Humor Me Here: Thoughts on the Success, or Lack Thereof, of
Star Trek into Darkness
Author: ProvidenceMine
Source of box office info: Box Office Mojo. These people really deserve kudos for
doing a painstaking job that certainly must be the equivalent of watching paint
dry.
I must say that I’ve been pretty amused by all the
browbeating ballyhoo on the ‘disappointing’ box office performance of Star Trek
into Darkness, especially when the naysayers compare it with the ‘successful’
performance of J. J. Abrams’ first Star Trek installment.
Star Trek 2009 was a box office success? Really? I can’t, for the life of me, figure out how this is so. The first installment was made on an
excessive budget of 150 million dollars, 53 million more than the 97 million profits
made from 1982’s The Wrath of Khan.
Domestically, Star Trek 2009 made 257,730,019 while it needed an even
300 million just to break even, making it, effectively, a box office failure. With the foreign market coming in at
127,764,536, the movie made 385, 494, 555 worldwide with a paltry profit of a
little over 85 million dollars.
Normally, box office numbers like this would be quite impressive, but
not for a film costing 150 million to make in the first place.
By the way things are looking as of this writing, the second
installment to the Star Trek reboot will most likely meet the same fate as its
predecessor did domestically; it will be interesting to see if the
international market will be there to rescue it from total financial failure.
Now, don’t get me wrong! I’m not, in any way, gloating over the possible failure of
Star Trek into Darkness, I’m just dumbfounded by all of the over-analyzing that's been going on. The smaller profits
being made by this sequel have nothing to with a crowded summer movie line-up,
J. J. Abrams betraying the true message of The Original Series, Trekkies being too
narrow a base as an audience, the
whole nonsense of ‘is it Khan or not’, or whether Star Trek is truly dead.
Oh, and by the way, years ago, it was not uncommon for
sequels, no matter how successful they were financially, to make less money
than the original.
Give it a break, people.
The problem is two-fold, and as plain as day.
The problem is a bloated movie budget and an unrealistic
expectation on how a film with such a budget can perform in these times.
Simple.
Let’s face it, we’re in a global economic recession( why no
one is calling it a depression is beyond me), and an outing at the movies in
the 21st Century isn’t like it was during the hard times of the
1930s. A ticket price for
one person is $ 10.00, and that doesn’t include the wide assortment of
nutritionally challenged food that’s also sold at inflated prices. It may not be dining at the Four
Seasons, but for many people in these times, it’s a deep dig in the pocket.
True, there have been a few exceptions ( like Fast and
Furious 6, for example), but if you follow box office updates you’ll see that
Hollywood has been losing money on most of their ‘blockbusters’ budget films as
of late.
It’s unrealistic enough to expect box office magic at a time
when economic hardships run deep and widespread; why then, when Star Trek 2009
only broke even worldwide, would you up the budget of the second installment by
40 million?! That would mean Star Trek into Darkness
has the herculean task of reaching 380 million just to get it’s money back!!
As of this writing, Fast and Furious 6, Hangover 3, and Star
Trek into Darkness have suffered huge dips at the box office this past
weekend. So, at this point, the
chances of the Star Trek sequel breaking even looks far less certain, a pretty
twisted thing to say for a movie that has just made over 328 million in only 3
weeks.
I’m not a Hollywood insider, nor am I a filmmaker, but it
seems to me that there are a few things that should be considered if one wants to see
profits from the movies they make.
The first thing is to decide on a cheaper budget. Considering the many expensive box
office failures in recent times, this is a given.
The next thing is to look for less expensive alternatives to the more costly special effects, and using creativity in making them look
just as impressive for your film.
The last thing, and perhaps the most important element in
all this, is to revisit the concept of storytelling for the cinema. Too many movies these days have
sacrificed good storytelling for bigger, more dazzling effects.
I’ll give you two examples of what I’m talking about here.
Battleship is a movie that chucked good storytelling out the
window in the hope that the special effects would carry it to box office
success. It died at the box
office.
Chronicle, on the other hand, made strong storytelling a
priority over special effects and scored a huge box office win. Sadly, this movie is more the
exception in Hollywood while Battleship is more the norm today.
Movie making is no longer about creating a good film as much
as it’s about a casino gambling kind of mentality, to see just how much money
one can throw on the table and win back in return.
Of course, in the event that Star Trek into Darkness is
unable to play catch-up to its predecessor, you’re going to hear all sorts of
silliness as to why it did ‘poorly’ at the box office. Most likely, commentators will try to
pin the blame on the Star Trek phenomena itself. I’ve already heard and read about ‘Trekkies being too small
a base,’ ‘too old a base,’ and that the ‘phenomena is dead and past the point
where it can be revived’.
Give me a break.
The two Star Trek reboots
have brought out a huge number of people to the box office, both reaching past the
300 million mark. This, Dear
Reader, tells me that Star Trek still has a big audience. If this base is a narrow one, then
you’re talking about the biggest ‘narrow’ base there is.
The terms ‘narrow base’ and ‘small base’ have been used
repeatedly in so many commentaries, it’s become a broken record. It’s also inaccurate.
As for the assertion that Star Trek is ‘dead,’ this is also
a freight load of bunk.
Star Trek never died, and it certainly didn’t need a
‘reboot’ in order to make it more appealing to today’s increasingly fickle and
distracted youth, who need more explosions and bigger body counts just to keep
from getting bored. The ‘reboots’
are simply an excuse for a Hollywood long bankrupt of any originality to take
what has worked before for guaranteed box office wins.
Star Trek has had an incredible run that's lasted for almost
50 years—12 movies(including the reboots), five TV series, an animated series,
countless books, comics and documentaries. It’s inspired people in the arts and sciences since it’s
growth from a failed TV series to a cult with legions of fans. It’s stayed popular with the public
when other TV shows, even hugely successful ones, were forgotten( who still talks
about Welcome Back, Kotter, after all?).
Star Trek has not died, nor is it on life support. It is simply a grand old cult that has
had a stupendous run, and it doesn’t need the likes of a J.J. Abrams or anyone
else to ‘rescue’ it. It’s the same
kind of mentality that says that every bestselling novel ‘absolutely must’ be
made into a film, or a mini-series.
If anything, it is finally settling down for a well-deserved rest in the
annals of entertainment history.
It should be allowed to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.