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.
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.
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.
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.
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.