Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
May 11, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Star Trek earned a jaw-dropping $79.2 million from Thursday evening until Sunday. What are the primary reasons that Paramount was able to hit it out of the park with the Star Trek reboot?
Josh Spiegel: First of all, this film came out at the right time. It's been long enough that most people have forgotten the last two Star Trek films, Insurrection and Nemesis, which were both flops. Second, the movie has looked like, from the first major trailer being released, like it could easily please Trekkers and non-Trekkers alike with enough callbacks to even the most familiar Star Trek references and lots of action. That, more than anything else, is what I would call the biggest reason that this new Star Trek film works: you really don't need to know anything about the mythology of the show aside from the characters' names (and the original series has been around for over 40 years, so you'd have to live under a rock to not even recognize the name Spock) to enjoy it.
David Mumpower: There are several factors at play here. After the creation of Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise effectively on top of one another, Star Trek had gone well past the saturation point as a marketable product. We've gone almost exactly four years since the departure of Enterprise, which wasn't that watched anyway. If we go all the way back to Nemesis in 2002, that film was basically ignored, meaning that except for diehards who suffered through Voyager, there has been no real Star Trek impact since 1998. That means all of the people who comprise the core movie-going demographic were between the ages of five and 15 when the last significant Star Trek outing was in theaters. Paramount viewed the landscape and made the correct decision to go back to the core premise, a hetero life partnership between Kirk and Spock. They saw the revenue Zero films like Casino Royale and Batman Begins earned, and they made the perfect gamble here. Alternately, the explanation is as simple as "They hired J.J. Abrams." The Mission: Impossible 3 crew must be green with envy over this box office. If only Tom Cruise hadn't gone on Oprah that day.
Pete Kilmer: Paramount made a smart move in getting Abrams and his Supreme Court to handle the Trek franchise and in going back to the beginning. Abrams and his writing crew made a terrific choice in making a film for everyone, and yet they made a film for the hardcore fans as well. With the inclusion of Nimoy and his story line, they've made sure to embrace the hardcore fans who want to go along for the ride. The old canon exists for them; it's not been thrown away like what happened with Mission: Impossible and other adaptions. Following the examples of Batman Begins and Casino Royale was a smart, smart move.
Max Braden: I think as David and Pete mentioned, previous origin story/reboots have helped set the stage for a Star Trek reboot to work. It also wouldn't surprise me if leaving out the alien villain from the trailer helped. If it had been promoted like Nemesis with a lot of alien emphasis, new audiences might have been turned off at the idea that they'd be entering an unfamiliar universe and trying to catch up. The more familiar humanoid environment makes it more approachable to new audiences.
Reagen Sulewski: I think there's also been a tremendous increase in "Geek Pride", for lack of a better word, which has allowed people to embrace things like Trek and Battlestar Galactica without feeling like they're giving up something socially. Just think back to the last time Trek was relevant and what you thought about the franchise and what you thought of the people that liked it. Odds on it wasn't positive. The sea change in the culture has let it be time for Trek to work again as a franchise, in the right hands.
Sean Collier: I have to disagree with Reagen and say that the success here has nothing to do with fanboys. By relaunching, handing it to Abrams, and marketing the (forgive the pun) down-to-earth aspects of the film heavily, they've managed to convince mainstream audiences that they're allowed to like Star Trek now. I've actually talked to a number of people who actively dislike Star Trek, but appreciate how different this one feels and plan to attend. It is indeed a Star Trek for everyone - but more importantly, it really seems like it WANTS to be.
Reagen Sulewski: You've slightly misunderstood me, since your "counter" argument is close to what I'm saying. People are embracing their inner-fanboy, even if they're not the type to have owned Spock ears.
Les Winan: Quality, quality, quality. That and taking a property everyone is familiar with and adding a new look and great reviews.
Sean Collier: Our arguments are similar enough that we're getting a bit circuitous, but the distinction here is that I think audiences who don't like Star Trek and all things fanboy-ish still like this movie. You can enjoy it while still considering yourself too cool for Star Trek.
Pete Kilmer: I did a little bit of research on who saw the movie and who liked it. Next to my store is an Outback Steakhouse, with the "to-go" section right next to my door. So I know all the "take out" girls and guys who work that section and I know the owner of the place as well. A good chunk of them are under 30 and as far from fanboys as possible. And the ones I've talked to loved the movie. I'm just amazed at the word-of-mouth I'm hearing from people outside the fanboy/geek world....
Chris who? Sylar what?
Kim Hollis: How much of a factor was the cast in Star Trek's box office performance?
Josh Spiegel: I'm not sure if the cast's presence can be fully quantified one way or the other for the performance of the film. The two leads were played by two actors who have been in Hollywood for a few years, but the more recognizable one is on NBC's Heroes, which isn't the huge hit it used to be. If anything, the choice to keep the more well-known names and faces (Simon Pegg, Eric Bana, John Cho) as supporting characters is a wise one. I remember back when the rumor was that Matt Damon would be cast as Kirk; no offense to Damon, but if ever that rumor had any validity...yikes. Having a somewhat unknown cast with no stars probably boosted this film more than if Damon had been there, or other big names.
David Mumpower: I'm not as convinced Matt Damon would have been a bad choice since I think he's a good enough actor to pull off almost any role. Having said that, I think that the cast had almost no impact on the box office. Star Trek the multi-billion dollar brand matters much more to the bottom line here. The cast does matter inasmuch as they performed at such a high level as to earn glorious reviews and instantaneously glowing word-of-mouth. In terms of adding to the opening weekend box office, let's be honest here. What's a Chris Pine? And Zachary Quinto's television show ratings are close enough that its renewal was in doubt. These guys made a great movie, but the closest things to box office draws here are Simon Pegg and Tyler Perry, neither of whom was the primary reason anybody went to see this.
Pete Kilmer: The importance of the cast was extremely minimal, with one exception. Nimoy. That was a bit of casting that was guranteed to bring the fanbase out (not that they wouldn't have, anyway.)
Tim Briody: The roles could've been played by anybody, recognizable or not, and it would not have affected box office. Fortunately, I thought Chris Pine hit it out of the park and Simon Pegg is just inspired casting.
Max Braden: I think if you graphed a curve of more recognizable actors against box it would probably be flat, or even favor the lesser known actors. Had this been a Tom Cruise vehicle? I think the silliness of the idea would turn off as many potential viewers as he might have pulled in.
Sean Collier: Max is right. Using a collection of talented relative-unknowns makes it seem like Abrams and crew were more concerned with quality than star power, and I think that resonated well with moviegoers.
Jamie Ruccio: I think the only effect the cast had on this movie's boxoffice, aside from the performances given, was that it signaled to the audience that the film wasn't going to be a star vehicle. That then sent the message that there were going to be other things for the audience to key in on, like story, overall feel, etc.
Going forward it will be interesting to see what the word-of-mouth (generally highly positive) regarding the performances does to the legs of the film. I think the universal praise the acting has received will do nothing but boost the box office of the film in the next few weeks.