008, 11:58 AM
radoskal's Avatar
radoskal radoskal is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 952
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
Frakes directed Insurrection.
And? Insurection was good and totally unappreciated. He also directed first contact which was great.
__________________
Mom, how many times do I have to tell you, Track is what athletes run on. Trek is what the Enterprise goes on.

-Free Enterprise
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-05-2008, 12:04 PM
LTJG Iferal's Avatar
LTJG Iferal LTJG Iferal is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAReber View Post
Claiming that the post was only about why paramount did not care to make other movies, which was a good argument, is not true.
Indeed; it was actually about why Paramount did not care to make more of the SAME movies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAReber View Post
A lot of non-sense was posted afterwards which came off as a second conclusion that "canonites" are not as loyal as they think they are. That being a second conclusion with some irrelevant reasons why.
What do you mean "irrelevant reasons why"? This thread was started as an argument against the notion that it made no sense for Paramount to make a movie with so many drastic changes and risk alienating the established fan base because if the movie was obviously directed at that fan base, it would stand a better chance of success. My argument is that the numbers indicate that films directed at the established fan base have done progressively worse over the past several years. Therefore, it would actually make less sense for Paramount to try the same thing again, since the trend in that direction is failure. And the reason that trend is failure is because Star Trek fans have been spending less and less on Star Trek. If you think that is some kind of personal attack, that's up to you - but facts are facts, and numbers don't lie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAReber View Post
I would say a seven million dollar profit on nemesis was quite good, Star Trek fans really pulled through on that one, because we know some Harry fricken Potter fans didn't contribute to it.
Yes. I, for myself, would absolutely love seven million dollars. In fact, I'd be happy with one million dollars. But movie studios are not people, and a movie studio does not spend $60 million because they want to make a $7 million profit. "Trek fans" did not "pull through on that one" whatsoever. Check any industry source or authority you want: Nemesis was a bomb. $7m net out of a $60m movie is epic fail in Hollywood. Paramount, being one of the biggest studios, knows this intuitively, and that's why the "new" Star Trek is trying exactly NOT to look like the "fail" Star Trek.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-05-2008, 02:00 PM
Captain Tightpants's Avatar
Captain Tightpants Captain Tightpants is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Glendale, CA.
Posts: 89
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTJG Iferal View Post
You completely missed the point about Lucas's pathetically-bad stories still bringing in the fans because people didn't care about the script, they loved Star Wars (for some reason, I don't get it either), and that's all that mattered to them. Insurrection and Nemesis may have been (OK, were) "badly-written", but they were Trek to the core, there's no escaping it.
I'd lay even money that if Episodes I, II, and III had cost $50 or $60 million dollars apiece they would have met with the same fate as their Trek counterparts. Whatever their shortcomings -- and they are FAR too numerous to mention here -- for the most part they were pretty visually-spectacular films, which goes a long way for the prototypical light-saber-wielding, Dorito-smelling geek. If Lucasfilm had cheaped-out on the Star Wars prequels the way that Paramount has on Star Trek for all these years it would have been a very different story and, say what you want about Lucas, he was smart enough to know that.
__________________
"The fact that he would have passed up a visit to the Louvre or the Prado in favour of ten minutes alone with a knicker catalogue—this, perhaps, was a personal quirk."—Martin Amis, London Fields

Last edited by Captain Tightpants : 12-05-2008 at 02:03 PM. Reason: OCD.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-05-2008, 03:21 PM
LTJG Iferal's Avatar
LTJG Iferal LTJG Iferal is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Tightpants View Post
I'd lay even money that if Episodes I, II, and III had cost $50 or $60 million dollars apiece they would have met with the same fate as their Trek counterparts. Whatever their shortcomings -- and they are FAR too numerous to mention here -- for the most part they were pretty visually-spectacular films, which goes a long way for the prototypical light-saber-wielding, Dorito-smelling geek. If Lucasfilm had cheaped-out on the Star Wars prequels the way that Paramount has on Star Trek for all these years it would have been a very different story and, say what you want about Lucas, he was smart enough to know that.
I disagree. Trek films, even those considered the greatest, have historically been rather low-budget. Compare TMP's $46m budget to STII's $11m. There's no question in anybody's mind now, and was no question then, that the latter was a better film in many ways than the former, despite having only 25% of the budget. In fact, fans were not at all deterred by the low budget, as STII's opening weekend gross was the highest in film history at that time. First Contact's budget was 25% smaller than that of Nemesis, yet it grossed more than twice as much at the box office.

Higher budgets may have turned on Star Wars fans (and one might even argue that they were ultimately necessary for Lucas's vision and directive style), but I doubt any higher budget could've kept Nemesis from sinking the way it did.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-05-2008, 03:39 PM
lordisaiah's Avatar
lordisaiah lordisaiah is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 468
Default

As much as I don't like the story and plot of Nemesis, even I will glance at the space battle at the end...until the whole Thaleron Gun thing starts to come out. Seriously, we design a weapon that takes 5 minutes to charge up and deploy and it has more moving parts than Unicron...
__________________
I have seen the darkness in my soul and shine brighter for it.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-05-2008, 03:42 PM
TAReber TAReber is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTJG Iferal View Post
What do you mean "irrelevant reasons why"? This thread was started as an argument against the notion that it made no sense for Paramount to make a movie with so many drastic changes and risk alienating the established fan base because if the movie was obviously directed at that fan base, it would stand a better chance of success. My argument is that the numbers indicate that films directed at the established fan base have done progressively worse over the past several years. Therefore, it would actually make less sense for Paramount to try the same thing again, since the trend in that direction is failure. And the reason that trend is failure is because Star Trek fans have been spending less and less on Star Trek. If you think that is some kind of personal attack, that's up to you - but facts are facts, and numbers don't lie.
Don't worry, Nothing is personal on the forums

Irrelevant reasons might have been a bad choice of words although its a very confusing original post. Ill do my best condense the original post to how I understood it, so correct me if i'm wrong

paramount does not make movies because little profit will be gained.
Little profit was gained because star trek fans went to other movies
(this is the part that gets confusing, a bunch of stuff not need in the post)
Star trek fans went to other movies because they are disloyal to star trek.
Why are star trek fans Disloyal? Because they went to other movies?
Star Trek fans are disloyal because other fans went to other movies?
(I'm not sure what going on really but it ends like)
nemesis made little profit because Star trek fans abandoned paramount.
paramount abandoned star trek fans, because star trek fans abandoned paramount.

Maybe you can do a better job then i can but It gets really really weird half way through, and its tough make a lot of sense of.

the title is "Canon-fans: Why have you been abandoned?., The thread is about a lot more then just paramounts movie budgets. Its also about "Canonites".

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTJG Iferal View Post
$7m net out of a $60m movie is epic fail in Hollywood. Paramount, being one of the biggest studios, knows this intuitively, and that's why the "new" Star Trek is trying exactly NOT to look like the "fail" Star Trek.
It could have been worse, and i still think a pile of crap making 7 million dollars is pretty good.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-05-2008, 04:16 PM
lordisaiah's Avatar
lordisaiah lordisaiah is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 468
Default

I guess I really don't feel "abandoned" per say. I just wonder why everyone seems to feel that it's impossible to make a good movie for non fans that is an equally good movie for Star Trek fans. Most of the things that Star Trek fans appreciate the most, non-fans either don't know and or don't care about. Why do people claim it's so hard and limiting to write a "good" Star Trek film while paying attention to "history" put forth in Star Trek. You want to show a young, rebellious Kirk, being molded by a father figure, fine, have that man be Garrovick, or hell, have it be Kirk's father. Non fans won't care, and fans will have yet another piece of the overall puzzle. I'd almost say the changes they've made for the reboot aren't to ensure new fans come in, it's being done purposely to drive away the most obsessive of the old fans. I don't know, as while I'm obsessive, I'm also addicted.

As for the dwindling returns from Star Trek movies, what did you expect? First Contact showed us "the beginning" of Star Trek in a sense, and with Insurrection, even before the first trailers, we found out it was going to be a "Rogue admiral with devious aliens vs Picard and crew story." Yawn, been there, done that, got the STD. The same with Nemesis...we quickly got the feeling they were trying too hard for a TNG does TWOK. Ironically enough The first "real" episode of TNG was "The Naked Now" a remake of the TOS episode, "The Naked Time". Both are snoozers. That should have told them something.
__________________
I have seen the darkness in my soul and shine brighter for it.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-05-2008, 04:57 PM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

What it seems to boil down to is: "We made crappy movies and you didn't like them. So now we'll find a new bunch of fans to puddle increasingly crappy movies to instead of making better movies. Just remember, you had this coming." Rather than, perhaps, "We made crappy movies and you didn't like them. Ouch. Stick around, we promise to do better."
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-05-2008, 06:33 PM
JSnyder4's Avatar
JSnyder4 JSnyder4 is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 942
Default

*I'd almost say the changes they've made for the reboot aren't to ensure new fans come in, it's being done purposely to drive away the most obsessive of the old fans.*
Possibly. If so it's great PR regardless. I would say synchronicity is in play rather than an all out attack. However the changes, I think, are done to bring in new fans by showing it is being taken in a new direction.
I think the "most-obsessive" part is the key phrase.

Trek has a stigma, several actually. This is well known. Many associate it with people running around in costumes as a small part. In itself not a deterrent. Many fans of other creations do this sort of thing; from films to sports to things like renaissance faires. Within the context that the activities are done it is understandable and for some part of the spectacle of the event - Hollywood has it's own version; the red carpet walk and judging of apparel and related stigma (and even lost job opportunities) that carries for the less-well-dressed. It is the over-exposure of the obsessed in the media that gives a stigma usually coming from the same activities with no event in sight. If this was Trek's only stigma it might be surmountable, but that is not so. It has others built up over the many years; pure geek-dom is much larger. What used to be fun is now treated as some gospel (spoken in klingon no less) unworthy of the unwashed masses.

The key is over-obsessiveness as you somewhat stated. That magnifies the few "loons" and presents them as the norm causing a general abandonment by the public. Imagine your lawyer showing up in court and spouting the articles of federation and the bill of lizardman rights from deneb-alpha as a valid court defense (now imagine in full uniform). Conversely, imagine this same lawyer in full sports body paint and acroutriments presenting his case on the cortroom wall like an exposed playbook while whooping it up in court that his side is #1. Imagine that as not quite a singular event but reported rather regularly. I'm pretty sure that would be his last case held in court one way or the other, the firm he works for would certainly bear the brunt of ridicule to the detriment of every other lawyer employed by it. See the similarity?

Now if these same hard-core people are the ones giving the new movie "great PR" by loudly and publically shunning in the media with exclamations of "boycott" and other such nonsense noise that is nothing less than a very good thing. Now not only do the trailers and carefully leaked rumors attract attention and drive up anticipation but so does the vitriol of the "loony-bin". The implication being that if they don't like it maybe it's something to check out afterall. It used to be an entertaining way to enjoy some time, once upon a time.

As I said, syncronisity in my opinion.

Last edited by JSnyder4 : 12-05-2008 at 10:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-06-2008, 06:13 PM
Captain Tightpants's Avatar
Captain Tightpants Captain Tightpants is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Glendale, CA.
Posts: 89
Default A rebuttal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTJG Iferal View Post
George Lucas released two epicly-crappy movies and people STILL lined up at midnight in all their robe-clad, plastic-sword-wielding geekdom when Episode III came out. Where was the representation for Star Trek?
Episode II did 30% less business than Episode I. That's a loss of something like $300 million. The franchise rebounded somewhat with Episode III which, tellingly, was the best-reviewed of the prequels, but it still fell short of Episode I by almost $80 million worldwide. So, it's not as if no one was unhappy. And I have to emphasize again the enormous scale of those films. They were simply chock-full of eye candy for discerning geeks and ordinary moviegoers alike. If you paid to see stunning visuals, you got your money's worth. None of the TOS- or even TNG-era movies ever came close to them in terms of pure spectacle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTJG Iferal View Post
I disagree. Trek films, even those considered the greatest, have historically been rather low-budget. Compare TMP's $46m budget to STII's $11m. There's no question in anybody's mind now, and was no question then, that the latter was a better film in many ways than the former, despite having only 25% of the budget. In fact, fans were not at all deterred by the low budget, as STII's opening weekend gross was the highest in film history at that time. First Contact's budget was 25% smaller than that of Nemesis, yet it grossed more than twice as much at the box office.

Higher budgets may have turned on Star Wars fans (and one might even argue that they were ultimately necessary for Lucas's vision and directive style), but I doubt any higher budget could've kept Nemesis from sinking the way it did.
Depends on how high a budget you're talking about. $100 million? More? I think a souped-up NEM would have done considerably more box office just from the heightened interest of Trekkies alone, since -- as you point out -- it would've been the first truly big-budget attempt at Trek since STTMP. A bigger budget changes the equation in a number of ways. NEM might have been a very different film if it had cost an additional $30-$50 million. Probably not different enough, but who knows?

It's also interesting to note that, worldwide, STTMP was the highest-grossing film of the franchise until the release of First Contact almost 20 years later. After that, as they say, it was all downhill. And if one adjusted the numbers for inflation, STTMP would almost certainly remain (excluding J.J.'s) the biggest-budgeted and, I believe not coincidentally, the highest-grossing film of the franchise to this very day. Paramount clearly acknowledges the often proportional relationship between the size of a sci-fi film's budget and its box-office take. Why else would they be dropping $150 million on this one? Why not just spend a third of that and see if you can pull off another TWOK?
__________________
"The fact that he would have passed up a visit to the Louvre or the Prado in favour of ten minutes alone with a knicker catalogue—this, perhaps, was a personal quirk."—Martin Amis, London Fields

Last edited by Captain Tightpants : 12-07-2008 at 04:40 AM. Reason: OCD.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:20 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.