StarDestroyer.Net BBS

That's what you have to think by them releasing it a week before LotR! Come on, they couldn't POSSIBLY think it could compete in the market they released it in, could they?

Actually, they've done this before. They released STV the same week as Indiana Jones 3 and Batman!

Are they SO stupid at Paramount that they can't see that a film is just not up to snuffand will get killed by bigger releases? Take Steven Segal's career. He had VERY smart people behind him, who released his movies at the beginning of the year, like February, when there's no competition save for those flicks studios release that have been on the shelf for a few years.

It appeared he made great box office at the beginning of his career. But there was nothing else to see! NOW, (I think since Under Seige 2) they tried releasing his films during the summer and guess what? You can have Segal come over your house and do laundry now.

You know, that's not such a wild theory. Perhaps they knew / felt / wanted Star Trek: Nemesis to die, so they released it during the busiest time of the year so they could say, "It was the competition, not our gross imcompetency that ruined Star Trek."

Don't most Star Trek movies get released around Chirstmas. I remember seeing First Contact midnight Chirstmas Eve.

If they where tiring to kill it, that means at least one brain at the studio is functioning. That's more then I'd give them credit for.

anarchistbunny wrote:Don't most Star Trek movies get released around Chirstmas. I remember seeing First Contact midnight Chirstmas Eve.

Yeah that is true. However, I heard something about the movie being completed a couple months before December. That is just a rumor though.

I do believe Paramount trashed it on purpose, it's the only conclusion that makes sense.

Why kill the series when the simplier solution is to kill B&B?

Actually, a lot of the money for films is made in the rental and home video/DVD market: Trek would be no exception. The thinking at Paramount seems (from what I've read) to be "anything Trek has a built-in audience for it. They regard the Star Trek franchise as a money-maker, and are unlikely to *intentionally* be trying to kill it. I'd say it's more likely that they decided to release Nemesis around the same time as The Two Towers because they realized not much will be competitive with it at the box office, and they're relying on that "built-in" audience for trek for it to make at least some money. They'll be expecting to recoup the rest when Nemesis goes to video. My girlfriend tells me that "Star Trek: the Experience" out in Vegas is a big money-maker (she's afraid to ever take me, for fear I'll utter the words "200 gigaton turbolasers" and start a barfight.)

beyond hope wrote:(she's afraid to ever take me, for fear I'll utter the words "200 gigaton turbolasers" and start a barfight.)

Against a room full of pasty, anemic rumor-meisters and fat 30-year-old virgins?


You're right. They'd all club you to death with phony bat'leths and technical jargon.

beyond hope wrote:Actually, a lot of the money for films is made in the rental and home video/DVD market: Trek would be no exception. The thinking at Paramount seems (from what I've read) to be "anything Trek has a built-in audience for it. They regard the Star Trek franchise as a money-maker, and are unlikely to *intentionally* be trying to kill it. I'd say it's more likely that they decided to release Nemesis around the same time as The Two Towers because they realized not much will be competitive with it at the box office, and they're relying on that "built-in" audience for trek for it to make at least some money. They'll be expecting to recoup the rest when Nemesis goes to video.

While you're right that they make a huge chunk in Video's/DVDs, that's still no rationl reason to intentionally release the film when it will make more money than it could (if it were any good). The only reason I can think of, is either they genuinely thought it stood a chance against TTT , or they knew it would perform poorly and so wanted an external excuse of the TTT audience power (despite leaving themselves open to the point "Well your the morons that released it at that time.").

beyond hope wrote: My girlfriend tells me that "Star Trek: the Experience" out in Vegas is a big money-maker (she's afraid to ever take me, for fear I'll utter the words "200 gigaton turbolasers" and start a barfight.)

I was under the impression that the Experience had shown a slump in profits recently. It's still making money, just nowhere near as much as before. Can anyone confirm or deny that?

Rob Wilson wrote:I was under the impression that the Experience had shown a slump in profits recently. It's still making money, just nowhere near as much as before. Can anyone confirm or deny that?

I was just in Vegas over Christmas, and saw that the Experience was doing brisk business. Overall I'd rate it above par (considering the run of the mill ride films), but it could be made a hell of a lot cooler. But since their main audience is kids and their parents, it has to be kinda shallow.

What someone needs to do is come up with a sci-fi based theme park that caters to the medium to hard core fans. It might not make that much money, but it would be the Mecca that fandom is sorely lacking.

Here's a theory:
ST movies get shoddy box office.
Video sales do better.
Movies only go to video after theatres have stopped showing them.
Therefore, the quicker a movie leaves theatres, the sooner it can be put on video, where most people will pick it up as a curiosity.
Conclusion: Paramount deliberately set up Nemesis so it would be out of theatres sooner than normal.

maybe Paramaount wanted an excuse in advance, either that or they didn't realize that some of us might have to take women with us to the theatres who for all practical purposes, will not get aroused at the sight of Picard's dome.

Darth Fanboy wrote:maybe Paramaount wanted an excuse in advance, either that or they didn't realize that some of us might have to take women with us to the theatres who for all practical purposes, will not get aroused at the sight of Picard's dome.

As I have previously pointed out, it is an interesting commentary on the entertainment industry that executives are able to justify the poor financial performance of their products by explaining that it is the result of their own stupidity.

Pcm979 wrote:Here's a theory:
ST movies get shoddy box office.
Video sales do better.
Movies only go to video after theatres have stopped showing them.
Therefore, the quicker a movie leaves theatres, the sooner it can be put on video, where most people will pick it up as a curiosity.
Conclusion: Paramount deliberately set up Nemesis so it would be out of theatres sooner than normal.

It looks like Nemesis will be lucky to make $60,000,000 in a worldwide run. It cost $70,000,000 to make. So to just make back the initial costs they need $10,000,000 from DVD and Videos. If they make $5 from every DVD they need to sell 2,000,000 DVD's and they are struggling to get 2,000,000 people to watch it in the cinema's. I think Strowbridge has posted the breakdown of Profits from films and Video/DVD sales don't make more than 30-40% of the take. Over a period of several years, they may make the money back, but by then it's too late.

Rob Wilson wrote:

Pcm979 wrote:Here's a theory:
ST movies get shoddy box office.
Video sales do better.
Movies only go to video after theatres have stopped showing them.
Therefore, the quicker a movie leaves theatres, the sooner it can be put on video, where most people will pick it up as a curiosity.
Conclusion: Paramount deliberately set up Nemesis so it would be out of theatres sooner than normal.

It looks like Nemesis will be lucky to make $60,000,000 in a worldwide run. It cost $70,000,000 to make. So to just make back the initial costs they need $10,000,000 from DVD and Videos. If they make $5 from every DVD they need to sell 2,000,000 DVD's and they are struggling to get 2,000,000 people to watch it in the cinema's. I think Strowbridge has posted the breakdown of Profits from films and Video/DVD sales don't make more than 30-40% of the take. Over a period of several years, they may make the money back, but by then it's too late.

It's much worse than that. A company like Paramount needs to make enough money in the BO to double their original expenses in order to break even for the film. This is because of the money the theaters need to take in for the movies and other various "leakages" along the way. For Nemesis, a good portion of their money comes from merchandizing and other such things, but that costs additional money. "Nemesis" products are not selling well, and you also need to add the money they spent on advertising the movie to their total production costs. Additionally, they will NOT make $5 per DVD they sell, though they may make money in the rental market. I find it unlikely that this will happen, however, as rental stores carefully tailor the number of DVD's and videos they purchase to ensure that they will not have too many additional ones left over, most Trekkies will simply buy the movie instead of renting it, and its low BO numbers will prevent companies like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video from buying the movie in the droves high-budget movies usually garner.

Lord Poe wrote:That's what you have to think by them releasing it a week before LotR! Come on, they couldn't POSSIBLY think it could compete in the market they released it in, could they?

Given the serious overlap in the harcore fans of the two, I have to wonder. There's now way they could think that, not after FotR. I can only assume they were incredibly dumb about it. There's no possible way that they would try to kill their cash cow.

I wonder if this isn't (possibly) a ploy to get some leverage over B&B. It's possible they set the movie (which they had to know was sub par,) up to get crushed. That's give them a pretty hefty stick to weild against B&B in any negoitions. It's possible they want to bring in new, better (and cheaper) blood but feel they need some leverage.

Yeah but B&B don't have the leverage do they? If Paramount owns the franchise then why do they need leverage? Its not like the fans will care, hell they'd applaud.

Master of Ossus wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote:

Pcm979 wrote:Here's a theory:
ST movies get shoddy box office.
Video sales do better.
Movies only go to video after theatres have stopped showing them.
Therefore, the quicker a movie leaves theatres, the sooner it can be put on video, where most people will pick it up as a curiosity.
Conclusion: Paramount deliberately set up Nemesis so it would be out of theatres sooner than normal.

It looks like Nemesis will be lucky to make $60,000,000 in a worldwide run. It cost $70,000,000 to make. So to just make back the initial costs they need $10,000,000 from DVD and Videos. If they make $5 from every DVD they need to sell 2,000,000 DVD's and they are struggling to get 2,000,000 people to watch it in the cinema's. I think Strowbridge has posted the breakdown of Profits from films and Video/DVD sales don't make more than 30-40% of the take. Over a period of several years, they may make the money back, but by then it's too late.

It's much worse than that. A company like Paramount needs to make enough money in the BO to double their original expenses in order to break even for the film. This is because of the money the theaters need to take in for the movies and other various "leakages" along the way. For Nemesis, a good portion of their money comes from merchandizing and other such things, but that costs additional money. "Nemesis" products are not selling well, and you also need to add the money they spent on advertising the movie to their total production costs. Additionally, they will NOT make $5 per DVD they sell, though they may make money in the rental market. I find it unlikely that this will happen, however, as rental stores carefully tailor the number of DVD's and videos they purchase to ensure that they will not have too many additional ones left over, most Trekkies will simply buy the movie instead of renting it, and its low BO numbers will prevent companies like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video from buying the movie in the droves high-budget movies usually garner.

Yep, I figure it needed to make about $150 Million over its domestic run to make a profit. It could have done it, with the right story, marketing, etc.

After all, Goldeneye revived a dying James Bond. Since Pierce Brosnan took over they've made $1.5 BILLION worldwide.

Darth Fanboy wrote:Yeah but B&B don't have the leverage do they? If Paramount owns the franchise then why do they need leverage? Its not like the fans will care, hell they'd applaud.

The problem is, that (up until now, at least) B&B could point to ratings, and say "We've made a profit for you. Look how we're reaching to expand our audience. Look how we're being more contemporary. Look how we kiss your ass and greedily gobble your undersized genitalia. Don't you think we're worth something to you? If you want to keep us, you'd better pay us a lot."

But now, Paramount can say "You're slipping. Something's not right, and we've reason to believe it's you. Take a pay cut or take a pink slip."

Darth Fanboy wrote:Yeah but B&B don't have the leverage do they? If Paramount owns the franchise then why do they need leverage? Its not like the fans will care, hell they'd applaud.

Because there are contracts and creator's right involved and backed up by the Screenwriter's Guild and other such bodies. The suits do own the franchise but they don't have kingly power over the writers.

Bah, they're just giving the guild a bad name. How did Berman even get creator's rights anyway? He didn't create Star Trek, or was it because he got his name in on Gene's TNG era stuff and that gave him all kinds of goodies

Darth Fanboy wrote:Bah, they're just giving the guild a bad name. How did Berman even get creator's rights anyway? He didn't create Star Trek, or was it because he got his name in on Gene's TNG era stuff and that gave him all kinds of goodies

I'd imagine he has some rights to Voyager and Enterprise. Both were B&B's brain droppings so they'd have rights to them on those grounds. Being as Enterprise is in production and Voyager in syndication/reruns they can still create trouble if they want to.

Stormbringer wrote:

Darth Fanboy wrote:Bah, they're just giving the guild a bad name. How did Berman even get creator's rights anyway? He didn't create Star Trek, or was it because he got his name in on Gene's TNG era stuff and that gave him all kinds of goodies

I'd imagine he has some rights to Voyager and Enterprise. Both were B&B's brain droppings so they'd have rights to them on those grounds. Being as Enterprise is in production and Voyager in syndication/reruns they can still create trouble if they want to.

He has the creators rights for those two and they both performed below TNG, you'd think the suits would be able to simply turf him and his catamite Braga out in the street where they belong. There's still a chnce to save Enterprise. The cast is strong enough that a good writing team could get them out of trouble (if worst comes to worst they use the resolution of the temporal war to reset everything - an apropos way to throw out B&B's poison ).

I guess we'll have to wait and see. Anyone know th veiwing figures for Enterprise? Are they going up, down stable but very low?

Master of Ossus wrote: It's much worse than that. A company like Paramount needs to make enough money in the BO to double their original expenses in order to break even for the film. This is because of the money the theaters need to take in for the movies and other various "leakages" along the way. For Nemesis, a good portion of their money comes from merchandizing and other such things, but that costs additional money. "Nemesis" products are not selling well, and you also need to add the money they spent on advertising the movie to their total production costs. Additionally, they will NOT make $5 per DVD they sell, though they may make money in the rental market. I find it unlikely that this will happen, however, as rental stores carefully tailor the number of DVD's and videos they purchase to ensure that they will not have too many additional ones left over, most Trekkies will simply buy the movie instead of renting it, and its low BO numbers will prevent companies like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video from buying the movie in the droves high-budget movies usually garner.

Yeah I was just talking about the initial costs and was best casing the DVD take to make a point about not relying on the DVD sales. I think Strowbridge made a post in another thread detailing that the film would have to make $250-300,000,000 worldwide, to make a profit against Marketing, Production and sundry expenses (the Uk marketing must have cost thm a bomb as it was in th Movie trailers prefacing TTT - not a cheap slot to buy) and SKy one and all the Cable/satellite channels were running it in primetime slots. I doubt it will make back it's marketing budget in the UK.

It's fucked, with a capital F.