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
  #51  
Old 12-06-2008, 06:36 PM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,613
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Tightpants View Post
It is also interesting to note that STTMP was, worldwide, the highest-grossing film of the franchise
I believe this was only due to the fact it was much anticipated by fans after the absence of Trek for so long. If it had been the second or third film it would have been a major flop.
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-06-2008, 08:21 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 omegaman View Post
I believe this was only due to the fact it was much anticipated by fans after the absence of Trek for so long. If it had been the second or third film it would have been a major flop.
If the two preceding films had been turkeys, to be sure. But if they had not? To a certain extent, this was my point vis-*-vis the box-office success of Episode I in comparison to the box-office failure of NEM.
__________________
"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 : 12-06-2008 at 08:22 PM. Reason: OCD.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-06-2008, 10:21 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

I think the emerging motto is don't go into Star Trek with the burden of expectation the second Wars trilogy had, especially Phantom Menace. If you do, you are likely to be let down.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-07-2008, 05:13 AM
miles3347 miles3347 is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 178
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Tightpants View Post
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.



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 reason the wrath of khan was able to pull off having a smaller budget is that they used all the sets from the TMP. The only set they built was the Regula 1 space station set. Simplafying the production.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-07-2008, 05:25 AM
trek_grrl trek_grrl is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTJG Iferal View Post
Let's take a look at the last few "canon-respecting" Star Trek movies.

Star Trek: First Contact
$45m budget
$92,027,888 gross domestic
$146,027,888 gross worldwide
You must be joking if you think FC was canon-respecting. It does anything BUT respect canon. As much as I love James Cromwell, he's NOT Zephraim Cochrane. We meet ZC in "Metamorphosis," and he's short, stocky, has brown hair and blue eyes. He's not tall, lanky and blond. Oh yeah, he's also not Earth human, but Centaurian (maybe a type of human, us being so close and all, but that'd be other speculation).

If I can overlook that glaring canonical error, I actually enjoy FC. As I said, I do like James Cromwell, he's a delight to watch regardless, I just think of him as another Zephraim Cochrane.

I like how they took a lot of elements from "Strangers from the Sky" and incorporated it into the story, many props for that, but that raises another question (which I'm sure someone's already brought up elsewhere): are novels canon too? Which ones? But I digress.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-07-2008, 06:38 AM
LTJG Iferal's Avatar
LTJG Iferal LTJG Iferal is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miles3347 View Post
The reason the wrath of khan was able to pull off having a smaller budget is that they used all the sets from the TMP. The only set they built was the Regula 1 space station set. Simplafying the production.
Negative. They had to build the Starfleet Academy set, and the Ceti Alpha V sandstorm set as well - the latter was not cheap. But in any case, sets aren't the only things that cost money. They had to build a Reliant model, and create all the special effects, design and produce a whole new set of uniforms and insignia, etc....
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-07-2008, 06:51 AM
Star Trek's Avatar
Star Trek Star Trek is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South FL.
Posts: 709
Default

I think startrekmovie.com/forums has changed the meaning of the term The "C" Word'...

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 01:56 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.