The Hot Blog

Re - Long-ass Star Trek rant (from a different thread, but on the same subject)

I have no idea if it’ll be any good, but I have to question the logic. Paramount is spending $150 million on a series that has never topped $109 million and has averaged $75 million. Does anyone else think it’s hilarious that Paramount is basically spending so much that it’ll have to triple the highest-grossing Star Trek movie in order to just break even?

Even if it grosses as much as JJ Abraham’s previous picture, the slightly overrated Mission: Impossible III, it’ll still struggle to stay in the black. That also cost $150 million, but topped out at $135 million and $398 million internationally, a solid hit but well below expectations and cost (although I assume Cruise won’t be taking his zillion-percent of the gross cut on this one).

And, that’s probably best case scenario. More likely we’re looking at Cloverfield numbers, a boffo $40 million opening followed by a quick exodus of all non-geeks and non-fans to the final tune of $90 million. And remember, Star Trek doesn’t do diddly overseas. At the end of the day, Star Trek is still Star Trek and the fan base is limited. To put this in perspective, the 1996 $30 million opening weekend of Star Trek: First Contact (the biggest opening in the series) was still $6 million less than the opening weekend for Star Wars: Special Edition, the 20th anniversary re-release just three months later.

I always say that you should never spend more on a sequel than the original made domestically (comparatively, Live Free Or Die Hard cost $110 million, about $10 million less than part II grossed back in 1990). I guess I should make a new rule: never spend $150 million+ on a sequel/prequel to a series where the highest grossing, by far, of ten films was $109 million.

Nothing would make me laugh harder if the film makes the same $90 million that Star Trek: First Contact made in 1996. It’s one thing to take a risk and spend $150 million on an unproven property that you hope can break out (Lord Of The Rings, Transformers, The Golden Compass). It’s quite another to spend $150 million on a series that you know doesn’t have the track record to deliver on that investment.

I like the franchise and I can’t imagine the movie will be any worse than Nemesis, The Search For Spock, or The Final Frontier. But even if it measures up to The Wrath Of Khan and The Undiscovered Country, that doesn’t mean Paramount should have spent Star Wars money on Star Trek.

Star Trek, like most franchises, has a specific fan base. Unless it can find away to build on that fan base, to draw in people who otherwise wouldn’t care, you have a ceiling. For Trek, that’s about $100 million max, even if it’s better than Wrath Of Khan. Now, if you want to toss in JJ Abram’s fan base, then go for it. But Cloverfield, sold more or less completely on his name, tapped out at about $90 million. Quite impressive for what it was, but not a number that Paramount would be happy with.

Basically, what you’re dealing with is a situation of Paramount needing JJ Abram’s Star Trek to basically triple the global business of any previous Trek film. On top of that, you have completely new actors taking on characters made iconic because of the performances of very specific actors in the first place. This isn’t Batman or James Bond, where the characters are legendary by themselves.

This would be the equivalent of Paramount spending $250 million on Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, but recasting all the main characters (say, Paul Rudd as Indiana Jones, Pierce Brosnan as his father, Rachel McAdams as Marion, etc).

Like I said, I’m a fan of Star Trek and I’m a fan of Abrams, but something needs to happen to make this more than just a Star Trek film, just like the stars aligned last summer to make The Dark Knight more than just a Batman sequel (hopefully, John Cho won’t OD on cocaine before the Oscars). Unless Paramount makes this a must-see film for people who don’t know Romulan Ale from Romaine Lettuce, they may be in for a world of financial hurt.

Has no one asked where the money's going? I mean, it's not like they're giving out a big payday to Shatner and Nimoy; this is a B and C-list cast. And TREK was never about the visual effects, so they can't be so stupid as to blow it all on that. So again, tell me: where's the money going?

I'm guessing visual effects and expensive action set pieces in an effort to turn what was always a modest character and story-based franchise into an action tentpole franchise-starter.

I think it's probably going to suck.

'this is a b and c-list cast'...
'it's probably going to suck'...

bite your tongues, cadavra and jeff! karl urban plays 'mccoy' in the new star trek babies and he's 'grade A prime cut' all the way, able to save would-be lame movies in a single bound! ;)

Other than Urban and Pegg, that cast represents some major total douche.

Well, in MI3 Abrams showed that he had good taste in actors (Philip Seymour Hoffman, Maggie Q, Crudup, Fishburne) but then Cloverfield showed that he likes to cast good-looking non-talents, so I look forward to Pegg, Urban, and Sylar from Heroes but the guy playing Kirk is hopefully getting better career advice than Brandon Routh.

While I agree that Paramount is spending way too much money on this thing and that J.J. Abrams is really quite overrated (I love Lost, but he's basically a one-trick pony to me like Chris Carter was), I think some of you are missing the obvious on the grosses for this thing - adjusted for inflation, First Contact and Generations are easy blockbusters.

I know, I know, we all glaze our eyes over when talking about "inflation," but, let's look at recent history, here, with other franchise re-boots - Die Hard 4 did about $20 million more than any other previous entry, the most recent Bond have been topping $150 million while the ones from '80's were barely breaking $50 million, Indiana Jones did about $70 million more than the first one, Superman Returns was the only Superman film to gross $200 millino domestically - my point is that if marketed right, there's no reason these films can't gross signicantly more than their long-gone predecessors by virtue of simple economics.

If Par plays their cards right and just revs up the fanboys who remember 'Khan, there's no reason they can't break $150 million - it's not really that complicated, just a mirage created by inflation. When this thing has the "biggest Trek opening ever," it really won't be as big of a deal as everybody will think.

Does that mean Paramount should have spent $150 million? Probably not - this is not a $300 million film no matter how you slice it. But really, how many summers in a row can we underestimate this studio? Transformers? Iron Man?

Star Trek will probably just make enough money to "rejuvinate" the franchise and be considered a hit, nothing more.

Does this (especially DP's astute writing) all strike you as some kind of....chickens coming home to roost? The big movie studio machine is really...not needed in this brave new world and Spielberg definitely doesn't need it to keep on keeping on. It reminds me of the musicians making their own way by self releasing stuff.

Movie theaters and studios are in a tough spot...something has to give. This seems like a nice first ante.

Obviously, Cloverfield was cast with unknowns, the better to sell its premise. I still think it was probably the right choice for that project, but, sure, a better class of unknowns couldn't have hurt.

As for Trek, Chris Pine was probably the best thing in the unfortunate Smokin' Aces, for what that's worth. Very different role of course, but a huge step up from Just My Luck. I'll hold out hope that he can deliver as Kirk. Not a lot of options there -- since Shatner owns the role, you can't go with a big name (or probably even find one who'd touch it).

I'm sure Paramount will try to sell the film both ways -- as the reboot of a beloved franchise and as the first in a potential new sci-fi action tentpole series (no familiarity with the original necessary). As others have noted, Iron Man and Transformers certainly went way beyond their pre-sold fan bases.

I think Geoff's got a good point- $150 million is the new $75 million. Get the old fans jazzed up, have a few Iron Manish style trailers, and you're looking at close to $300 million domestic.
In fact, I'm calling $200 million right now.

Or it could be the new speed racer.

Can't believe no one else thought to do this...

Folks, adjusted for inflation WRATH OF KHAN did $190M and ST: VOYAGE HOME did $209M. So let's drop the "none have done more than $109M" literalist crap right there.

Second, a reboot (which you better believe Par will trumpet on MTV so often that you will think that Pine, Quinto and Urban are in some hot new band) with a new, young cast that will be on every talk show next spring is going to open this up to the general public unlike any other Trek film. Although now Paramount would be benefiting from a Harry Potter-less Christmas season had they left it in its original December slot, the new May opening is likely to see a first weekend box office larger than most of the other films grossed domestic.

Unless it gets terrible buzz as a stinker, this thing is going to do $200M+ domestic easily. I would say $250M+, but WOLVERINE opens the week before so the general fan-boy base will be diluted.

PS - yancyskancy, Matt Damon is on record saying if they want to make Kirk older in the future, he's up for the role.

And Pine is terrific in BOTTLE SHOCK as well.

To clarify: when I said it was a B and C cast, I was not referring to their talent, nor, for that matter, their marquee appeal. I was pointing out that none of these actors command large salaries, making me wonder why the film was costing so much.

200 - 250 million??? No chance.

These new actors are NOT the draws. Who cares about them? Very few people have heard of them. Certainly not the casual Trek viewer (if there even is such a thing). The BRAND is the draw. But the brand is inexorably linked to the original cast. Ergo problem.

You will not find a bigger trekkie than me -- trust me on that. But I am 35 (and I think that's just about the target demo for any new Star Trek movie, as I was in my early teens when Khan and the rest came out; you know of any 21 year old die-hard Trek fans??). How many fans my age care about Trek without the original cast? That's the question. I know I don't.

I guess I'll see it, but certainly not because of JJ (and yes, one trick pony fits the bill perfectly). I'll see it just like I've seen all of them -- the score, the swishing sound of the doors. But hoping for 200 million worth of eyeballs, based on an aging franchise whose target demo is probably my age? Good luck.

I think the Trek franchise will crash and burn. Both the original cast and next generation had years of goodwill built up through the television series. This one is going in cold and I don't see it catching a whole new young audience that it would need to be successful.

That said the Trek 150 is sure a better investment than the Button 150. I can't wait to see it but it will have to make Pursuit of Happyness money to cover that budget which is unlikely given the offbeat story matter and the fact that Pitt is not a box office draw in dramas.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: