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.

40 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. I'd pay $5000 for... by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 5, Funny

    A life sized Beverly Crusher... Maybe.

    --

    "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

    Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    1. Re:I'd pay $5000 for... by Will_Malverson · · Score: 5, Funny
      A life sized Beverly Crusher... Maybe

      Maybe you should talk to the people at Real Doll. (Not safe for work...) Their basic female models go for about $6000.
  2. Not too good, not too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least they found a new way to skill the red-shirt guy on the bridge.

  3. Uh huh... by djupedal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...and what was that industry claim, again, about how pirate DVD's are hurting the industry...and why anyone should care?

    Or does the USD$4bil include estimates of perceived gain as well (as opposed to projected loses)?

    1. Re:Uh huh... by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 4, Funny
      ...and what was that industry claim, again, about how pirate DVD's are hurting the industry...and why anyone should care?

      Are you really that stupid? Of course pirate DVDs are hurting the industry! Have you seen the utter shit they've been putting out recently? If they had had the money lost to the pirates they could've produced some good quality movies instead of the garbage cast upon us. Mr. Deeds was a personal "FUCK YOU" to the movie pirates of America for stealing from the MPAA. You spend a few hours downloading that piece of crap and end up deleting it since it's such a waste of space.

    2. Re:Uh huh... by noewun · · Score: 3, Interesting
      There is absolutely no connection between pirating movies and quality. Hollywood has been making absolute shit for decades, long before any pirating existed. Mr. Deeds sucked because 95% of what comes out of Hollywood always sucks.

      For perspective, 1999 was considered one of the best years in Hollywood history because there were FOUR really good movies (American Beauty, Sixth Sense, Magnolia, and Matrix) out of the hundred or so released. So, a good year has less than five good movies.

      What do you think a bad year has?

      And, BTW, you should know better than to see an Adam Sandler movie. . .

      --
      I am a believer of momentum and curves.
    3. Re:Uh huh... by curunir · · Score: 3, Funny

      If they had had the money lost to the pirates they could've produced some good quality movies instead of the garbage cast upon us.

      The poor quality of movies has nothing to do with lacking money. In point of fact, it is a new DRM solution that the MPAA is experimenting with. It's already been proven that DRM solutions applied to the finished product do not work (I won't rehash the DeCSS fiasco, but suffice it to say that it didn't work for the MPAA). They've therefore shifted to applying their DRM solution to the screenplay. They're hoping that the screenplay encoding format (known in some artistic circles as the "filmmaking process") will prove too difficult for the pirates to crack.

      And it *does* to be working. Had the original script of "Mr. Deeds" been made into a movie, there would have been rampant piracy. However, I have yet to see a single pirated copy of "Mr. Deeds." No other DRM technology has yet proven this successful. Like it or not, you should expect to see more of this technology in the future.

      However, the MPAA cannot relax yet. Hackers are said to be hard at work on cracking the screenplay encoding format. It's rumored that a fully functional, Keanu Reeves simulation already exists, though most believe that it is incapable of encoding any line other than, "Whoah!"

      --
      "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
  4. That Article has Serious Factual Problems by loggia · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are so many serious problems with that article that it is hard to take it seriously.

    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.

    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.

    Sometimes an editor gets an idea for an article and it remains despite the article no longer representing the headline. 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. 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.

    Etc etc

    1. Re:That Article has Serious Factual Problems by rtos · · Score: 5, Informative
      Yes, adjusting for inflation and COL is always important when comparing monetary amounts from different years. Good call! Here's the woldwide gross for each Trek movie in adjusted 2002 dollars:
      ST1 - $370m (Highest)
      ST2 - $194m
      ST3 - $159m
      ST4 - $225m
      ST5 - $104m (Lowest)
      ST6 - $127m
      ST7 - $147m
      ST8 - $174m
      ST9 - $131m
      FWIW.
      --
      -- null
    2. Re:That Article has Serious Factual Problems by pheede · · Score: 3, Insightful
      From just above the box office charts in the article:
      The Box Office
      Trek films often escaped the sci-fi niche to become mainstream hits.
      Worldwide gross in 2002 dollars:
      Which part of 'worldwide gross in 2002 dollars' do you interpret as being not adjusted for inflation? In fact, since the numbers actually are inflation adjusted, the numbers do indeed support the notion, that Star Trek still makes Paramount loads of dollars.
    3. Re:That Article has Serious Factual Problems by coaxial · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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:


      The Box Office
      Trek films often escaped the sci-fi niche to become mainstream hits. Worldwide gross in 2002 dollars:

      Star Trek: The Motion Picture
      INIT 1979 -- $370 million

      Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
      LOSS 1982 -- $194 million

      Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
      LOSS 1984 -- $159 million

      Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
      GAIN 1986 -- $225 million

      Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
      LOSS 1989 -- $104 million

      Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
      GAIN 1991 -- $127 million

      Star Trek: Generations
      GAIN 1994 -- $147 million

      Star Trek: First Contact
      GAIN 1996 -- $174 million

      Star Trek: Insurrection
      LOSS 1998 -- $131 million


      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.
  5. Life Sized Locutus by nuintari · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why would someone pay that kind of money for a big giant borg doll when Realdoll sells one that actually looks pleasent. If you need companionship due to your nerd induced ugliness and low social status, don't compound your unnattractiveness by screwing a giant borg man. Go buy a sexy lingerie doll and pretend its a real girl, its good practice for pretending you actually have a life.

    --

    --Nuintari

    slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.

    1. Re:Life Sized Locutus by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ah yes. Nothing screams geeky dork like buying a RealDoll and dressing it up in a Starfleet uniform.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
  6. Locutus?! by OS2_will_prevail! · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wow, a life sized LoB model? And here I was happy with my Borg Cube Christmas ornament! "We are the Borg, Enjoy your hollidays, Resistance is Futile!"

    --
    People are more violently opposed to fur than leather
    because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs
    1. Re:Locutus?! by Mish · · Score: 3, Funny

      Should I be scared or amused that my first thought when I read your post was "That is *SO* cool, I want one".

    2. Re:Locutus?! by Some+Dumbass... · · Score: 3, Funny

      And here I was happy with my Borg Cube Christmas ornament! "We are the Borg, Enjoy your hollidays, Resistance is Futile!"

      That's not a Borg Cube, it's a fruitcake. The rest still applies, though.

  7. RIAA accounting rules.... by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wonder why they didnt use the RIAA method of calculating sales. I bet the 'actual' number would be around 300 trillion.

    Lets see, you have to count lost sales as 'stolen revenue', so every time someone looks at an episode of star trek without watching commercials, lost revenue. Every utterance of a copywrighted line from any star trek, lost royalties...you get the idea...

    Shut up...its funny to me, but Ive been up since the day before yesterday doing networking layouts...

  8. What about the fans? by Nefrayu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Intel has made lots of money off of computer processors, but to say that they can release a substandard chip and not care about it is wrong.
    It's the same way with Nemesis. I've sworn off seeing these Treks in the theaters anymore. After Insurection and now this turkey of a movie, I've decided it just isn't worth it. I'll wait until someone else buys the DVD, or I'll download it from Kazaa. If you take into account that I saw the STII:TWOK in the theater three times and STIV:TVH twice, I think it's safe to say that Paramount stands to lose money from bad movies.

    --
    Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
    1. Re:What about the fans? by Murdock037 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:What about the fans? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It's noble that you can admit you have a problem - that you've been somewhat owned by a cultural franchise, that is in turn owned by a media conglomerate. I don't know if being self-conscious about it alone about it makes it a lot better - but if people went to see, say, Solaris (which is flawed, but at least it *wants* to be a good movie) or even non-science-fiction films like the latest Dogme movie, then you are making an effort, and more importantly creating a stronger financial incentive to make high-quality, intellectually ambitious films.

      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.

  9. Re:Finally, I have some evidence by Chicane-UK · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sheesh.. how broad an assumption is that?

    How the hell would you automatically assume that 470 lifesize borg figures were all sold to Open Source 'zealots'?!

    They are more likely to be bought by wealthy collectors, or movie memorabilia stores.

    --
    "Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
  10. Re:Finally, I have some evidence by Gekko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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"
  11. A different view by skroz · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm a pretty big trek fan, as trek fans go, and I REALLY liked the film. I'm terrible at writing reviews without giving away plot hints, but I'm here to say that it was probably my #3 favorite trek film.

    One thing, though. I can see people interested in Locutus, Borg Queen, Khan, or a few other star trek-related bad guys. But this film's bad guy? He's just picard with a narrower, younger head. He was still a good bad guy, I thought, but I don't think he has the sinister style that sticks with people like the other bad guys I mentioned.

    But anyway, go see the movie... it was excellent.

    --
    -- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
    1. Re:A different view by Nefrayu · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, it was nice to see that the british accent is genetic, because obviously growing up in the dilithium mines of Remus didn't affect that in the least. What a good villian and great writing... for me to poop on.

      --
      Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
    2. Re:A different view by Drachemorder · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "Yeah, it was nice to see that the british accent is genetic"

      I'd expect that the Romulans would have been training him to speak with a British accent before they gave up the infiltration plan and abandoned him on Remus. He looked about 10-12 in the flashbacks that showed him being thrown into the dungeons, so it seems reasonable that he'd already developed his accent by that time.

      Not that I'm saying I thought he was a good villain --- he wasn't really --- but the accent certainly isn't any less believable than the idea of a universal translator that can even make aliens' lips move like they're speaking English...

    3. Re:A different view by sql*kitten · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, it was nice to see that the british accent is genetic

      Actually, it is genetic. If you have two British parents, you also get the rules of cricket, all the Beatles' lyrics and an assortment of Monty Python quotes too. The sense of humour has to be learnt, tho'.

    4. Re:A different view by alteran · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Strange. In this post you say, "Nemesis Rocks," in bold no less. But in the above post, it's "an average film for average geeks. C+"

      Which is it?

      --
      Who is RTFM and when will he help me with Unix?
    5. Re:A different view by Visigothe · · Score: 5, Funny

      it's true...

      having an Irish father and an English mother, I am genetically pre-disposed to blowing up my own car =)

      .

  12. Re:4 Billion? by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 5, Funny
    You geeks waste SO MUCH MONEY ON CRAP! You would pay 1,000,000 for a piece of shit!

    Only if it's limited-edition, officially licensed Star Trek shit. Give us some credit.

    ;)

  13. Re:Finally, I have some evidence by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  14. It's no longer about quality by sacrilicious · · Score: 4, Interesting
    And that my friends, is why Nemesis didn't even have to be a really good movie.

    Precisely. Churning out these heavily advertised schlock movies is no longer about quality, and hasn't been for quite some time. Back when Star Wars prequel 1 was in the works I was working in the special effects industry, and a full year in advance of its release date I remember hearing from the higher-ups at Lucas that the movie was already guaranteed profitability, because of all the merchandising follow-ons and themed advertising partnerships that were already in place. It made me feel ill, and I have refused to go see prequel 1 or 2, and in fact will not see another star wars movie. I'd rather have the time for other experiences.

    .

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  15. Where are the Star Trek Wireless Phones? by DavidBrown · · Score: 5, Funny

    Seriously. If people are spending money on Locutus of Borg dummies (how much would a lifesize, vibrating 7 of 9 go for?), you know that they would buy a PCS phone that looks like a classic trek communicator. Paramount can't be so much above being greedy that they cannot have figured this one out.

    Then again, maybe that would push the creation of the Church of Star Trek, and if you watch Futurama, you know what that means...

    --
    144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
    1. Re:Where are the Star Trek Wireless Phones? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Funny
      you know that they would buy a PCS phone that looks like a classic trek communicator.

      An absolute requirement for this phone would be voice-activated dialing. You'd access your top three numbers using the voice commands: "Scotty!", "Spock!" and "Bones!".

      This thing would be a bigger chick magnet than a puppy, without the annoying turds.

  16. Ticket prices also by dachshund · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Here's the woldwide gross for each Trek movie in adjusted 2002 dollars

    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.

    1. Re:Ticket prices also by Alsee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have to adjust for changes in ticket prices

      I dissagree. They are measuring the comercial value of the movies. It doesn't matter if half as many people see it if they are willing to pay twice as much.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  17. Right by Twister002 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Everyone knows the Borg are an evil, closed-source monopoly.

    --
    "For a successful technology, honesty must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." -Feynman
  18. Re:The Enterprise versus the Millenium Falcon: by lunadude · · Score: 3, Funny

    <wisper>it's only a movie</wisper>

  19. Re:Finally, I have some evidence by Hubert_Shrump · · Score: 5, Funny

    some poor folk spend their money unwisely on entertainment, and other nonessentials

    I'm guessing you posted from a computer, yes? Let's not cast stones here.

    --
    Keep your packets off my GNU/Girlfriend!
  20. Opinion of a non-Trek fan: by mao+che+minh · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Before Nemesis, I had never seen an actual Star Trek movie. I have only seen an episode of the newest version, and as a kid I saw about 10 episodes of "The Next Generation". So, as someone without any pre-disposition to like or dislike the film, here goes:

    I thought that over all, it was a good scifi movie. It had the visuals, cools toys, and special effects that looked good. The acting was actually far better then I thought it was going to be, especially the bad guy Shinwa (or however they were saying the name) and Picard. The way that the film makers made you think about origins and the way one turns out in life was cool. However, I had a hard time believing that a human that grew up with a bunch of aliens would have an English accent, but whatever. He was still a dark and ominous character. I do remember some of the series plotlines and character relationships, so it was nice to see the way that some of them have evolved. This aspect seemed well done, especially when you consider that this is the last film. I also liked the way that Data went out, that was pretty suprising.

  21. In case anyone is interested... by still_sick · · Score: 3, Informative

    in actually buying one of these, in the Las Vegas Hilton in their Star Trek wing (seriously) they have a store where you can see the life-sized locutus for real (and other such rich-folks collectibles), and buy them if you like.

    Maybe it's just me, but I'd never buy anything like that unless I've seen it up close in real life.

    ... Also for $12,000 you can have them (the paramount wardrobe department) custom make you a Klingon Warrior Uniform.

    --
    ...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.