We Are All The Kirk
ADD, Sunday 11:39a – Funny… just saw a Trek ad on ESPN… all about Kirk as The Man. Seems that the marketing team sees the need to lean heavy on that notion, even if the film is not so singular in focus.
========
The most interesting element of JJ Abrams’ Star Trek, for me, is the Generation Why? mindset that everyone is equal, no one is actually special… or everyone is.
Kirk is at the center of the film, but in many ways, it is much more Spock’s story. All of the well-known supporting crew – aside from McCoy and Scott – have skills and smarts that mean they really could fill in for anyone else on the Enterprise. There is no ying and yang because everyone is so in touch with both sides of themselves.
Even the bad guys in the film are motivated – wrongheadedly, we find out – by an honorable rage not unlike the rage that made Americans willing to attack Iraq… and not with the seeming Machiavellian, secret motives that motivated Cheney/Bush.
It fascinates me, in part, because the folks who made this film are also responsible for Fringe, a TV show that establishes character distinctions of strength, weakness, and motive with complete alacrity within minutes of meeting any character.
I will write more about the film in time… but for me, this is the biggest thematic difference between this film and the Roddenberry vision, which was so much about seeking equality for all… the new Star Trek starts from that point, conceptually… which begs the question… what are they Trekking for?
This may turn out to be the populist turn that makes this film work for bigger, younger audiences. I honestly have no idea… as I don’t know what makes teens feel good about themselves these days. But the concept intrigues me.
Looking forward to you elaborating more on this thematic element. At this point, whatever you were getting at was pretty elliptical and I didn’t quite follow. Perhaps, it’s hard to comprehend since I haven’t seen the film. But even your description of FRINGE — which I have seen — didn’t really make your point any clearer.
Still, sounds interesting. Hope you continue the conversation.
My writing on this is probably suffering from “I have seen it, you haven’t.” Sorry.
More to come…
“All of the well-known supporting crew – aside from McCoy and Scott – have skills and smarts that mean they really could fill in for anyone else on the Enterprise. There is no ying and yang because everyone is so in touch with both sides of themselves.”
To run with the obvious Star Trek analogy, your general description of the crew makes them sound very collectivist – like the Borg.
They certainly have more charm… but yes… a bit.. there is a feeling, I think, that it is about being an origin piece… some of the characters are more imitations than others, but it’s as though they are all icons-to-be at Star Trek High, forming, but not yet established as real personalities, except for the two older characters, Bones and Scotty.
So Dave …. where do you think it lands in the B.O. race at the end of the Summer?
Time to watch the trailer (again).
It’s not about the B.O. race. It’s all about the Cross-Promotion and Endless Marketing and Heavy Hype.
I give this pic 4 weeks and out in smaller theaters.
In terms of The Race, I really don’t know.
I think the film will get some non-Trek traction, but not necessarily a lot. It is reallyreallyreally a Trek movie. So much of the audience reaction is call and response to Trek. But maybe it will speak to teens in a way that I don’t anticipate.
I’ll be doing a box office chart sometime in the next week…
having a ‘trek’ discussion with a friend of mine, he showed me this link re: an austraaiiiin movie chain that did a ‘free mystery movie’ screening for the general public, just people off the street, not ‘plants’, just joan and john q. public. the thread with their ‘comments’ is interesting:
http://www.greaterunion.com.au/movies/star-trek-11/
just a note: you have to go to page 2 of the comments to see comments re: it being a free mystery screening and how people wouldn’t have normally chosen to go to ‘trek’, there are more comments there since i saw it last
“But maybe it will speak to teens in a way that I don’t anticipate.”
Well, it isn’t your father’s Star Trek.
that’s cool to hear that it is “trek” movie. i’ve been worried that it would go too far away from the roots. and joe… man alive, is that not the worst ad ever?!?
Yeah. Like, “Hey, all you millions of faithful who have kept this franchise alive for so many years! Fuck y’all, we want the Gossip Girl demo!”
Wait a minute, Joe… I’ve been at work all week, are they actually running ads proclaiming that ‘it’s not your father’s Star Trek’?
Oh god (just found and watched the clip), and I’ve spent the last sixth months praising Paramount’s marketing efforts. See, that’s the kind of ad that makes me embarrassed to want to see the movie (same as those ads which had Jim Carrey and co talking about how a post 9/11 American needed The Majestic).
the marketing machine that’s taking over the world is the devil
Wait, was Dave’s comments positive or negative? I can’t quite tell.
i’ve seen the damn thing and i couldn’t make heads or tails of what dp was trying to say, one statement seems to contradict the other, so it’s not just you, kam (and from dp’s tone i’m guessing ‘negative but not a complete and utter pan. just a guess)
I am intentionally trying not to offer what might be read as a review until I intend to review…
This is one of those things that I am thinking about first as a concept. It is an interesting choice, whether I like it or not.
Oh, I didn’t think there was an embargo on it anymore.
But then again, I’m one of those who thinks people who try and find 911/bush/etc analogies in work may be stretching themselves a bit thin. Perhaps that’s just me though.
I don’t think it’s a stretch, based on the film, Kami… and I think it will come up… but as I wrote, I think it would be inaccurate.
If you wanted to get into it, it is actually closer to the 9/11 attack itself, launched by a guy who hated the United States because of its incursion in the Middle East, even though the US feels – primarily – that it was trying to do good.
Beating a dead metaphor, you could suggest that the whole film is an attack on the US support of Israel and its intimate relationship with Saudi Arabia… well intended, but “a failure” because of the result. Is the film about the US learning that we cannot be all things to all people (combined with achieving our own interests) and that when we try to be that, it can lead to powerful people wanting to kill us?
Gee… thinking that one of the last scenes in Star Trek can now be compared, by this tortured logic, to Michael J Fox on that bus in Casualties of War is not a good thing.
Pretty sure that is not what the filmmakers were chasing here, so I am throwing that whole silly overreach right out the window.
The only people that are going to dig geopolitical analogies out of an Abrams Trek film are ones with politics on the brain. The vast majority will be writing/talking about the similarity/deviations from TOS as they did for Bond and Batman Begins.
The Trek marketing has gotten steadily worse, by the way. I’ve seen that ESPN spot and all that’s missing is a Keanu “whoa” clip. Horrible.
IMO, it feels like Par is counting the Fanboys as “In” for opening weekend and are now spraying A&M gunfire to hit as many people as possible. Similar to the multi-tonal approach to Wolverine, where on one channel the spot plays like an X-prequel and on another it harmless fun like a Dwayne Johnson flick. Only Terminator:Salivating has kept the same message throughout, which for me, is a sign of confidence.
Hi Martin doppleganger. Despite the so-so reaction to the latest ads by the geeks online, I’d say they’re probably broadening the base that will go opening weekend. My estimate is that it could do as much as $60 mill 3-day, and $150-170 mill total domestic. Paramount should be very happy with $300-350 worldwide, I don’t see the numbers ending up much higher or much lower than that, and that should pay the bills. Technically I suppose this is like James Bond, so you can’t really call it “Star Trek 11”, but for the 11th film in the series to be bringing in that kind of money, they should be very happy. The excitement will wear off by “new Trek”‘s 3 and 4, but for the next couple movies they should get some good numbers and bring the franchise (tv-wise) back to life.
If Trek does $350m worldwide, the movie will likely lose around $40 million. Of course, much of that will be on Spyglass, as Paramount would be covered for most of their loss with its distribution fee.
Of course, if they did about the same overseas with this film as they did in the US, that would be a huge win, as traditionally this title does slightly better than half overseas what it does here.
If you think that the film will do $170m domestic, it is much more likely that you’re looking at $270m worldwide… which means a loss of about $100 million.
This is the hard math of this film, no matter how good the reviews. The biggest Star Trek ever was First contact with $146m worldwide. If you double that and still lose money… tough plan.
They could do it. They could find a way to convince the world that it’s a sequel to Mission: Impossible 3 (which did double the number overseas that it did here, $265m) and not a Star Trek movie (highest international gross ever… $54 million).
Dave maybe they greenlit it regardless of profit though. If your numbers are right, obviously they have no realistic shot at making any profit until DVD/ancillaries. But maybe they’re willing to take that because at least it will pay off down the road with the franchise. $100 mill loss before ancillaries is rough, but I doubt it will be that much, probably $50 mill short. The only thing you have to wonder about is that 146 worldwide. I think this film could do at least 300 worldwide, but I guess that First Contact number does put things in perspective. $300 mill worldwide does seem like a real win with that in mind, not considering budget, marketing costs, etc.
I don’t think there’d be any faster way to kill a new Star Trek movie franchise than to use it as an excuse to start a new TV series.
Funny you folks bring up First Contact — which, if you recall, brought the franchise in a new, more action-oriented direction. And, as I noted in my original Variety review, was “one TV spinoff that does not require ticketbuyers to come equipped with an intimate knowledge of the small-screen original.” As David notes, it wound up being the biggest Star Trek ever. Could history repeat itself?
Martin – greetings from the mirrorverse.
I agree with the numbers you and Dave are using and this does feel more like a long-haul approach than a quick cashing in. Just consider how TOS has been repackaged and re-released on DVD and BR since this went into production. While that doesn’t count against the movie’s bottom line, every extra dollar helps Grey sell that the franchise has been re-born.
The problem with TV is that it can’t be Kirk and company, so you’re back to the old problem of derivatives killing the original.
God…the idea of an Abrams Trek series is scary.
I apologize for harping on this, but there are numbers out there saying that Star Trek: The Motion Picture made $56 million internationally. And if you adjust that for inflation…
I think that what helps this Trek out is the all-new cast. When you watched the later Treks based on the tv show, it seemed like you were watching a bigger budgeted version of the show. This could seem like a brand-new sci-fi movie that happens to be Trek, but with no cast baggage except for Leonard Nimoy.
a little shout out for my boy karl because it’s so sweet:
a quote from the LA ‘trek’ press conference, the legend that is leonard nimoy on karl as ‘bones’
“When Karl Urban introduced himself as Leonard McCoy and shook hands with Chris Pine, I burst into tears. That performance of his, as Doctor McCoy, is so moving, so touching and so powerful that I think DeForest Kelley would be smiling, and maybe in tears as well.”
tee hee, i might just turn this into my own little ‘i-told-you-so-toot-karl’s-horn-thread’ thread because i am that stupid for ‘the karl’: (until dp tells me off or people stop sending me this stuff)
more kudos from the ‘orlando sentinal’, go figure. can you dig it:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2009/04/the-casting-coup-of-trekkarl-urban-as-bones-mccoy.html
not that anyone’s listening but i’ll just keep on beating my drum:
excerpt from ‘the los angeles times’, geoff boucher’s HERO COMPLEX: seven things i love about the new ‘star trek’ 01:45 PM PT, Apr 30 2009
2. KARL URBAN IS THE REAL McCOY: There are plenty of great performances in this movie. Chris Pine is charismatic and cocky and just right as a young Kirk (and thank goodness he didn’t slip into a William Shatner imitation, that would have been death for the film) and Zachary Quinto is pitch-perfect as the smoldering Spock, who is just barely keeping a clamp on those emotions. But I have to say the great revelation was New Zealand native Karl Urban who, more than the two main stars, does a full-on vocal imitation of his predecessor, DeForest Kelley, who was such an eccentric Southern sourpuss. I sat down with Pine for a pleasant lunch a few weeks and he gushed about Urban’s hilarious turn. “When people see what Karl Urban did with Dr. McCoy, they are going to freak out. It is DeForest Kelley, but it’s not. With my performance I had to go at it with a scalpel because Shatner’s work was unique and locked into memory. But, man, what Karl pulled off … ” I’m guessing that in the next film we see a lot more of Urban and his laughter-is-the-best-medicine approach to “Trek.”
why stop now. got sent a review by some dude called hercules on AICN, an excerpt from his ’12 reasons the new stark trek will be the highest grossing trek ever’:
5) URBAN OFFERS REAL McCOY. Every Trekkie will single out New Zealander Karl Urban
Leah, Karl Urban was on TMZ last night, out signing autographs and bagging on an Australian photographer, jokingly telling him something like “Never trust an Australian, they’re descended from criminals” or something to that effect. I tried to find you a link, but it’s not up on their site.
aw bummer, those TMZ bastards! (but thanks for indulging me lex, or trying to)
the funny thing about karl is that he’s cast in all these serious hero/warrior/soldier/killer roles and yet in real life he’s a huge goofball, finally some of his terrific comedic timing can be seen in ‘trek’
Some dude named Hercules? Really Leah? CAN YOU BECOME? CAN YOU BECOME? A NEW VERSION OF YOU!
no comprende, senior.
a friend emailed me the ‘hercules’ thing, which i obnoxiously excerpted here. i know not of this hercules (i don’t AICN), should i? is it THE hecules? nor have i watched ‘felicity’ in a good long while, tho i have fond memories of scott speedman. what am i missing