View Single Post
Old July 13 2013, 03:51 AM   #2786
Cinema Geekly
Cinema Geekly's Avatar
View Cinema Geekly's Twitter Profile
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

sonak wrote: View Post
Cinema Geekly wrote: View Post
Kruezerman wrote: View Post
I don't agree with it, I'm just putting it here, DON'T EAT ME.

"Its a modest success for several reasons. First, it cost almost $190 million to make, and Paramount spent a considerable amount of money on advertising above and beyond the production cost (at least $50 million, by one estimate). Second, not all of that $443 million goes to Paramount a significant percentage goes to the theaters that show the film (1/3rd to 1/2, depending on what is negotiated and how long the film runs). Finally, while it exceeded the International ticket sales of the first film, it did not have the 2X multiplier against domestic box office that other summer films (like Iron Man 3 or Fast and Furious 6) achieved."
The worst thing to come out of that article is the comments section. Unreal amounts of silliness in there talking about ditching Bad Robot and doing the next film for 70 million.

Yes, that will surely keep the franchise alive: Taking away the one thing that is saving it.

silliness or not, big budgets don't make a great movie. TWOK and TUC were shot on small budgets and are two of the best films in the series.
No argument there, but as it relates to Trek on the big screen?

The studios have found a system that works for them on the money making end and it doesn't look like lower budgets are coming anytime soon.
Cinema Geekly is offline   Reply With Quote