Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Paramount Lays off workers, Star Trek into Darkness is one of the reasons

Started by VulcanFanatic, Oct 01 2013 10:07 PM

«
Prev

Next

Please log in to reply

80 replies to this topic

#61 VulcanFanatic

Leonard Nimoy fan

Members
3,165 posts

Gender:Male
Location:Southeastern North Carolina

Posted 09 November 2013 - 01:13 AM

Wow, im away for awhile and i come back and there is a fight going on between an 80 year old grampa and a 20 year old girl.I glanced through the NOVEL sized posts and just have a few things to add. There were real life journalists who wrote in there articles that STID was partly to blame for the layoffs at paramount, it wasnt me just making it up. They did say it was a disappointment to the studio in terms of poor performance. Yes, it made money, but nowhere near the kind of money they wanted compared to the investment they put into it.

I am glad that 1701 has finally agreed that some of the scenes in STID were silly, like Spock yelling KHHHHAAAANNNN! and so forth. Khan and TWOK references should have either been left out or thought out better.

I am a Grandpa, but no where near 80 and i have watched every series and movie and i think i have an idea about the theme of Star Trek that ran through every series and movie up until 2009. Perhaps it has something to do with having watched the series and movies when they originally ran or released in the theaters. I did miss TOS when it originally ran, i was only 3 when it started so i caught the series shortly after wards in the early 70's syndication.STID as well 2009 ST were victims of the mindset that bigger effects can make up for a crappy story syndrome. With movies, the studios want them bigger everytime hoping to draw more folks and make more money, but substance is what Star Trek is about. When you add substance, big budget effects are not as in demand. Lets get Star Trek back on TV where it belongs and make some great stories that have substance running over and the real fans that spend money on Star Trek will be there in droves.

Back to top

#62 Gothneo

Knows Paul Bunyan

Members
5,753 posts

Gender:Male
Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 09 November 2013 - 05:33 AM

Well VF, if its all about the money, traditionally, the 18-34 segment has been the crown jewel target consumers. However, there are a number of articles on the net that speak to the rising student loan debt this group has incurred, combined with the lack of good paying jobs for them (due to the great recession). That's been causing a reassessment of market demographics. So that begs the question of what are the right demographics for Star Trek to actually make money? According the US BLS the average age of the US consumer is already at 50, and has been trending upwards. I'm also curious as to if its easier for Star Trek to meet its financial expectations on TV or on the big screen? Clearly Enterprise didn't work on the small screen, which I think is part of the rational for the studios to decide its a big screen property.

Back to top

#63 Guest_1701_*

Guests

Posted 09 November 2013 - 02:29 PM

The problem is, Star Trek isn't a movie franchise... Just like Doctor Who isn't a movie franchise. The movies came about as a way to ride the success of Star Wars and ultimately because of the money to be made and money only. Now had it not been for the classic movies we'd never have gotten Star Trek: The Next Generation so the same can be said for the current Trek movies. Without them, there wouldn't be a viable franchise and the potential for a new Star Trek TV series...

I'm 28, I'm a guy and I got into Star Trek through episodes like The Best of Both Worlds, Times Arrow, All Good Things and Star Trek movies Generations and First Contact. I'm a TNG baby and to be honest, The Original Series meant nothing to me as a kid and whilst I can see its huge impact and importance now, It still doesn't mean as much to me as it does to people in their 50's, I never lived through the 60's so why would it mean anything! I remember sitting with my mum, my dad and my brothers watching Star Trek: The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine and getting completely bored of TOS... the cheesy sets, the bad acting, the silly costumes... All of which my mum told me was pioneering at the time (TV was in colour for the first time and Star Trek was one of the first shows that embraced colour). TNG and DS9 were my Trek's and just as families sit and watch Doctor Who these days, it was those Star Trek's that I sat and watched with my family. Trek in the past, during the time I was watching was actually engaging with a far broader audience than just those aged between 18 and 34 and male. I think like Doctor Who, Star Trek was at its best when it appealed to that broad, family audience as well as being popular with students. To me that time was between Star Trek: The Next Generation Season 3 and Star Trek Generations.

What happened to it was it began to tailor itself to only one audience... it's ageing fan base who had carried on watching after everyone else got bored. The trouble with it now is that it's gone the other way, appealing to a movie going audience who unfortunately will have forgotten all about Star Trek by the time the year is out. Now does that mean it's in a worse position as it was when Voyager ended? Certainly not, but the longevity isn't there. We saw this with the 4 years between Star Trek and Into Darkness, people had forgotten and moved on with their lives.

At the moment Star Trek is fine, as fans I think theres always the aspect of things could be better, that wont change and hasn't changed since Star Trek began... Yes there were horrendously silly things in Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek (2009) but there were also horrendously silly things in previous Star Trek's... And I'm sure there will be silly things in future Trek's. The current Star Trek movies are totally fine as Star Trek movies but as Goth has said, the movies are the desert, made to squeeze that much more money out of the franchise, the business. They have always been that way intended. The problem right now is that Paramount don't have a TV arm, CBS aren't interested in doing new Star Trek TV and where would it air? The meat of Star Trek is on episodic TV and Star Trek DOES need to go back to weekly TV and IMO it needs to do it as Doctor Who has done it, appealing to a broad audience including but not limited to families. The problem with that is that all the odds are stacked up against a new Star Trek TV series being successful, more so than were stacked up against it when TNG aired.

Back to top

#64 Guest_1701_*

Guests

Posted 09 November 2013 - 05:58 PM

I am glad that 1701 has finally agreed that some of the scenes in STID were silly, like Spock yelling KHHHHAAAANNNN! and so forth. Khan and TWOK references should have either been left out or thought out better.

What do you mean finally agreed? I'm not agreeing to your point of view.

Look my point all along was that Star Trek Into Darkness isn't anything different from any other of the 11 Star Trek movies out there besides the budget and the resources available to Abrams.

It's a ridiculous film! But it's awesome because it's exactly what I expect from a Star Trek movie, it DOES draw relevant parallels to our own world, it's brilliantly acted, well paced, amazingly detailed, beautiful CGI and a fast paced story, it's great but it's totally ridiculous, it's as ridiculous and preposterous as any of the other Trek movies were in their much smaller scale way.

Perhaps its to do with the scale of the movies but really, compared to the other Star Trek movies, I'm sorry but it's as silly as any of them..

The Motion Picture... Wow what a dull movie, poorly scripted, acted, cheesy beyond anything

The Wrath of Khan... Kirk hilariously shouts KHAAAAAAAN! Ricardo hamming it up (He tasks me, He tasks me!) and without a doubt the silliest, most ridiculous thing in any of the Star Trek movies... Saving Grace... I mean come on, thats just hilarious.

Search for Spock, just as hammy, silly.

The Voyage Home... It's a fricken Star Trek movie about WHALES!!!!!!!!

The Final Frontier... I don't even need to explain myself here

The Undiscovered Country... Kirk the racist, the sign off at the end... The Shakespearian Klingons (don't they have their own iconic greats?)

Generations... Thats a pretty big margin of error... Yes, too big... haha

First Contact... So you people, you're all Astronaughts on some kind of... Star Trek? Plus why would you launch a warp rocket in a forrest next to a ramshackle bar? Plus wouldn't the bar blow away with the thrust from the rocket and where did Cochram get all of the stuff he needed to make a rocket like that after World War 3?

Insurrection... Data? A flotation device? really? and How the hell did he empty a natural lake enough to reveal a huge space ship? and why was there a beach and what was the point of that story?

Nemesis... Why did the Romulans create a clone of just one Starfleet captain and not someone like an Admiral or United Federation of Planets President? Why Picard? Why didn't the clone look like Picard either? Why were the Remans following this child clone? Are you telling me the Romulan Military are so desperate that they had no choice but to listen to Shinzon? Come on now...

Star Trek... red matter? How come the black hole that consumed Vulcan didn't also pull the Enterprise into it? How come the black hole could destroy the planet Vulcan yet safely transport two ships from one universe to the other without crushing them both? Did Kirk, Sulu and Olson really dive through the atmosphere? Because I thought you'd burn up...

Star Trek Into Darkness... Why have old Spock in it at all? Why Khan? How did the Vengeance get built in the first place? Where the hell were the other ships coming to help the Enterprise?

All of them ridiculous... Yet all of them throughly enjoyable on very different levels. All of them classic Star Trek, all of them brilliant in different ways.

The meat and potatoes of Star Trek has and always will be through episodic television. How that evolves with new ways of watching shows like Star Trek who knows but the meat and potatoes of what has made Star Trek so enduring over 50 years has been what has happened in all 5 TV series, from TOS to Enterprise, each picking up their own fans. The films are a completely different beast and it's unfair to compare what Abrams has done for Star Trek to what we've become accustom to on a weekly basis through the TV series.

Back to top

#65 Guest_1701_*

Guests

Posted 11 November 2013 - 04:50 PM

http://www.hollywood...-studios-619389

Similarly, Paramount is developing a sequel to the Brad Pitt zombie pic World War Z but hopes to hold costs to about $160 million. The original has grossed more than $532 million worldwide, but given its price tag of $250 million or more, it is hardly a profit engine.
Paramount also will look to save money on another Star Trek -- a franchise, but not quite in the top tier. This summer's $190 million production Star Trek Into Darkness has earned over $462 million worldwide; its international haul has exceeded expectations at $234 million, but domestically, its $228.5 million hasn't matched the first film. Whereas the first two were shot in L.A., the next will be filmed in a more tax-friendly location. "We're making it for what it should have been shot for last time if we had made it outside of L.A., which we would have done except that [director J.J. Abrams] didn't want to," says a studio source. "That was a $20 million issue." (Abrams, busy with Star Wars, is unavailable for the third Trek.)

Back to top

#66 VulcanFanatic

Leonard Nimoy fan

Members
3,165 posts

Gender:Male
Location:Southeastern North Carolina

Posted 11 November 2013 - 10:05 PM

http://www.hollywood...-studios-619389

According to that article, World War Z was made for 30 million less the STID and WWZ made 100 million more than STID. WWZ was called "Hardly a profit machine", so what does that make STID? probably "Hardly turned a profit at all machine" Or maybe a "StarShipwreck" is better. The article did say that the overseas expectations were exceeded, but since the studio gets less of a cut of the overseas profit than the domestic cut, its still bittersweet.

Back to top

#67 Gothneo

Knows Paul Bunyan

Members
5,753 posts

Gender:Male
Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 12 November 2013 - 06:05 AM

Hey VF interesting link,

In order to understand the type of expectations investors and companies have in the returns on films I found what looks like "Kickstarter" for movies.

I took a look at this particular movie...

http://www.themovief...ods-trilogy-3d/

Which billed its self as a cross between star wars, Avatar and Star Trek.

From a pure investment point, they are looking for 65M investment for production (I doubt that includes marketing and distribution) and promising 500M+ gross returns. Which does suggests that for large budget movies, investors want more then just 2x or 3x their investment for the risk.

I pulled a 3 or 4 more and the worst pitch of the lot promised 4x return, but also threw in a cut of the merchandising.

Back to top

#68 JulesLuvsShinzon

Will work for toys.

Members
1,101 posts

Gender:Female
Location:Bielefeld, Germany
Interests:Collecting Art Asylum 7" Star trek action figures.

Star trek & writing fan fiction.

Posted 05 September 2015 - 07:49 AM

Ha! Sofa surfing on a wet afternoon and feeling nostalgic for the days when I used to type novel length treatises on Star Trek! I am confused: was "guest 1701" a girl or a guy? The rhetoric seems familiar... However, now it's two years later, where's the follow-up to STID? It's taken while to capitilise on that success... And not that I ever thought I'd say it, I am much more excited about the new Star Wars movie.

Back to top

#69 Destructor!!!

It's not a disease it's a hobby.

Members
1,883 posts

Gender:Male
Location:Ireland

Posted 12 September 2015 - 05:17 PM

1701 was a guy.

It's a pity he ended up departing, he had a lot of interesting things to say, but when his opinions were challenged, his attitude would get the better of him. STID divided opinion across the fanbase, and here was no exception.

Back to top

#70 Gothneo

Knows Paul Bunyan

Members
5,753 posts

Gender:Male
Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 21 September 2015 - 04:42 PM

Ooooooo! are we gonna resurrect old arguments just to confirm no one has changed their opinion??!!

Lol!

I liked the original reboot better than STID... and... I still really really want to like these movies, every now and then... I try to watch them, but I can't get through them. So many mcGuffins, so much fantasy and so little satisfying Sci-Fi story telling for me.

Oh well. When the 3rd one comes out I'll see who its received, but I'll likely wait for it to go to video.

Back to top

#71 Alteran195

Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

Members
3,461 posts

Gender:Male
Location:Minnesota

Posted 21 September 2015 - 07:45 PM

I also preferred ST09 to ID, the only thing I wish the 09 movie didn't have was the stupid transwarp beaming.

I'm hopeful for Beyond since it has new writers.

Back to top

#72 Gothneo

Knows Paul Bunyan

Members
5,753 posts

Gender:Male
Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 21 September 2015 - 10:22 PM

Wait. I thought the transwarp McGuffin was in STID?!

Yes, actually, JJ can't write Good Sci-Fi IMO, and He's proved that. Orci and Kurtzman have also solidified their status as hack writers IMO. Transformers was a mess!

Doug Jung is a newcommer... and an unknown, but Simon Pegg actually has a track record of enjoyable films he's written and stared in. In fact Pegg has more writing credits than Orci, Kurtzman or Jung... and more actual film (movie) credits than all of them combined as Orci and Kurtzman have more TV writing credits than movie.

Plus, Pegg is a genuine fan of the franchise.

Golly... I've just about talked myself into being excited for "Beyond"!

Back to top

#73 Alteran195

Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

Members
3,461 posts

Gender:Male
Location:Minnesota

Posted 22 September 2015 - 05:32 AM

Spock gave Scotty the formula for transwarp beaming in '09 to get Kirk back on the Enterprise. Since the Enterprise proabably wasn't to far away at that point, it isn't nearly as bad as beaming to another planet.

Back to top

#74 1701D

Dances with Toys

Members
1,310 posts

Gender:Male
Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 24 September 2015 - 03:29 AM

I enjoyed them both on one level but Star Trek 2009 was a lot better than Into Darkness. 09 was two steps forward while ID was a step back IMO. Both movies though failed to really spend time developing a proper story for it's main cast. Kirk promoted to Captain because of sheer dumb luck? Come on now. Enjoyable as they both are as movies, they do very little to expand such a rich mythology and amount to nothing more than vacuous pop-corn flicks made for the masses. Its a shame that at a time when Star Wars is being expanded upon and developed with characters and stories being fleshed out in an Anthology series as well as totally new characters being introduced, that the powers that be at Paramount and CBS felt they needed to start again with Star Trek and rush everything that would have given this alternate universe some credibility.

I am genuinely looking forward to Beyond. Lin seems invested more than Abrams in Star Trek being quoted as saying he was the Star Trek kid growing up while his friends all watched Star Wars and Pegg is just a nerd God. But meh, does anyone really care about this alternate timeline anymore? I'm enjoying the comic books and I am excited for Star Trek Beyond but beyond that I'm more interested in when CBS plan to return Star Trek to the TV and the prime timeline so that we can continue where we left off.

Back to top

#75 Gothneo

Knows Paul Bunyan

Members
5,753 posts

Gender:Male
Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 24 September 2015 - 05:39 PM

Yeah, I think most of us have admitted that Star Trek Belongs on the small screen, and that the movies were always nice, fun bonuses to the fans. CBS seems to have forgotten that, so yeah I look forward to a return of Trek to TV too!