Admiral Buzzkill wrote:
A movies[sic] has to make double (actually its[sic] closer to triple now) it's[sic] production cost because what it[sic] is usually reported is the Gross Box office.
No. This simply isn't true, although people seem to think that if it's repeated often enough on the Internet it must be.
While the friendly discussion (
) on the artistic merits of big films like Trek, Iron Man, and Man of Steel are debatable, it still comes down to the subjective matter of taste. And I think we've all been guilty at points of using argumentum ad populum
when it aligns in favor with our subjective view, and pointing out the fallacy when we don't care for a particular film, tv show, sports team, soda pop, brand of car, political party, etc.
But, surely, the economics of filmmaking are not as opaque?
I think my first expousure to that idea was way back when Art Buchwald won a suit against Paramount
over "Coming To America" that would give him a percentage of the film's "net profits" . The film made $288 million by the way.
But, because of "Hollywood Accounting", Paramount said the film made no profit, and therefore Buchwald would get squat. Courts didn't agree with that assessment, and rather than have the dirty secrets of Hollywood filmmaking in regards to financing, profits, etc, aired for all to see (and open the entire stuidio system up for potential litigation from other parties that profit share) Paramount instead chose to settle with Buchwald, for the "undisclosed amount" that seems so prevelent when big business finds it cheaper to pay "hush money" regardless of the industry.
Superman Returns made money. Raimi's Spider films made tons, and the new one hasn't done too shabby (more importantly, Sony has to pump out Spidey films at regular intervals just to retain the rights to do so, and rebooting the series seemed the best course at that point, unless they wanted Roger Corman to make one on the cheap just to retain the rights
) Man of Steel will also make a princely sum.
And yes, Virginia, Star Trek Into Darkness will also make money (spoiler alert: it already has!). The studio can go with anybody they want to make the next one, but it's gonna be Bad Robot...
Now as to why someone who would go to see IM3 and MoS but not Trek, I can only speak from personal experience. Not enough spare time or cash. Try dragging a spouse or a significant other out to the movies 3 times within several weeks! Hire a baby-sitter, etc. For some, money might be tight, or the planning is a hassle. In my case, I just haven't gotten around to Iron Man 3 yet. I only saw the Avengers in theater, the rest I blind bought on Blu-ray and watched them all a week before the Avengers! (I admired Marvel Studio's ballsy plan of a shared movie universe, which seems like a no-brainer in the comic world, but for film making on the big scale, incredibly complex and audacious. I've always been a DC guy, but this won me over, even with some less than stellar movies in "Phase One"). I'll just buy IM3 when it comes out.
I imagine for some, Trek just fell in that same crack: "I'll get around to it!". Me? I already pre-ordered it, and the disc sales, PPV and rentals will also rack up great sales.
Now, if this is "Why isn't the movie I like and think is better than the other films not making as much as the other films are?"
question, do what I do and propose or dismiss whatever logical fallacy you choose! It helps me keep my cognitive dissonance buried deep inside!!