Star Trek Takes 3rd Place in 3rd Weekend + ST09 Financial Lesson Tidbits May 24, 2009
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Great Links, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
The industry estimates are in, and Star Trek is on track to come in third in its third weekend domestically, beating Angels & Demons. We have all the domestic and international details for the weekend below, plus some more weekend Star Trek tidbits, with those taking financial lessons from Star Trek.
Star Trek 3rd place domestic & 4th place international weekend
Including Sunday estimates (from BOM), Star Trek is projected to bring in $21.95M in sales by tonight, beating Angels & Demons ($21.40M) for third place. Star Trek’s total domestic take is now $183.6M. Night at the Museum 2 won the weekend with $53.5M and Terminator Salvation came in with a disappointing $43M. According to Reuters, Warner Bros. cited Trek (and Basketball) as reasons their film didn’t perform better:
The studios generally try to avoid each other when they roll out their big movies. In this case, "Night at the Museum" played to a broad audience, while "Terminator" was more targeted at male moviegoers.
…Warner Bros. said "Terminator" was likely more affected by competition from the similarly-skewing "Star Trek," which slipped one place to No. 3 in its third weekend with $22 million. The National Basketball Association playoffs also appeared to siphon off older men in cities such as Los Angeles.
Star Trek is now less than $10M away from taking the top spot away from Monsters vs. Aliens as highest domestic grossing film of 2009. With Monday being a holiday and assuming reasonable weekday sales, Star Trek could overtake MvA (which is also still in theaters) by the end of its third week (this Thursday).
As for international, THR reports that Star Trek came in fourth place, bringing in another $11.5M overseas in in 58 markets. It’s overseas total is now $87.5 million (about half of its domestic take so far). To show how international sales can differ from domestic sales, the domestic 4th place movie Angels & Demons won the overseas weekend with $60.4M.
Taking the domestic and international sales as of Sunday, Star Trek’s total global sales stand at $271.1M.
Another lesson from Star Trek – moneyless world?
Speaking of money and Star Trek, in the last few Tidbits articles we have been pointing to lessons people are gleaming from the new Star Trek, from parenting, to politics. Now the LA Examiner (ignoring Bob Orci’s saying there is some form of credits in their future), thinks the world could learn something from Star Trek:
Nobody on the Star Trek fictional crew works for a living or gets paid. Not the fictional crewmembers or the aliens or the enemies. Nobody puts in a timesheet or picks up a paycheck in this visionary world. Everybody just seems to be doing what needs to be done, and they all live long and prosper – unless they are blown to bits in one of the mandatory battles. After all, it is an action film series.
Still, the idea of doing what you want to do and being supported in that pursuit seems like the way things should be. (…read the rest)
Finally: Marvel & DC Keep on Trekkin’
ItsJustSomeRandomGuy on YouTube has a popular ‘I’m a DC and I’m a Marvel’ series made with action figures. And after the fizzle of the latest DC and Marvel movies and the success of Star Trek, he has decided, if you can’t beat them, take some advice from Capt. Pike and join Starfleet!
Thanks to TigerClaw
Loading ...
Comments»
A money-less world would be fantastic….First?
It’s really great to see Trek doing so well and hugely popular again, like it was back in the 80’s.
It’s not too late for many of us to get out there and catch a Sunday late night screening! Don’t forget if you want more Star Trek, to vote with your ticket selections as much as possible! :)
#2? . OK LETS ALL WATCH THIS MOVIE AGAIN! I KNOW I STILL HAVE 3 PEOPLE TO WATCH IT WITH WHO HAVENT WATCHED THIS MOVIE!
i simply love it!
and i cant wait to know how STAR TREK XII is going to be!
STAAAAAAR TREEEEEK!!!!!!
That is awesome! I love the Marvel vs DC vids. I am glad they did a little bit or Trek with it.
#3 IS 100% CORRECT!!!!!!! lets beat that stupid film MvA !! …
If only everyone knew just how great of a movie \ST09 really is…
oh and, my last post (i wrote “#2?” .. because i thought i might have been the second to comment on this one!)
These are quite solid if not great numbers. Great job!
After 6 viewings of the movie, I can safely say this film beats TWOK for me (by a narrow margin of course).
It’s a blockbuster, and deserves to be.
I’m gonna go see it again today…hopefully on a DLP screen.
I saw it for the 6th time last night. It simply doesn’t get old.
Just went with my wife to see it again today in Glasgow
50 people in the cinema – We loved it even better 2nd time around!
And we saw the Tribble!
Now ill wait for the DVD!
positive number and wow it is refreshing to see Star Trek so main stream!
A Moneyless World?… hmmm sounds like the Madoff strategy
Here’s what I don’t get – if money doesn’t exist in STAR TREK, then how could Kirk offer to buy Uhura’s drink? If nobody gets paid, how can anyone do that?
Anyhow, you can get rid of money, but not the concept of trade. I support the existence of money because it’s something you can trade without having to always have something of equal physical value like furs or jewels, etc. What’s more, I cringe at the thought of a world without competition – for better or worse, more often than not, we’re not motivated by the “common good,” most likely because we have trouble defining the “common good.” People talk about the morality of a world without money where everyone does what needs done without the motivator of greed, but whose morals are being adhered to? What about those that believe banning abortion and gay marriage is the MORAL thing to do? What are you going to do with them – execute them? Blacklist them? I’m a Trekkie in that it’s an entertaining universe in which certain appealing ideals as to what existence should be like have become reality, but it’s unattainable. We may all have the same basic needs, but we don’t have the same desires, and given the number of people that have their needs met but are still miserable and even commit suicide, you can’t assume that the “common good” means meeting everyone’s needs and that it will automatically make for a uniformly content society.
Anthony Pasquale wrote:
If Trek stays on track with these estimated numbers, that will make it:
1) The 2nd most popular film in the franchise after TMP based on inflation adjusted worldwide gross, and
2) Puts it on track to becoming by next weekend, the 6th most profitable film (behind FC) in the franchise to date (inflation adjusted) after deducting its production budget costs.
With little to challenge it until mid-July, Trek should easily clear half that much again by the time Harry Potter comes out, making it the most popular film in the Trek franchise, if not the most profitable as well. Hello sequel!
Re: #15 – Sorry Anthony … I’m used to spelling “Pascale” the other way. My apologies.
RD
I just want to note your facts are your opinion.
Unless I don’t remember my canon correctly, money (or some form of it) was gone by the the 24th century, but TOS makes reference to some form of currency several times. I think it stands to reason that the members of Starfleet were not terribly interested in payment because they had pretty much everything they needed on the ship, but I think that currency would obviously still be in an issue on another world, or at a civilian business back on Earth. I think most people get the whole “no money” thing from Picard’s speech in “The Neutral Zone”, but I think he is referring to the fact that they have gotten to that point by his time. I don’t think there is much to establish no currency in TOS. And obviously by the time of DS9, with latinum, the whole concept is back in full force.
All that said, I’ll take 3rd place on a Memorial Day weekend, and maybe we will see $200 million by next week!
Looks like the critical lashings hurt both A&D and TS in the pocketbook.
I think (but I dont know) that Trek needs to reach $310 million in order to break even.
production cost $140
marketing $150
so thats $290…
if the cinemas take 10 percent then thats just under $10 million…….so $300 add a bit for errors in complex calculation…and you get $310.
So probably if the film tops out at $350 million then Paramount take a $40 million dollar profit (not small potatoes). Then add in the DVD, Blu-Ray and merchandise and the film makes a nice profit. Plus the special editions…and future formats, its a steady earner.
paramount risked a LOT into this film when you think about the box office of Nemesis and Insurrection. So I guess they expected to make a loss on this one and make all the money on the sequel once people realised that the film didn’t suck.
I’m wondering if Paramount will give the sequal as big a budget as this film. Will they try to cut costs to boost profits? They’ll save some money being the sets are built, but what else?
#21 They’d be fools to do cut price Trek.
I expect the marketing to be reduced and the budget to stay the same or even go up. If you go cheap then you risk loosing the audience.
Having said that, ST2 was cut price as was TUC and they are my personal favourites….but that was another life!
Mind you, the marketing here in the UK was non-existant, some BK’s didn’t even do the movie tie in!
“The National Basketball Association playoffs also appeared to siphon off older men in cities such as Los Angeles.”
Pure corporate BS. Some doofball at WB is blaming the NBA for TS’s inability to perform? If the male demographic is stuck in front of the tube, is it only the moms who are taking the kids to NATM2? Who went to see Star Trek? Was it only women and children?
How about a film that’s been universally panned?
“Unless I don’t remember my canon correctly, money (or some form of it) was gone by the the 24th century, but TOS makes reference to some form of currency several times.”
I really don´t remember about current system mentions on TOS (last time I saw it was a looooong time ago…); I do remember that one episode where a couple of aliens posing as wizards (or something like that…) offer Kirk lots of precious gems and he replies that those stuff is pretty much useless in their society at the time (again, not exact words…).
I love the lens flares in the video. Nifty!
looking at these figures STAR TREK should pass $300 million globally soon. fantastic.
Im not sure im buying these adjusted figures for old movies.
my question is, does anyone add on how much the merchandise is making ?
Greg
UK
#17. Thanks Anthony. It helps to keep us all honest and objective about what we write here.
I just love it when Studios start saying that different things caused the movie they were releasing that weekend not to do well. Really they are going to blame Star Trek and Basketball for the lack of people not wanting to go see Terminator Salvation? How about the script was not very good, but of course they are not going to say that. Terminator Salvation looked ok when I first saw the trailer but after reading a lot of the reviews I decided to skip this movie and just for it on DVD. Now a lot of these summer movies were made during the Writers Strike last year. So I am really curious to see how the writers strike effected these movies.
I think they should leave the Trek sequel budget exactly the same … they’ll already be saving money on the re-usable work that’s been done (costume design, set design, a lot of the soundscape, digital models, etc), so leaving it the same will effectively increase it considerably in terms of new things they can add to the paintbox.
I think it’s a shame that Terminator is doing poorly (both financially and critically). While it’s certainly nowhere in the league of a great film like T2, it was a good little ride reinforced with genuine heroism, humanism, and determinism … three of the ingredients I felt starved for in Star Trek 2009.
My main complaints with Terminator were (A) some of it was random nonsense, but I went in expecting that from a MCG film (B) they did basically nothing with the Kate character except have her stand around looking sweet and/or concerned (C) frankly, after second season of TCC, the story felt kind of small-potatoes in scale (even if the consequences were the usual “everything”).
(er, SCC)
I took the “money” talk in the new film, as just figure of speech. It seemed like in Trek when they did use money it was credit with other species. I’m sure expressions like “it’s on the house” and “it’s on me” or such are just part of the vernacular of the future.
When we no longer strive for materialistic items but strive for the better of ourselves/manking we will have a moneyless world. We first need to have a replicator so everyone gets what they wanted, after they are bored with the wants, people will be happy with the needs. Boredom will set in and you will do what is productive for you and at the same time, help mankind explore our galaxy. Without money will wars end, unlikely, humans like to fight over ideas and beliefs and of course land and woman. In a few hundred or thousand years, perhaps we will be accepted into the Galatic order and all the species from the greys to the nomads will reveal themselves. Star Trek rocks, when we have our first spaceship that can travel to other systems, no doubt it will be called enterprise.
1. The Rusted Robot – But then how do I pay someone to come slap you for typing “first” in your post. :(
20. James Rye wrote:
I think none of us can truly know what constitutes a “break even” point for Paramount. All we know is how much they are grossing and how much they paid to make the movie. The exact theatre take is speculative, and certainly the marketing and advertising budget can be amortized over the DVD release and the next film(s). We can compare it to previous films in the franchise and get a sense for what Paramount considered successful for the franchise. As it stands, this film has made back what it cost to make and is in good company vis-a-vis the other “successful” films in the franchise and considering the popularity demonstrated by the huge early numbers, DVD sales should do extremely well too.
People keep bringing up Nemesis as a reason Paramount was taking a huge risk and I maintain nothing could be further from the truth. Trek had been a consistent earner for them for 40 years and made them a lot of money. The very fact that these DVD releases keep coming are a testament to the power of Trek in the marketplace. You don’t turn your back on that. You try to improve upon it (in ‘79 they decided it was to re-focus the franchise back on the things that made the TV series successful and in a lot of ways, that’s what they did again). Also, JJ Abrams was being called the “next Spielberg” before they handed him the reigns to Trek in 2006. Abrams alone is a franchise to be dealt with, who was also going to bring fans to the boxoffice. I think the two together is what led Paramount to feel confident to invest $150M into the budget vs. something more in line with previous films. It was never really a gamble, so much as it was an investment in the franchise, one of which now consists solely of the film catalogue for Paramount since Viacom’s split with CBS. Will Paramount ever recoup 100% of the costs of this film? Probably not at the box office, but as with most of the Trek franchise, that was never the case. It is a cash cow that merely needs to be fed occasionally to keep on giving rich milk and delivering some prize calves.
perhaps the PG13 rating turned off alot of fans – who wants to see a PG 13 Terminator movie!? especially when its supposed to be the end of mankind war film
also maybe TSCC dampened interest and made a terminator movie less of an event….the same could be said of Superman (with the smallville series) and even star trek – the movies seemed to bring in less box office post 1987 (when adjusted)..i believe that was Harve Bennets view on the matter too – he said something along the lines of the tv shows were like fans having their turkey every week (tv) instead of just thanksgiving (movies)
maybe theres something to that as theres no tv show now and look at the box office its doing!
wonder if the studio will be so keen as to make T5 and T6 now? or will it be another Planet of The Apes/Superman Returns where the proposed sequels didnt happen due to underperforming BO
btw please dont post any SPOILERS for T4 in here…..the UK dosnt get T4 for another couple of weeks and im a box office buff so like the box office discussions here!!
The moneyless world thing is the naive socialist ideas (that Americans bizarrely called “liberal”) which are commonplace among people who don’t understand economics. Roddenberry’s “vision” is really just a straightforward form of this form of “liberal”ism and it’s a bit of a joke that people think it amounts to some unique Trek philosophy.
So, you have this marxist idea- “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” which dear old Karl himself wrote, and it sounds nice, but not only would it not be nice in practise, it wouldn’t work either. Marx didn’t understand what value is, and went wrong from there.
Any basic economics textbook will explain why this cashless dream would be a miserable disaster, so it’s not worth reiterating. What is worth saying is that needs and wants are different things. All you “need” is oxygen, water, basic shelter and some basic food sufficient to prevent starvation. In the communist moneyless utopia, that tends to be all you get. One thing you can guarantee about a society which provides for needs is that there won’t be any Star Trek. Why waste resources on such fripperies? There are tractors to be made, comrade! Get to work!
Oh, and just commenting on the terrible naivete of the actual article- it says “the bees don’t pay for their nectar”. Well no, but they spend all day long collecting it just to survive. It’s the equivalent of subsistence farming in humans. Advanced economies allow just a few people to farm- collect nectar- and others can then go off and create something else, such as iPods or Star Trek, and trade with the farmers for food. Everyone has to work, be they bees or humans. We’re just much more efficient at it. Which is why we have Trek.
Of course there’s no money.
Everyone is paid in Quatloos.
PS: And T4 was pretty good – I don’t get all the bad reviews. Were we watching the same movie?
“Warner Bros. said “Terminator” was likely more affected by the fact that their movie was complete crud.”
There. Fixed that for them. ;)
Marvel & DC Keep on Trekkin’
Bloody Brilliant!!
A lot of the cost associated with this film with the construction of the sets depicting the Enterprise. They can cut the budget some as the sets are already built. New sets of course require additional funding, but it won’t be a huge drain on the budget this time out.
#20:
cinemas don’t get any portion of the movie ticket, they make their money from concessions. also, where do you get this 150 million advertising figure?
the way you’re putting down these calculations, it looks like no movie would ever be profitable, and we know that a lot of movies are profitable.
Capitalism and replicator technology don’t mix terribly well.
#40, do you have a source for that claim? Usually the cost of the sets are a very small part of a film. Most film’s budgets go to talent first, then depending on the type of film it is, visual effects. then much farther down the list: sets.
Considering the lack of top talent, Star Trek’s money most likely went to visual effects first an foremost, then talent. Either way, sets are pretty low in a film like this. Check out TMP set construction budget for comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Motion_Picture#Design
only roughly $2M out of $45M. That’s only about 5% of the budget. Meanwhile those sets are continuing to cost money to be stored somewhere for a couple of years until they go into production.
However, some of that does cross-over to the digital modeling already completed. Unfortunately, the largest chunk of the money for the sequel will once again be visual effects, which arguably are what make this film successful with general audiences – the non-stop action visuals.
The next movie could still have a “blockbuster” budget without spending $150mm. Think of all the sunk costs in set design/construction and CGI modeling that would be a fraction of the cost in a sequel. A $100mm budget would go along way and leave us with a more profitable Star Trek 2(A). Especially now that we have a much bigger built in audience.
I have been researching each of the movies on wiki and noted that ST TMP’s sets cost around 2 million dollars. Anyone know how much the sets for ST09 cost?
I would hope that if Paramount wants to make a larger profit for the sequel they reign in some of the expenses. Using ST TMP as an example (which is a bit unfair considering some of the problems they had during production), TWOK came in costing 30 millions less (mind you, they cheated by reusing nearly 80% of TMP’s space shots).
Most fans consider TWOK as the best of the TREK movies (I actually prefer TMP), but TMP is a good example of showing big expenditures don’t always mean critical acclaim and profits.
I think TWOK has the highest profit range of all the TREK movies.
Point is: I don’t want to see Paramount cutting corners on the next film. Period. BUT I don’t want them pricing themselves out of profit either.
It is my hope ST2.2 is an entirely original story that utilizes Orci’s knowledge of TREK and pays further homage to TOS and its fans.
Two quick examples of money in TNG…
‘The Measure of a Man’ – Picard agrees to buy dinner at the end of the episode.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM9BwH_afOs
‘Bloodlines’ – Picard asks the man he thinks is his son what does for a living.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLoXUr3JpZE
#42, where are you getting your information? The theaters most certainly get a percentage of the box office, though the deals vary from venue to venue. Prices of popcorn have gone up with the ticket prices because the studios have offered less and less percentage of the grosses as the cost of making movies have gone up.
The $150 million marketing figure may come from this LA Times article:
http://theenvelope.latimes.com/la-fi-ct-boxoffice11-2009may11,3,3372044.story
However, it is not necessarily an official number form paramount.
And yes, very few movies recoup solely from box office. There is a very famous case where Art Buchwald sued Paramount over royalties which Paramount claimed they did not owe because the film which had earned over $350M in 1988 had not recouped its marketing and development costs. Most films today spend so much money up front they amortize the films costs over DVD releases and subsequent films. Ultimately they make money just not necessarily directly from the box office (or they would stop making them).
Anthony, does anyone know what percentage of ST09’s sales come from what is considered a non-fan… or new fan?
I mean, I am asking was JJ, Orci, Kurtzman and crew successful in drawing in a new audience? OR are the big profts mostly due to “your father’s TREK” audience turning out in big numbers to save Paramount’s ass with this big budgeted excursion?
Awesome that it is, Paramount clearly took a HUGE risk on this one! It seems to have paid off, but it doesn’t seem that the theatrical run is where they are going to make its biggest profits.. perhaps from DVD sales?
JJ & K/O have repeatedly expressed their desire to “respect” and “honor” Gene Roddenberry’s vision and what it has grown into. Yet, they seem eager to distance THEIR version of Trek from what has come before. I do not refer to superficial changes such as nacelles and uniforms. Or even to the more worrisome and clumsy circumvention of canon. What I refer to is the casual dismissal of the fundamental ideals, values and philosophy of this venerable institution (and the Federation).
As a young boy, the thing that most impressed me about Trek was its singular and bold vision of our future. Unique not only in science fiction but in popular culture. Now, Star Trek is just another shallow futurist spectacle. Indistinguishable from our world except for the cool spaceships and antagonistic aliens.
So, basically JJ & K/O liked the warp drive and transporters aspect of Star Trek (not to mention its accumulated pop cultural capital). They just chose to jettison all that embarassing utopian nonsense and impose THEIR own ideology into Trek.
Star Trek and the NBA against Terminator… wow, that’s a whole new level of excuses for me. Way to go, WB.
#50- What the heck are you talking about? Did you want the film to stop for a20-minute lecture of Federation sociology?
#49 I think you are overstating the issue. VERY FEW FILMS MAKE A PROFIT at the box office, Look at Trek’s competition, most of them have done no better and they had similar budgets. Paramount DID NOT TAKE A HUGE RISK WITH THIS FILM. (See my post at #34.) There is no way all of the Star Trek fans alone seeing the film 4-8 times accounts for the huge increase and steady box office of this film. There is too much anecdotal evidence as well that it’s not just Trek fans.
It simply boils down to this: making movies is a lot like buy a car now. One rarely pays the MSRP sticker price. Consumers go in knowing the Dealer Invoice and tend to settle on a price somewhere in between. The dealer has to pay for a certain amount of overhead and sometimes in order to move it sells a car he paid $45K on, for $46K (on a $52K sticker), figuring he’ll make it up on another sale, so long as it covered his expenses. The same with films. There is simply less profit to be had, but they must spend more to compete with other films.
Marvel vs DC via ST- ROTFLMAO!! Hil…ar…i…ous!!!
Okay, once and for all… in TOS, the system of barter ( which was purposely kept vague, since it would’ve sounded stupid to assume ‘dollars’, ‘lire’ ,’pounds’, or even – if they’d been around back then, ‘euros’ would be the going currency in the future ) was “CREDITS”.
This nomenclature provided a nice safe non-specific way of showing individuals paying for something when the script called for it. The most obvious example would be “The Trouble With Tribbles” where the bartender and Cyrano Jones are seen haggling over the going rate for tribbles. In the same scene, Uhura then asks how much the bartender is going to sell them for. before that, Chekov tells kirk that Uhura wanted to shop and he was going to help her. Spock later tells Nilz Baris that Jones has managed to “…eke out a marginal living…” buying and selling rare goods.
How many times did Kirk tell somebody that they had just ” earned their pay for the week”? If there was no form of money, how come the miners in “Mudd’s Women” were so certain that they had enough in ‘lithium’ crystals “to buy queens…by the gross!!” And Mudd himself anticipates a tidy sum for providing wives to “…overworked, RICH, lithium miners.”
Want more? TAS – “Mudd’s Passion”: Mudd intends to sell “phony” love crystals to ” …lumpheaded miners for a miserable 300 credits.”
And, even in Next Generation, in the pilot episode, “Encounter At Farpoint” Dr. Crusher tells the Bandi merchant that she wants a whole bolt of material, and to “… charge and send…”
Let’s face it. All the series were inconsistent about a lot of things, but, Roddenberry’s utopian vision, and a couple of idealistic speeches by Picard notwithstanding, there is plenty of evidence in all the series that the old “buy and sell” ethic still goes on in the Trek universe. Although one hopes that it’s not quite the dog eat dog affair of our current economic systems.
RE: profit, money, fan % etc
I usually keep my thoughts to the articles and dont want to bigfoot comments, but there has been a lot of back and forth and so here is my money addendum….
The world of studio profits is a byzantine accounting labyrinth and in some views no movie will ever make money. However regarding that LAT marketing number, i have asked a few sources at high levels about it and they literally laughed. Believe it or not, even with a huge budget (i think in the end it was around $142M), they were cost conscious with ST09. The engineering sets are an example of that, where they used a real location to save money. I believe the movie has already broken even based on what I know and I believe the next film will have a similiar budget, but maybe a bit smaller due to cost savings sunk in to doing the first one. Money is tighter in Hollywood now, with little to no money coming from the hedge funds. All hwood studios have cut their production schedules to less films for 2010/11/12/etc.
But in the end Paramount are very happy with the performance of Trek. It is doing better than expected domestically and about what they expected internationally (which they see as building towards the next one)
as for who is coming, it is a mix of the fans, the lapsed fans and totally new fans. Not sure what the mix was but it is playing with all groups. I think the fans played a large role in evangelizing the film. In a way that is why Paramount did so much with this site, AICN and others to help build the prebuzz and get the fanbase to work for them. You will see the opposite happening with T4, with the core fans telling their friends how much they hated the movie and hurting word of mouth.
As for comparing Trek to films from the 70s/80s, i still feel that is apples/oranges. The home market was much more limited then with nacent home video and broadcast tv. Now Paramount will be selling ST09 into DVD/Blu, pay per view, pay tv, cable tv. Plus they have all those product placement/merch partners.
Bottom line is that the rebirth in popularity of a flagging franchise coming shortly after the loss of Dreamworks is huge for Paramount.
Actually, Skynet is re-directing on-line ticket purchases away from T$ to Star Trek. Or new robotic overlords don’t want us getting any ideas,
I remember in one of the documentaries on the development of DS9 that Gene’s biggest dislike about the Space Station idea was the Gambling Parlor aspect, because it countered what he tried so hard to remove from TOS and TNG plus the movies. The removal of the monetary items. The aspect that let him accept the concept was that these were developing Societies that have yet to evolve past the money concept.
To me that may have been one of the many items that helped give DS9 a healthy life of 7 years.
To bad he left us to become The Great Bird of the Galaxy before they even started to bring the dream of DS9 into reality. Just remember money is the main key weapon that defeated the USSR with out no directly fired bullet hitting anyone.
It would be wonderful if mankind were Enlightened enough to produce a society that did not require money… certainly not in our lifetime, eh? There are too many people in the world who believe nothing is more important than $$$$, and then all the rest of us are struggling to acquire our pittance. Until something else becomes more important to mankind (and that is another topic entirely), we will all keep playing Lifetime Monopoly until our death takes us out of the game.
Meanwhile, the little lady and I saw Trek again last night, and we both were in agreement that our second viewing was as enjoyable as the first. The most significant thing about the film is the cast. Pine, Quinto, Urban, etc. really have taken on the characters, mixing the familiar with their own take, and they all did a wonderful job. I’m looking forward to more Trek!
@37:
It is funny, the classical understanding of liberalism is in several elements the opposite of socialism, and it’s still the understanding in Europe. In America, however, liberalism was at some point reinterpreted as welfare. And now socialism? I’ve read that nonsense several times recently.
By the way: No society had as large output in terms of scifi as the socialist ones, since utopia and progress were part of the ideology. I also think that their system failed, but your criticism is very superficial. Remember: At certain points in history, the East had better growth rates than the West. I don’t like real socialism either, but I just want to say that things are more complicated.
Anyway, for me the money-less world was part of the naive Trek fun, but as long as money and product-placement don’t become too prominent in the new Trek I’m ok with it.
Okay, I’ve spent a good chunk of the day working on this poster for Trek 2…even if it’s not actually called “Star Trek 2″ I think this would work. Obviously it is based on the huge letters “STAR TREK” teaser from the first movie but I switched it up enough that I think it would be fresh for this go-round. I am pretty proud of how it turned out…what do people think?
http://www.filedropper.com/startrek2poster_4
are you zombies? this means that it is slipping, like all movies do. why must you play every single action as if it is kicking butt? all movies slip each weekend, and star trek is no exception. and you zombies who praise it for slipping as if it were rising? what is wrong with you people?
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.
What is up with that DC/Marvel commercial. Wolverine as Bones? LOLWUT.
That’s absolutely hysterical. What a great thing to make my day. 83
I was just wondering, wether there is a date for the dvd release yet ?
61. – It’s kinda vague…might go over the average person’s head, but I like it.
62. – It’s not the fact that it is slipping, since, as you so eloquently say ” like all movies do”…it’s the fact that it is slipping a lot more slowly than previous entries, and is doing so well against big name competition that that was expected to move it down in the ranks fairly quickly. Pardon us for being slightly pleased about that.
In all fairness, the LA Times article which references $140M production budget attributes $150 million to marketing AND distribution. I think that figure has been misunderstood. Nevertheless it has not been confirmed by other sources.
Here’s a couple of good links that help explain the process for anyone who’s interested:
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-distribution.htm
The movie business book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=VtY5lQS29YgC&pg=PA169&dq
Variety:
http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2008/06/laff-mark-gill.html
Seen the movie 6 times already and it doesn’t get old. I’m actually going to see it again tonight with the whole family at a drive in movie theatre. This movie is so awesome! I’ll see it 10 more times hopefully!
I’ve heard from an inside source that paramount spent over 300 million promoting and marketing Star Trek. Add that wilth the budget and its clear paramount still has a long way to go before breaking even on this.
And we think the Trek timeline thing is difficult. Here’s one view of the “Terminator” timeline’s problems:
http://www.cracked.com/topic/254-the-terminator/
A lot of people are upset that The Sarah Conner Chronicles was cancelled so this stupid rushed Terminater movie could be released. I hope its out of theaters and on dvd by july 4th.
And it’s our 12th wedding aniversary today also. What better way to spend it seeing Star Trek!
That Video (DC/Marvel) was a laugh RIOT!!
Moneyless world? the way the government is taxing us/taking over businesses, -it will be!
The reports on Terminator’s box office were misleading. It opened Thursday — it has made closer to 60 million and still has memorial day which is a big box office day.
It’s going to come out higher although will remain unremarkable.
It was a lot better than Terminator 3. And different enough to seem original despite the fact that it wasn’t.
Overall I had an empty feeling inside, but I wasn’t DISAPPOINTED as I was with T3.
Well, about money in TOS, let´s not forget ST IV, in which Kirk said: “They still use money, ” when he was back in the 20th Century.
up to 4 viewings- 3 more people to see it with- and might see it by myself one last time since noone else ever wants to sit in the front.
The whole money system of Trek has been one issue I choose to ignore. I love the idea of a utopian scoiety but I am afraid of the implication. They tend to follow the ideas of Marxism, Socialism or Comunisim. Of course with the way things are heading here in America it won’t be long till “Herr” Obama has us there…Oh wait…Nevermind too late.
Sorry have to go, my number’s been called and I have to move up in the bread line.
@74
The Star Trek IV line was Gillian saying “Don’t tell me, they don’t use money in the 23rd century.” To which Kirk repled, “Well, they don’t.”
I think that the money issue is very important. An essential part of star trek legacy is the dream about a non-materialistic culture, about a life free of limitantions as we know them in this century. In that perspective, and i have to said that i love JJs work, i found very dangerous the “NOKIA” ringtone. I expected that in star trek world, there are no trademarks, corporations, and stuff like that.
Is like some day, Chekov push some botton and a Microsoft logo appears in the viewscreen. I love to see a Linux icon, or a free software reference, i think that was the spirit of Roddenberry.
Saludos desde Chile.
Have not seen Terminator except for the previews on TV and at the 3 ST showings I saw….my issue is that it seems so dark….After the past 8 years of 9/11 to the economic meltdown, I have no desire to sit through manking being exterminated, even if that is not the real theme. I want to believe the future is just beginning…
78:
Victor:
The issue of money is a tough one, and to assume that corporations will not exist is difficult. Competition breeds innovation.
The ominous interpretation of the Star Trek world is that the ‘military-industrial complex’ envisioned by Eisenhower in the ’50s has subsumed the world, and technology now allows crops to grow and harvest themselves. That being said, humanity (in JJ’s Trek) lives in giant bio-environments, and exists to build ships and other machines under a hierarchical structure where the best of the best (the military) invent, and the rest of us construct and produce. No unemployment, and barely any economic fluctuation. But the mansion overlooking the ocean goes to an Admiral and not to the guy stamping out communicators in a factory.
There has to be active commerce among the Federation worlds. Perhaps Earth builds cookie-cutter ships for the Vulcans and the Andorians, using human efficiency and Vulcan engines, etc. In return, Earth receives the benefit of Vulcan warp technology for its military. Very socialist, and precedented in Earth history, but also difficult to manage.
Within this environment, Earth salaries are set fairly, as are prices, and the upper class allows the masses the time and resources to build productive lives which are not tied to work. Perhaps it’s enlightened national socialism.
The “out” is via the military, Starfleet. Otherwise, as has been shown in Trek many times, one can leave Earth to colonize a new planet, most likely with a Federation grant, to leave the Earth’s economy behind.
It’s most likely that Kirk never had to earn a daily wage in his life in the 23rd century, being from a military family. And by Picard’s time, the system may have been perfected. But his family was rich as well, being French vintners.
There is no answer, unless someone wants to take a stab at writing one.
#79 – I saw Terminator: Salvation today with my brother and we both ended up liking it quite a bit. The ads for the movie really don’t give a good accounting of just want the film is about or its tone. The film does take place after a nuclear holocaust so its not exactly wine and roses. On the other hand, it does show people from different nations working together to defeat a common threat and its central themes about finding redemption and what it means to be human were well handled I thought. The movie has some very entertaining action pieces, a surprise “appearance” by a familiar terminator and some really good effects. The main cast all do a good job (especially our pal Anton Yelchin as a very young Kyle Reese). Hardly a masterpiece, but, much in the same vein as Wolverine, I don’t think it deserves the critical drubbing its been receivng and if you’re looking for a diversion between viewings of Star Trek, you could do worse.
Nope. You’re all wrong: it’s Heinlein’s world.
To get the Franchise, you have to join the Mobile Infantry or Starfleet, then go fight the Bugs on Planet P.
Sorry guys, there may be no currency, but there is always war.
“Would you like to know more?”
78.
Well said sir.
Donde mero en Chile estas?
The video was priceless, one of the funniest I’ve seen since the TOS vs. the TOB (the original Batman) spoof.
I hope someone will do an answer vid to that one of the death star blowing up the enterprise in SF bay.
@77
One easy way to reconcile that is already in play…
How many of us use printed currency/minted coinage for anything but (at most) a fraction of our daily transactions – but rely on transaction via e-payments/deposits, debit/credit cards, checks?
Even as someone at the trailing end of the Boomer generation, ‘money’ in terms of something from the Fed Res System or the U.S. Mint: money, is something almost never used in my daily transactions. Sometimes as a gratuity, or a small value purchase particularly when the alternative isn’t available (vending machine, for example).
As was referenced above, certainly there is conflicting canon for a ‘credit’ based monetary system.. The Trouble with Tribbles for example and the haggling over price… the **horrors** the concept of PROFIT by the trading post operator/barkeeper.
Re: TVH. What else would they do? Give an account number to the bus drivers or waiter that won’t exist for 200+ years?
I’m perhaps somewhat disinclined to put the Bird on too high of a pedestal, re: philosophizing about the future. Certainly Gene did his share of chasing the almighty buck (case in point, ask Sandy Courage, or think about the IDIC symbol marketed, conveniently, by Lincoln Enterprises). I don’t begrudge he and Majel for struggling to earn a living (or, his need to hold a day job during the ’50s to allow him to work at his obvious writing passion) at times in their lives during/after TOS, but it puts comments – perhaps – about the in a different light, or some huge psychological insight, re: his expressed philosophy about the future of money.
Oh sure, a moneyless world would be great, right? I mean “to each according to his abilities, and from each according to his means” has worked so perfectly in the real world. Communism always brings freedom, prosperity, and technological innovation, doesn’t it?
All this “no money in the future” stuff is a lot of utopian revisionism added after Roddenberry got high too many times, and too full of himself and the control he got on TNG.
TOS is full of references to Federation Credits and Starfleet investments in personnel. Harry Mudd still made “a living”, as did Cyrano Jones, various miners and others.
To my mind “no money” just means no cash or coins, not no money, Existence is impossible without some way to “store” the value of your work, goods, or services. In the future this is done via electronic credit, not by cash, coins, or checks. But to say there is “no money” is just ridiculous.
@ 80:
Socialism perhabs, but not national socialism. Be careful. The latter is based on an ideology that is certainly not present in the Trek future. And also, national socialism had no distinct form of economy, but was a mix of capitalism and state-planning, in which most of the organizations and companies were brought in line.
I had the impression that outside Starfleet there were flat hierarchies in the Trek utopia, and even Starfleet itself was not always thoroughly military.
Saw it for the 4th time on a DLP screen. Wow, it just gets better with each viewing. As far as TS goes, I won’t see that till this coming weekend, and I think once will probably be enough.
Just saw the movie and it was great!!! I have a question that I may have missed elsewhere, but at the end of the movie, what happens to Spock Prime? It kind of left you hanging. Has it been said what became of the character?
#89: Spock Prime implied on-screen that he would be off helping Vulcan culture rebuild on a colony.
48.
well, it sounds like you know your stuff. the theatre i worked at took no part of the BO gross… at least that’s what they told us. that’s amazing to OK $150M in advertising when the movie only takes in $400M in the best estimates.
i wonder tho, if the movie is from Paramount Pictures, and they advertise on MTV and all the Viacom channels, that’s all the same corporation, right? so this $150M figure might just be moving money around in different Viacom accounts and not all that dangerous because Viacom keeps it anyway.
80 and 86
First, my english is not very good. I´ll try to be clear.
I think that in star trek world, humanity has overcome not only the material expresion of money, but the very notion that “acumulation of wealth” is the “drivign force of our live” (the quote is from ST-FS, JLP). There is a complex debate in economy and sociology of what is money (i’m sociologist) but we´ll skip that saying that the money-form is and historical device that can be overcome, in the same way that money overcome others devices.
Roddenberry was not a communist, like the URSS-like-communism. In Latin América, and that´s a difference with other places, socialism, comunism, and comunitarism, are very diferent movements and concepts, and not all of them belong to the MARX-LENIN type of ideas. In late 60s the ideas of a future without PROFIT as the center of social live, were in every movement, religious, left, center, etc.
I think that a dream of a world center in human beeing, where the need-based-economy has been overcome, is no URSS-like-system “exclusive”. In that perspective, and searching a tendence in thousands of hours of television shows and movies, Star Trek always defend values in that direction. If you review the plot´s, it´ll be very dificult find things like the ones that articulate in Clint Eastwood movies. In the same direction, is very dificult that a trekie vote Bush.
Starfleet is a military institution, that´s obvious. But Starfleet does not rule the wolrd, there are a civilian and democratic goverment. I think that Starfleet is a proyection that try to figure out how a military institution will evolve in a new social system. That is the message that Gene try to spread in a cold-wolrd context. The energy spend in killing each others, could be spend in the search of knowledge, superation of poverty, etc.
The show has a center on the ship´s and starfleet. But i think that the name “Enterprise” is not a minor thing. Indeed, i think Gene is telling us that the driving force of a proyect, the typical capitalist-enterprise, and a military-cientific institution (generally moved by polithical corrupt power), could by thinked in other way, in a more “modern” or “advanced” way. There were no perfection, but a huge transformation, social, political and cultural. And that´s the esential message of Star Trek, the message of a possible beter world, a beter human been, etc.
I´m not a hardcore fan worried about continuity issues, if JJs Kirk fit with the classic one, of if Nero is breaking the cannon by the fact that is
recognized as a Romulan for the crew of Enterprise. But JJs MUST be loyal with the essential trek message. THAT IS the problem with a superproduction. It will be a nice thing to de advicers and sponsors that Star Trek spread the idea of a wolrd WITHOUT profits?, a wolrd WITHOUT money? a post-capitalist wolrd?. I hope that JJ keep the Gene´s legacy.
Saludos desde chile
#87:
“Gil, why NAAAZI Germany?”
93:
Well, that was on another planet. Not on the ones where our heroes live on. ;)
#91, Every theatre owner negotiates a different deal. But check this out to understand where I am coming from.
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-distribution2.htm
Your theatre may very well not be taking a direct percentage of the box office, but ultimately, that’s exactly what’s happening.
Also, when reading this, keep in mind Paramount is the “distributor” for most major markets too. And you are correct, Paramount is simply moving money around from one division of VIacom to the other. However, while all the money remains in the same pot so to speak, these divisions are independent companies which must reconcile budgets, profits and overhead. In particular Paramount is bringing in outside capital to pay for the film and MTV is turning away outside capital to advertise Trek, so they cannot merely give away air time. Paramount must pay for it as if they had no relation, though mutual sister company discounts may apply.
I have to agree with one of the previous posts that Trek’s “moneyless” society has been misinterpreted. Electronic credits have taken over as a common form of currency this making their world more akin to a “paperless” society. In a deleted scene from Trek VI Kirk tells Carol Marcus to take a look at his pension check, he can’t even afford to cross the street.
And just to point out some hypocrisy, Roddenberry dreamed of a liberal utopia when inventing TNG. A world where people wouldn’t be motivated by money or personal gain but by doing what’s right for the advancement of the species. And like a true liberal his ideals were better suited for others to follow. It is well known that Roddenberry often bragged about the lucrative syndication deals TNG brought him. I believe in the capitalist system, the very same system that rewards hard work and enginuity… Yep the same system that made Mr. Roddenberry a rich man.
Just imagine how huge the gross would be if Paramount had done a Star Trek panel at Comic Con!!! Harhar.
“Price you name, money I got” – McCoy, Leonard H MD – Star Trek III
Meanwhile, what’s with this neanderthal perception that sci-fi films such as “Terminator” and “Star Trek” are “more targeted at male moviegoers.”
Warner Bros (and anyone who thinks they have a point) need to tak a look at the number of women who
(a) are going to see the new film
(b) have been watching Star Trek for years
(c) wrote scripts/books for/about Star Trek
(d) go to Star Trek/Sci-Fi conventions.
Guess what fellas – some of us girlies actually LIKE sci-fi! (even without mentioning ‘hunky guys’, which TOS had in abundance).
I just got out of “Terminator Salvation” tonight, and all I have to say is that unlike “Star Trek”, I didn’t feel insulted. It was very entertaining, but above all, it was consistent.
With the advance of robotics and computers, jobs that require physical labour will be replaced by machines. This will allow humans to focus their time on science/inventions/art, in turn will lead to happiness and contributions to society/mankind. Yes we will still have money, but not in the traditional current form. Instead of thinking about one’s bank account and savings, perhaps people will focus on the next equation to allows a cure for x or a new type of propulsion system to allow for faster travel, in turn meeting new civilizaitons and leading to more knowledge.
The great thing about star trek is a diverse group of people free of racism and hatred, working together to achieve a common goal. Peace keeping, exploration and discovery. I imagine a civilization that has been around for millions or billions of years, enjoy gaining new knowledge and exploring strange new worlds etc. At their home world, they can choose to go to the beach (gets boring after 1 week anyways?) Put in x amount of hours into their chosen or assigned job function (garbage disposal, teaching, volunteer, programming, coaching etc.) A system built upon preference/skills and requirements to sustain the world. We are far from this type of model, considering most of us enjoy capitalism and that is not a bad thing, there are pros and cons to every system and like any system it can collasp and fail. The whole lining up for bread example is a extreme version of failure of communism. I don’t think any system that allows for people to be dependant on others for handouts will work either, lazyness will collasp a system built on productivity and creativity. Systems that take advantage of a group of people to sustain their own lifestyle would not work in the long run either, you will get revolts, riots and a revolution. The key is a balance and taking the pros of each model and not allowing for imbalance and corruption to collasp the system. Money is the root of all evil.
nice video!
Well done.
: )
No money….sorry don’t think that’s likely to ever happen.
100:
Contradictions to the “no money” model abound in Star Trek. The Regula One Genesis Project had to present to the Federation for funding to produce its torpedo. Dr. Soong obviously required some serious funding for his positronic brain products.
The “Roddenberry Future” also predicts a period when the military will be controlled by drugs. Best to let the subject drop.
Socialists say capitalists are obsessed with money. But the truth is, both center their life around money.
Capitalists try to earn money and expand their weath.
Socialists try to take money and make everyone equally poor.
The end.
The only thing i didn’t like about Trek were the occasional suggestions that earth was working as a socialist society. Something that would never work due to peoples inherent laziness.
A man who believes he should be paid for a day’s wages, proportionate to how much work he does and how much he produces is a capitalist.
People who believe in this, yet call themselves socialists, are lying about who they are. They’re capitalists.
But their envy and hatred for the rich blind them.
Thought-equity and luck sometimes also make men rich, and that’s great. Profit shouldn’t JUST come from physical sweat.
Go see it again everyone!
(You know you want to.)
#37 Well said. The public school system isn’t equipped to transmit the correct information about economics. Not using money is completely against human nature. Those that succumb to envy and the largess of the government are the ones who want a moneyless system.
Take from the achievers and give to the underachievers. Lower the bar. That’s what the government has ingrained in some people. Make sure everyone has the same, all are happy. …Not a chance, it’s been tried before and the result is the wreak and poverty of a people.
No currency, that’s absurd.
This entire notion of a “utopian, moneyless” society wherein people are motivated by “what improves a species” (whatever the heck that means) necessarily, but quietly, implies the two are mutually exclusive; that there is *no* way money can improve a species or society, which is utter and incontrovertible nonsense.
Monetary mechanics are a singularly powerful, if certainly imperfect, form of disciplining and motivating a culture to improve itself and to ensure the unpleasant aspects of life necessary to a functioning culture are accomplished. Capitalism creates the framework for which a person can receive economic compesnation for their skills and abilities, and incentive for others to cultivate and refine them, whereas the arbitrary pursuit of any passing whim would inevitably leave certain things perpetually undone. Socialism says everyone has the inalienable right to be equally miserable, equally unmotivated, equally uncompensated, and for their skills and talents to be equally unleveraged.
It has always been curious to me that those who most ardently embrace this utopian notion of an unmonetized society are quite often – but not always – those either with the greatest amount of disposable income to begin with, or the least incentive to work to acquire it in the implicit hope that someone else will provide for them the amenties of life such monetization affords.
Sadly, the latter is the dubious wisdom that is increasingly prevalent.
DC/Marvel/Trek mash up = Brilliant!
“From each, according to their abilities. To each, according to their needs”. That summarizes Marxist – Leninist – Maoist thought (Communism). A noble ideal and one worth pursuing, but are human beings too greedy to attain it?
The only way a monetary system will go away is if there is global economic collapse and ensuing anarchy, resulting in the dissolution of industry and governments. In other words, the world as we’ve seen it in Road Warrior.
Box Office Mojo is reporting estimates of 29 million for the weekend, dont know if that counts monday. so we are up to 191 mill… 200 mill seems EASY
*** No spoilers ***
@56 “You will see the opposite happening with T4, with the core fans telling their friends how much they hated the movie and hurting word of mouth.”
Love the Sarah Connor Chronicles, loved T1 and T2, liked T3, but T4
is a cross between The Road Warrior and The Matrix, and no where
near as good as either.
I hope that the disappointing 1st-weekend numbers do not dissuade WB from many more Terminator movies to come; I wanna compare Star Trek XIV to T7 in a few years. With Avatar, Harry, and Revenge of the Fallen on the way, and talk of a Trek sequel, I’m about to explode.
T1 – 4 crushed human skulls out of 5
T2 – 5 crushed human skulls out of 5
T3 – 2.5 crushed human skulls out of 5
T4 – 1 crushed human skull out of 5
T4 was loud, expensive, well-acted, and boring.
In the all-important criteria of 1) summer popcorn blockbuster and 2) re-watchability, my opinion is that Trek is still on top.
The sets. Keep the bridge, the corridors and the transporter room. Sickbay needs a rehab (into something resembling what we have seen on the series). Engineering needs to be built up from scratch to enhance the credibility of the next movie. Please, no more pipes and valves! We want a warp engine!!!
The production design of the movie was really hit or miss; I hope the deficiencies will be corrected for the sequel!
#97: “Just imagine how huge the gross would be if Paramount had done a Star Trek panel at Comic Con!!! Harhar.”
Surely, you jest.
Just came from my local multiplex on W. 68th St. here in NYC. 5:30PM SOLD OUT. Have tix for 7:30PM, and the lady said “that one will sell out, too.”
GO STAR TREK!
I just came from seeing Trek for the 8th time. Record for me. It was nearly packed. I was wonderfully surprised. Way to go Trek. Angels and demons just got phasered out of exsistence!!!!!!!
We can’t believe how generous many of you have been by seeing the movie more than once. Thank you so much!
Hey Bob Orci. I do not know how you are going to top this movie with the next. But I wish you all the Luck. I hope you can make me see the next one more then i have this one. Im already at viewing number 8.
119. Boborci – May 25, 2009
We can’t believe how generous many of you have been by seeing the movie more than once. Thank you so much!
You are more then Welcome.
“99. DGill – May 25, 2009
I just got out of “Terminator Salvation” tonight, and all I have to say is that unlike “Star Trek”, I didn’t feel insulted. It was very entertaining, but above all, it was consistent.”
It is hard to feel insulted about T4 when the movie was all about the robots. Not enough human element to the story. McG played it too close to the best. Special effects was awesome though.
It was consistent alright. But being consistent wasn’t a good thing. It needed to be better.
116. Yep, I WAS jesting! It was in reference to several folks here who had thought the sky was falling because Paramount didn’t have a panel for ST at Comic Con.
119. Thanks, Bob, for all that you (and JJ) have done! BTW, I’m taking a friend tonight for my 4th viewing!
I just thought of something – all other crews have a picture together. Does the new crew have one? PR or from the movie itself?
Again about money
Don’t forget that money in a capitalist world is not only a trade-device, is a merchandise it self. Money has a prize, and is purchased by millions of peoples. Indeed, the money-market is the central way of acumulation -but not valorization, that’s other thing- of capital in this particular period of modern history.
Money, as we know it, only can exist in a society driven by acumulation of welth. And there is a simple reason for this fact: welth, in a concret-expresión, can’t be acumulated by a minority of the world population. The values that welth raise, MUST be converted into a one particular flexible merchandise, that can, in the second movement, become MORE concret values: MONEY.
If some of you want to said that the humanity shall have ALWAYS a economic-system, with rules and equivalences methods for every type of value, that is OBVIOUS. Is necesary money for that? No.
Money, not only as a marchandise but as a cultural device, is absolutly NOT that, is not the only way posible.
I think that Gene rebelion about money is a rebelion against the culture of money, the culture of acumulation of welth as the central aspect of modern live.
Is ver obvious that we are not in the late sixties. No one believes now that a world could exist without money. But, if that kind of ideas are no longer essential part of Star Trek world, what is the diference between Star Trek and Star Wars?. Not only the money issue, but the discrimination, nationalism, end-of-poverty, equality between men and womens, etc etc etc.
The only thing i’m saying is that without those aspects of Star Trek legacy, the entire franchise is worthless. I hope, still, that JJ continues that filosofic point of view.
Saludos desde chile
Not everything Gene envisioned for Trek was a good thing. The first season of TNG, he put male crewmembers in miniskirts in an idiotic attempt to be “fair” regarding sexism. fortunately, that concept died a quick and painless death and was never seen or heard from again in any Trek show. The idea of no money may be OK, but there just HAS to be some kind of economic or value system in place.
No money in the future is just garbage from TNG (taking a joke made in TVH:STIV a step too far) and it’s clear that there is money in both TOS and ST09.
How could McCoy’s wife have taken everything from him but his bones in a divorce if there was no money?
Take his kids? Who cares – no alimony!
Take the house? Who cares – get someone to build him another one for free!
Take his vegetable patch? Who cares – someone can dig him a new one and not get paid for it!
Take his snakeskin jacket? Who cares – just get another one from a replicator!
I mean, the stupidity in the TNG era was obvious when you think about how hard it would be to function anywhere outside the Federation. Go to a Ferengi bar: how would you pay if the Federation won’t let its citizens earn money?
It’s actually quite frightening when you look at what Gene Roddenberry’s well-intentioned naivety turned the Federation into in TNG. A society where robotic humans consider themselves to be perfect and mock other species. A society where civilians can’t easily travel outside of the Federation because the government took away all their money. Sounds like the repellently evil Soviet Union under the mass-murderer Stalin to me!
It was a huge relief that Budweiser and Nokia turned up in the new film, showing people are allowed to make things and run businesses and get paid. So everything you do isn’t stolen by the state. ST09, to me, is the most hopeful Star Trek view of the future since STVI:TUC!
Utopianism, in its many forms, has sadly found itself at the foundation of many of the most destructive and repressive social “experiments’ of the last century. More fortunate were the societies that understood that humankind is inherently imperfect, disorderly, and filled with competing interests – a chaos which, unlike the frozen perfection of Utopia, can adapt to changing circumstances.
“How often mankind has wished for a world as peaceful and secure as the one Landru provided.”
“Yes. And we never got it. Just lucky, I guess.”
If you believe that’s very good that Budweisser and Nokia can show to the people that in Star Trek, is “allowed” to run businesses and get paid, so everything you do isn’t “stolen” by the state, i think you misunderstood everything about the importants issues on Star Trek.
You forget the reason why there was a black female on the birdge, why there was a russian pilot, why there are no poverty or wars, and why their live in post-capitalist world. Everthing that hope meaning in that time (late sixties), the bio-ethical conflicts in late 80’s, the end of cold war. You forget the meaning of episodes like the one about a Union in Quark’s in DS9 or The Cloud Minders (TOS). And virtualy, every deep thing that Star Trek want to say.
I hope that Enterprise can’t be sold by the military-industrial complex, that Warp technology can’t by copyrighted, that the ship’s computer have no “license” and do not belong to Microsoft. By your words, you shall be happy with those free-open-society things.
Saludos desde Chile, donde el Capitalismo es menos divertido que para la mayoría de ustedes.
Star Trek was visionary (again). World where “economy works bit different” and “people better themselves” rather then just get rich.
Maybe we aren’t there fully yet but still.
Q: What would happen if 30 years ago someone tried to convince serious IT business (like IBM, Oracle or Novell)- lets do the business where people work for free after their work hours to build something which is public property and is available for free to everyone?
A: Individual saying such a nonsense would end up in straitjacket with a nice dose of Haloperidol at least.
And here we are today using Apache web server, JBoss app server, Ubuntu and Fedora systems, watching video encoded with x264 codec, playing games on Android phones and experiencing WebGL on our newest browsers. More community stuff on its way! That’s the stuff build by people who just want to try their skills in something new. The ability to work with hottest technologies is rewarding enough.
Star Trek prophecy strikes again! We can scratch that one from Star Trek TODO list.