|
I'd be interested in hearing comments on this.
When the first Trek movie was made, there was a healthy return (B for Budget, BX Box Office, P Profit, figures in millions of dollars; all figures taken from Wikidpedia)
The Motion Picture
B = 44
BX = 139
P = 95
Wrath of Khan did slightly poorer but still good business
B= 12
BX = 97
P = 85
Search for Spock
B = 16
BX = 87
P = 71
The Voyage Home
B = 26
BX = 133
P = 107
Final Frontier
B = 33
BX = 63
P = 30
The Undiscovered Country
B = 30
BX = 97
P = 67
Generations
B = 35
BX = 118
P = 83
First Contact
B = 45
BX = 146
P = 101
Insurrection
B = 70
BX = 118
P = 48
Nemesis
B = 60
BX = 67
P = 7
Star Trek (Kelvin or whatever)
B = 150
BX = 386
P = 236
Into Darkness
B = 190
BX = 467
P = 257
Beyond
B = 185
BX = 344
P = 159
Other than the obvious things apparent here - that the final "original universe" movie was the biggest flop financially, taking in a mere 7 million, the one before it not doing much better and our friend Final Frontier doing particularly badly at the box office, and that the "reboots" have all had much bigger budgets and bigger returns - one thing is very clear: the "reboot" movies have, between the three of them, made almost as much as the entire ten series of movies before them. Yet the "original universe" ones had the advantage of having the fans of the original series (whether than be TOS/TNG) while the new ones sort of don't. What I mean is that the new ones came out at a time when there was no Trek series on the box, many reuse or reorder the Trek universe we've been used to, and yet they seem, on the face of it, far more popular in terms of box office returns, than any of the original ten. Why is that, do you think?
Is it because the new ones don't quite require the often-needed degree in Trekology to understand them? That the characters are presented more as kind of generic action heroes and their backstory not always that important? Or that they're primarily action movies set in space, and anyone can enjoy them? Is there more an appetite for Trek now than then, or is it just that people go to "blockbuster" movies more now? With such big budgets, of course better effects can be produced and bigger directors and writers attracted, but is that it? Are they just the equivalent of shinier toys?
I remember seeing the first movie, thought it was all right. Second one I hated and the third I watched a few days ago as it was on the telly. Turned out to be a far better movie than I remembered, though I also recall I fell asleep during my first watching of it (also on telly). So why do we think these movies are more popular than the ones that have gone before them, or is there just a hunger now (or was there) with no actual official Trek on the small screen? Well, now there is but back then mostly there was not.
Any ideas or comments or debate certainly welcome.
|