Odds n' Evens[]
Should there be some mention of the "Star Trek Movie Curse" around here? Caswin 17:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- And not just the odds/evens; any multiple of 5 is especially bad (The Final Frontier and Nemesis) AyalaofBorg 07:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- No. — Morder 07:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, indeed. --From Andoria with Love 15:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- No indeed, indeed. --86.140.186.173 22:57, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
- No, indeed. --From Andoria with Love 15:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- No. — Morder 07:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Films 11 and 12[]
It seems a bit odd to me to have Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness listed in different sections. We know that the next film will also feature Kirk, Spock and co. as seen in 2009's Star Trek, don't we? We haven't really determined how we're going to indicate the new continuity (although articles with the suffix (alternate reality) are being created), but I think it makes sense to list them together. Would anyone object to the tables being divided into "Original Series" (identified as films with the cast of the original series), "Next Generation" and whatever descriptor we end up with for the new crew, instead of putting Star Trek (2009) together with the first six films? —Josiah Rowe 06:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- what about listing them as "Original Series/New Cast" or "Original Series/New Timeline" or "New Original Series" or how about calling it ""Original Series Phase II" as a plug about the TV Show Phase 2 that failed – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 98.163.104.65.
- In all practicality ST XI and ST XII probably should just be listed as 'alternate timeline'. After all there are quite a few points that are actually outside the established classic ST cannon. After all, what's a ST universe without a planet Vulcan or Ch'Rihan/Ch'Havran?66.72.201.81 14:49, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest purging any mentioning of JJ Abrams abominations. The original authors worked hard to create a somewhat consistent universe, and Memory Alpha did an outstanding job documenting all that. Integrating JJ's inconsistent junk would taint years and years of hard work. —76.181.132.64 08:49, 19 APR 2015 (UTC)
Sub-heading for "Appearances" sections[]
Had a question for the community. Where does Star Trek fall for the sub-heading in the "Apperances" sections on articles. On Earth's page, it is listed under TOS films, while on Vulcan's page, it is listed unter TNG films. Both sub-headings link back to Star Trek films. Should the new film (and the possible sequel) mimic what is already here ("Alternate Reality" films)? Just wondering. ---- Willie LLAP 20:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Inflation numbers[]
We have a minor edit war going on. Do we even need inflation numbers? First of all, they're not accurate (for example, TMP's gross adjusted for inflation is closer to $239 million, not $240 million, and it's difficult to get an exact number anyway), and second of all, as Morder pointed out, they're not as valid as comparing the current price of a ticket. Add to that the fact that they're just polluting the page with more numbers. So, I ask: are inflated numbers really necessary? --From Andoria with Love 22:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- As I said, elsewhere, The numbers aren't necessary because the cost of a ticket has gone through the roof since the movies were first shown...so no, inflation means nothing. — Morder 22:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it does explain how much the movies made, in relative terms. I mean, a studio exec doesn't care if a ticket is $1 or $100, as long as they're bringing in the $$$. I think from the perspective of profitability (rather than popularity) it's a valid lense of analysis. And as we all know (by the lack of Star Trek on television right now) profitability matters to the franchise. I think it's a legit method of analysis and should remain. --- Jaz 18:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
It's an estimate of how much a movie made, at best. It's based on the average ticket price at the time not the actual ticket price. It's a very rough estimate, nothing more, and we really don't need to add an extra column for what is, for all intents and purposes, a made-up number. --From Andoria with Love 04:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Fourth alternate reality film[]
Per the news on the front page, where is/should the possible fourth film (be) listed? Future projects, or on the strength of that article, Star Trek XIV? --LauraCC (talk) 18:37, June 27, 2015 (UTC)
- The news are already listed. Please read before floating the talk pages. Thanks. Tom (talk) 18:46, June 27, 2015 (UTC)
I guess as it's just rumors it doesn't get its own page yet. --LauraCC (talk) 18:54, June 27, 2015 (UTC)
Profit[]
The profit margin spot is a little unreliable. Movie studios don't get all of the money from ticket sales, so the percentage is not right. What I mean is that if a movie makes $100 million (for example), the movie studio does NOT get $100 million. Contracts differ, but typically studios get about half of the box office revenue and the theatres get the other half. So with Star Trek XI, the studio actually only got about $192.5 million of the $385 million it grossed (well, actually the studio probably got even less than that as they tend to get less of the foreign box office). I know that would be harder to calculate, though it would be more accurate than saying that movie had a profit margin 276% when it's profit margin was far smaller (like closer to 129%) and a movie like Nemesis actually LOST money considering the movie had a budget of $60 million and the studio only got about $32.5 million. TJ Spyke (talk) 21:14, September 19, 2016 (UTC)