This channel is a scrap-book - anything might appear on it. It is also merely a fun hobby, so don't be surprised if it takes time for new videos to appear. But, I hope you enjoy anything you find here, and if not, I thank you for taking the time to visit.
3:19 it was determined that as Discovery passed through the flux tube between Jupiter and Io it was perturbing its orbit. 5:45 No, the centrifuge rides on magnetic bearings while near frictionless there is still drag to the rest of the ship which is countered with RCS corrections. 7:36 I believe in the novel Curnow talks about this and belives gyroscopic precession is why the ship is spinning end over end as the centrifuge spun down and transfered its momentum into the rest of the ship
I do think your calculations are a little off as I looked at this years ago and Into Darkness didn't to that well, Trek 2009 was the top over TMP but not by much. But either way, it does show that the "JJ saved Trek" excuse isn't valid as these movies didn't make a ton more than some of the other films. If they were that successful, those 3 shouls be the top earners and it shouls be a huge gap. And people have to remember that until the later TNG movies, overseas was an afterthought and not properly tracked, they only cared about domestic box office. So they really don't know how much the earlier films made overseas which has been a huge part of films over the past 20 years.
What’s worth mentioning is Discovery 1 was intended to be a 1 way mission all along. Getting to Jupiter was deemed so important that all other concerns were secondary. Even the crew of discovery 1 was supposed to bog back into hibernation and await rescue by tbe yet to be built discovery 2. Given how much more propellant burn the Jupiter encounter took everyone knew discovery was not coming back
Do we know for sure the intermix chamber went all the way up? We see that in Star Trek VI that yes, it is vertical, but I don't think it showed how high it goes.
Love your content but I have one suggestion, the background with the ships on it in gold needs to stay still. The erratic motion is not helpful. It makes the data harder to parse.
Why do people waste time thinking about this. It takes about 3 seconds to realize that the lift could go horizontally as well as vertically, and there are lights on the panel that move in either a horizontal or vertical pattern while characters are in the lift indicating exactly that. And even without the horizontal movement, who cares. It doesn't detract from the story. This is a big nothingburger.
The novel explained it. The transfer of angular momentum as the internal centrifuge finally slowed down. I don’t remember enough basic physics to remember if the ship’s spin was in the appropriate direction.
The population of the U.S. has grown 45% from the first to the latest films (from 222.6 M in 1978 to 323.1 M in 2016). The world population has grown 75% (from 4.29 B to 7.49 B). What we really need to see is this... What percentage of the U.S. population bought a ticket for each film? Take the U.S. adjusted gross, divided by the population at the time the film came out. Global would probably be misleading given the largest growth came in areas of the world that don't get to go to movies as much.
I did like your clip, 'Beyonds' $246m budget just staggers when you think what the outcome was (how did that get approved!?). But it's great to see TMP get some props. And with the 4k UHD release you can see where the budget was spent. Sure it was mainly on hairdressing and eye-makeup for Shatner, but god it was worth every cent ! (Genuinely, I like your vid, well done)
When we go down to detailing so much a sci fi space ship, it means it is time to let it go, and start doing something productive instead. It is just a movie... TV series, etc, etc, do not go into details. To start with, any ship from Star Trek, Star Wars, Battle star Galactica and many more sci fi movies and series were technically designed by much more advanced civilizations than what we currently have, if they were real somehow, we would have no clue how most of the technology works. The day we humans can design space ships like the ones from sci fi, it will be the day we have technology that will look like magic for us on the 21st century. So again, stop analyzing it all so much and let it be, enjoy the movies and let it be.
Either somehow the older films were put into a REALLY low number of cinemas internationally, or the numbers reporting is just BAD when you go that far back. Even with Star Trek being way less popular than Star Wars, I just can't fathom how every country in the world combined has fewer grosses than the USA for nearly every single entry in this franchise.
I really don't get how Into Darkness made so much money. It was (and still is) a shit film. Nemesis was a better film compared to ID. The Final Frontier we all agree on, though I love its soundtrack more than the Bad Robot film scores. Just my opinion though.
Sfdebris when he covered star trek 6 covered this quite well when it comes to the finances, as the movies go on, so do the costs for the actors, so if a movie fails or doesnt do as well as they thought, just by definition because of the increased cost of the cast, the studio looses money, and depending on how bad that is, the next film gets a smaller budget because of it, which is what happened to 6 after 5 as their was supposed to be a bunch of scenes in addition to the change with Savak, that showed why the crew wanted to get back together for one last mission including Scotty pulling the bird of prey out of the harbor I might add and this is why their hasnt been another star trek movie since Beyond, the cast of actors want too much money for the risk of it not doing well, which just given how badly they've been written, is a very real concern also another thing is spill over of the props and costs behind them, for the first film everything was done from the ground up, and they had multiple production studios and special effects teams that bloated the budget and had to start from scratch, when you got to star trek 2, they had more to work with and that saved on costs considerably, but went further, even renting props instead of outright buying them at points and were basically doing a second reboot given the 2001 thing while unique in its own way, just wasnt like the best of the star trek series also international markets back then didnt exist, you had maybe the UK and Germany, the Chinease were completely shut off back then, and japan wasnt big into our culture and was heavily subset into its own same thing with aultralia, and I dont ever remember seeing a mention of the people doing the dubs in the credits for the original films, those always came after and dont forget russia, that didnt become a viable market until 1989 just like china, and generations was the first movie to actually have a website devoted to it would you believe so they had those then new markets opened up to them, and now sadly in an attempt to get the mighty dollar they value those markets more than the main one now, which is backfiring and hard on them also marketing, the marketing is about 45 to 50 million ontop of those budgets I think but you did do well with your final total thing, the common variable here is not seeing it for awhile as both the best films started over new and fresh and people wanted to give it a chance, but star trek under alex kurtzman has done away with any chance of any film beyond beyond getting green lit given how poor his performance is, and how much money he has wasted as a whole to say nothing about how poor his writing is, where under him the woman who gave spock his groove in the original series, is too stupid to work a redial button infront of her captain in private to get her point without mutinying in the first episode of discovery like the only episode of star trek they saw is the one where Kirk gets put in a womans body from TOS and they used that as the platform for the rest of the series which with how stupid they are, is entirely possible, and more than plausable, after all as spock said, when you remove the impossible, what remains no matter how implausable it may be, must be the truth and they are that stupid
jar jar star trek doesn't count those are abominations fakes get off here , those jar jar treks was utter rubbish , star trek the motion picture was wow , dolby stereo , those jar jar treks atmos was rubbish
Little tidbit. In ST TMP, around 22 minutes in the movie, Kirk dismissively tells the ensign, "I think I can find my way around" just before entering a turbolift. Once inside the turbolift, Kirk sees on the back wall an animated map shematic of the ship's turbolift network (with a white dot showing his current position in the lower hull). The path depicted through the dorsal pylon is vertical, not diagonal step (appears, right through the vertical intermix chamber!). Amazing this somewhat obvious technical oversight made it through production all the way to final cut.
It sounds like you've got Keith Emerson playing keyboards back there with the rain and thunder. So, on the whole, the Bad Reboot movies make more money. I don't want to live in that universe. 🤮
One has to remember that when Star Trek The Motion Picture came out in 1979 it was an "Event" it had been anticipated for years. Rumors of TV shows one off specials and then finally a film WOW!! I was 15 at the time and when to see it twice that's all i could afford on my pocket money and i walked the 8 miles round trip to the cinema the second time. It was a bid deal back then.I loved it and still do and when the directors cut came out on DVD back in the early 2000s i was blown away.
🤔 Basically the much criticized Bad Star Trek aka JJ trek genuinely faired way better than the majority of classic & next gen trek. That is out of this World.
That really was quite fascinating, with some totally unexpected figures. And TMP at the top of the pile! Who would have thought it.... Not quite sure how the BR films made that much money, though...
Your numbers seem pretty spot on to me. I've been a bit of a box office nerd for a long time and the inflation adjustments are about right. The main issues with box office is that the studio only gets back roughly somewhere from a third to half a film's total theatrical gross. That often differs though as different studios have differing arrangements with theatres especially in the US where e.g Disney get something like 70% of total box office from the first couple of weekends and then it reduces over the release window. And different countries have different arrangements e.g. China cinemas take a higher percentage of the gross than in most other countries. And then whatever the studio gets back they have to take into account the marketing and distribution costs which often are almost as big as the production budget, plus any back end deals with the talent. Truth is most studios are more than happy to break even theatrically. A lot of profit will come from over time in ancillary markets like streaming, physical media, TV rights, merchandise etc. which are areas where Trek is always very strong. I'm willing to bet even the lower grossing Trek movies become profitable over reasonable amount of time.
Interesting! I wouldn't have expected the TNG films to do worse overall than the first four films, or for the first film to compete in terms of revenue with the later Abrams films.
well, in "The Cage" the Enterprise had a crew of ~200 people, while in the series 420 peole roamed the ship. This means, that the same cabin space needed to serve the double amount of people, and therefore the original quarter (never mentioned but seen as realtively spacy in the cage) may have been split for some officers or many enlisted/NCO. Sometimes efficiency is before space. (especially if you have limited space for all) When I was in the army, my Colonel (barracks commander and unit commander) had a nice room of 20m^2 where his bed and the desks stood, plus a small room before it for the secretary plus a bigger conference room (also around 20m^2) I had a NCO room (where usually 2 NCO lived together (or one officer) even if I had it alone (since my peer slept at home) with 10m^2 and the normal enlisted rooms had also 20m^2 for 6-8 men. And on ships this would have been extreme luxury. So, yes the idea of having the captains cabin that far away from the bridge may be a problem in accidents, but on the other hand: if this is a luxury cabin for some reasons (like the view or silenced enough, direct access to a replicator etc) it is a good idea to have it so.
It will be interesting to see the films ranked using their budget to profit figures as a ratio. Traditionally a movie needs to make 3 times its budget to be considered profitable
Captains Pikes quarters are stupid large. I hate the sets from discovery and strange new worlds. The set designers forgot that space is at a premium on a starship. These quarters are a waste of space. Placards cabin was much smaller in a huge ship. I liked the cabins on star trek enterprise. Of all the ships star trek enterprise make the most sense
TMP was an enormous box office hit as I recall. It certainly out-performed all the subsequent films until the awful JJ Abrams series. The hype around those films was... intense. Anyway, it was all about A) the tremendous anticipation of seeing the original cast together again on the screen for the first time. B) interest in seeing how the cast had changed, how the ship had changed, and so on. C) it was only a little over a year after Star Wars, so interest in science fiction had become rekindled to a level never seen before or since. TMP benefited from that. I distinctly recall the explosion of interest in everything sci-fi as soon as Star Wars began to hit it big, and naturally Star Trek rode that wave back up to prominence. D) tangential to that, people wanted to see what Star Trek would look like with Star Wars-level special effects. And so on. TMP came out at peak sci-fi rebirth time. The box office numbers ought to reflect that.
Better title: $tar Trek Oblivion. Based on your calculations none of these should ever been produced. Please don’t make any more videos like this. It was incredibly depressing and dry. It’s almost like a bean counter view of the Star Trek franchise. It took all the life and splendor of a franchise by this kind of analysis.
Who says you need one? We see people using ladders and such in TWOK. I always presumed there was a gangway. We also see Kirk using a personal elevator in engineering to go back up. Presuming that the two sections of the ship have their own turbolift networks, and to transfer from one or the other requires taking stairs. I could even justify this, that the initial refit had to be refined in construction, because they needed more space for the vertical intermix chamber, to increase the ships power output, and they sacrificed a cohesive turbolift network. Something which the later ships, like Excelsior, with their larger size, were able to rectify.
something else to consider: movie tickets cost far less back during the TOS era compared to today's prices not even taking inflation into account (domestically speaking, at least. i can't speak for foreign markets.) a $10+ ticket would've been unthinkable in 1979. so while the newer movies have grossed more by virtue of inflation and increased ticket prices on paper, it can be argued that far more people saw the TOS movies.
I think this is exactly right. I went to see TMP on opening night as a teenager. Of course I can't remember how much I paid for the ticket, but I think it was around $3, well within the modest budget for a teenager using money he earned at a part-time job for kids. Plus, there were matinee prices earlier in the day. I saw TMP a total of about 15 times while it was in the theaters, but several of those were $1 matinees. Current ticket prices for first run movies at my local cinema is $12. That's four times the price, and I think that outpaces inflation. My guess is that many more people actually saw TMP at the theaters than any of the Bad Robot films. The only thing I would add as far as profit is concerned is that you did not take into account home video sales and rental, which during the 80s was enormous. Not only did they sell and rent a ton of ST movies, but the cost of a VHS in the early 80s was from $50 - $100 and most of that was studio profit. The TOS era films did not earn Star Wars Box Office but they were very profitable for Paramount, which explains why they kept making them.
In which region of Britain do you live? Do you get thunderstorms a lot? I know the UK is famous for rain, there certainly some with which we had to contend during me and my family’s visit. I, of course, am assuming it’s Britain, due to your accent. I live in north Georgia, and we’re having some tropical storm doozies, stemming from a larger system about ready to hit the Gulf Coast of the Florida Panhandle.
