Slashdot Mirror
The Business of Star Trek
angkor writes "Paramount claims merchandise sales have exceeded $4 billion over Trek's lifetime; 470 people have actually paid $5,000 apiece for a life-size replica of the villain Locutus." And that my friends, is why Nemesis didn't even have to be a really good movie.
Morons shouldn't be given mod points. Ever.
Funny I saw nowhere in that article where it said that the main demographic of the people that purchased the life sized replica were people making $30,000 a year with a family, 2 kids and a dog.
Go troll someplace else.
I mod down any one who says "I'm sure I will get modded down for this"
How this post got mode so far up is a mystery to me. All that is being said is that some poor folk spend their money unwisely on entertainment, and other nonessentials. This is, or at least ought to be, common knowledge.
There are people who will cough up major bucks going to casinos, playing lotto, and getting drunk or stoned. Others will spend big cash on sporting events, and/or sporting goods that they can ill afford. Still others will spend more than is prudent on homes that are in "exclusive" neighborhoods, sports cars, big @$*!^ SUV with all the bells, and whistles, or parade float sized limos. The list is finite but none the less large.
I'm not immune to this sort of behavior, though I do like to think that my case of consumeritis is a mild one. I spend way more than I need to on fishing tackle. Not to mention computer gear, and associated gadgets, and gizmos.
"...but ask yourself if you'd rather have three meals a day, or some new LOTR costume that you can prance around the woods in."
Given the obesity rate here in the US I'd say that a lot more Americans need to be vigorously prancing around around (be it in the woods or elsewhere, or in costume or no) than consuming three meals a day.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
Unfortunately, I think you're in the minority.
It seems to me that the quality of the Trek movies, on the whole, is negligible to most of the audience. Did you read the comments from the review here on Slashdot a few days ago?
So many people have said that they'll disregard what they hear, from critics or friends, and go see it anyways. "And I'll probably enjoy it, no matter how bad it is." Why is this? Star Trek has become like the McDonald's of film franchises. Bland, predictable. You just sort of... go. When was the last time you really looked forward to a meal at McDonald's?
I'm not really one to talk, I guess-- I kinda sorta look forward to the new Star Wars movies, despite myself. Same idea.
Moderation should only be allowed to mod things up, not down. Or at least, not down past the default posting level (+2 for high karma users, +1 for normal, 0 for AC's). Over the last 3 or 4 years I've been on slashdot I've constantly seen moderation abused to keep people from voicing their opinion which has resulted in a slashbot herd mentality. It's all very sad really, especially when they bring out those "your rights online" articles and bitch about how the government is doing the same thing. Pffft. Hypocrits.
Even adjusting for inflation doesn't do it. You have to adjust for changes in ticket prices, which have accelerated well beyond inflation. Throw that in, or look at the actual number of tickets sold, and the picture gets even grimmer.
Now it's considered a troll to put forth your own opinion?
I'm not part of fan culture; I look at it from the outside. On one hand, I can see both a kind of carnival atmosphere in it - there's some shred of creative expression in soaking in the meta-narratives of these popular culture franchises. And at least some of the fans really contest ownership of those franchises, in fan art and fan fiction and the like - there's something valorous about that. But the other side of it is that it's one of the more primitive ways to related to narrative art: almost total focus on diagesis, a neurotic escapism that often appears as an express desire to inhabit the worlds constructed by the stories, etc. I don't need to go on about the absurdities and stupidities of fan culture: I'm sure you've all seen it, and all of us have engaged in it a little to varying extents as a guilty pleasure.
I think it is best if people try to put the fan-epoch of their lives behind them at a certain point, as part of their personal-cultural adolescence. I think there's a developmental process in the appreciation of artworks and stories that has somehow become stunted particularly in American culture, which leads me to suspect that it could be an educational failure.
I think it is best if people try to put the fan-epoch of their lives behind them at a certain point, as part of their personal-cultural adolescence.
A big, in fact possibly the major component of 'geek culture' is the state of arrested adolescence. It comes out of the geekdom of the 70's and 80's that spawned all the geek mythos.
It's near impossible for some people to put aside the culture of their youth and move on.
And that isn't a particularly new phenomenon. My father is still stuck on the big-band music that he grew up with. His glory days were those years in the Navy in San Diego when Bob Crosby's Bobcats were in all their glory.
The big difference is the durable, almost shrilly persistent 'youth culture' of the 70's and 80's. 'Drug culture' just reeks of irresponsible adolescence type living. And look at all the heros of 'geekdom': people like Stallman and Raymond, a couple of offbeat counter-culture types. Sure, there's room for responsible Adult types like Larry Wall, but not on center stage.
And yet, people who can just go to any old movie and enjoy it for what it is are generally a lot happier than people like you who live only in your own heads. Get the weight of the world off your shoulders, really nobody cares what movies you go to so it's not like you have a obligation to humanity to only watch movies that are 'worth it'.
A curmudgeon's critique:
(1) Against those silly people who spend $$$ on silly movies;
(2) Against those silly people who pirate silly movies while insisting how silly they are.
At least group 1 is honest about what they like and how they acquire it.
And if the franchise is making "too much money," and deserves to be knocked down a notch by piracy, then let's not forget those productions that make "too little money," who deserve our subsidies. That seems symmetrical, and thus queerly moral, though few of us are going to send checks to money-losing moviemakers.
At least we could help people who can't afford these movies to see them. the folks complaining that the studios are making too much money or that the products are too exapensive are often those who can afford them. Either way, science fiction isn't really a nutritional need up there with the four food groups. If I was going to steal something, it would be food first. If you just have to have a Picard figurine and insist on stealing it, well you have issues..... most of use scrape by without a Picard figurine, or personal copies of the movies for that matter.
Outside of the US, esp. the developing world, the DVD prices must seem outrageous. (I have no ideas as to the foreign prices of figurines, lunchboxes, "fake" phasers, and so on.) Perhaps the industry will work out a multitier price scheme as do the drug companies. That was the whole point of regional DVD's?
Of course most of these arguments are just a bit silly, as are all of the rationalizations for Robin Hood piracy of this fluff. Sobriety first.
The Star Trek series would have ended earlier if its profits has been just a bit thinner. Ok, maybe it should have ended earlier, but I like many see value in some of the later work -- and we pay our way. True, the grosses are grosser than many realize! But are they out of proportion to the success and likability of the series? Hell, they hit the jackpot over and over (every other film maybe) and deserve it, it's not coming out of anyone else's pocket who didn't ask to see it.
On Trek -- I love the bald slant in MSNBC Nemesis review subtitle: "It's good enough for Trekkers but not for rest of us." What are Trekkers, a brainwashed subspecies? (well, maybe.) Should I trust a review by someone who confesses bias as "the rest of us"? (Just an editorial thing.)
I really really really want to see a bold successor to Trek that develops a whole 'nuther universe without cheats like transporters and phasers and Spock. I thought I was seeing that emerge in the bio-universe of Farscape, one of the first non-derivative space operas in a long time. Oh well, I may have to wait for Farscape: The Next Generation.
There are so many serious problems with that article that it is hard to take it seriously.
Okay Comic Book Guy , it's time for you learn how the outside world works.
First of all, it refers to Rick Berman as the "new" honcho of Star Trek. Huh? He has been the honcho for more than a decade.
So the "serious" problem is that Berman is described as "new"? Let's examine this.
Most people don't know who he is. They know that Gene Roddenberry created "Star Trek". They know that Roddenberry is dead. They have no idea who took over after his death. Couple this with the fact that Berman has replaced the famous man that led Star Trek for 25 years until his death, I'd think a relative nobody that has lead for less than half that time would still be described as "new", espcially since "new" is a relative term.
Or is your real problem that Berman isn't described as "the antichrist who destoryed 'Trek"?
Second, it "buries the lede." That is a journalism phrase to indictate that the most important element of the story has been pushed to the bottom.
At the end of the article you will find that "Enterprise" is the lowest rated Star Trek show in history, achieving one third of the ratings of Voyager. And Voyager's ratings were always quite low.
Apparently you have a very different view of what the "lead" is in this story, than everyone else. Afterall, it's so easy to think that the main point of the article is "Rick Berman sucks, and so does Enterprise", given that the article has a solid gold (or at least gold-plated) 1701-D wizzing by $100 bills.
Or perhaps your main problem with the article is that it points out that Paramount doesn't really give a damn what the freakish fans think, because they make gobs and gobs of money from the the casual fan.
The headline wants you to believe Star Trek is continuing to be lucrative for Paramount, but when you read the article you begin to scratch your head.
Really? I'm left scratching my head on what article you read, since it the article points out that even though Nemesis "won't make as much as, say, Spider-Man. Yet Star Trek has outlasted other brands over the years. (Suck a phaser, Batman.)".
The point of the article is that Star Trek is long running, continous, steady revenue stream. Sure it might not make bursts of money like some of the more trendy movies, but it has a staying power (and therefore merchandising lifespan) many time greater.
The box office chart is not adjusted for inflation and if it was, you'd see each movie seems to do basically less worldwide box office with each iteration.
Perhaps you'd like to reread the article, this time without your Berman Hating Goggles(tm) on, because you are completly, and demonstrably, wrong.
Allow me to quote:
So "basically less" now means that that three of the last four movies each made more than the previous one? Hmm...
Etc etc
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Uhm.. You miss the point compeltely.
Speaking as someone who would never use MS products, not becuase they cost money (duh, I could have a dozen free copies of just about every MS OS there is), but becuase they suck, becuase they are incompatible, becuase MS is an illegal monopoly.
However, I would not pay $5000 for a Star Trek mannequin either. In fact, about the only thing I would or have spent money is to watch the movies themselves..
Anyway. you are confusing 'free' (as in beer) with 'free' (as in speech). I prefer open source software becuase its authors arent trying to prevent anything else from existing.
This too, was my 3rd favorite Star Trek behind #2 and #8. I also think this was the 3rd best bad guy behind the two in the previously mentioned movies. No sinister style? *PLOT SPOILER, DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE* This guy was sinister. He wanted to destroy an entire planet and then the entire Federation, he killed the senate of an empire, had one of his own guys shot for messing up, mind raped Troi, sacrificed his own life to beat Picard and when he was inpaled he pulled the bar through him to try to strangle Picard.
Visit www.seriouslythough.com