STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

OK my weekend predict is going to be:

Thursday: $2.83m +3.5%
Friday: $5.66m +100%
Sat: $8.2m +45%
Sun: $5.33 -35%

Total Weekend: $19.2m
Total by end of Weekend: $184.2m
Total of ST09 at same point: $184.5m

I don't think I am being too optimistic here? I am quite surprised it has turned out like that. It will be a 50% drop from Memorial Day weekend 3-day.

 

That's reasonable.

 

No. That's epic, just like STAR TREK.

 

For giggles,

Standard for Success: Profits 2x or greater than budget
Each x represented by a smile

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

$46,000,000 in budget (1979)
$143,224,565 in budget (2012)

$139,000,000 in profits (1979)
$432,787,274 in profits (2012)

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
$11,000,000 in budget (1982)
$25,760,629 in budget (2012)

$97,000,000 in profits (1982)
$227,161,917 in profits (2012)

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

$16,000,000 in budget (1984)
$34,811,262 in budget (2012)

$87,000,000 in profits (1984)
$189,286,237 in profits (2012)

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

$21,000,000 in budget (1986)
$43,279,789 in budget (2012)

$133,000,000 in profits (1986)
$274,105,334 in profits (2012)

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

$33,000,000 in budget (1989)
$60,173,880 in budget (2012)

$63,000,000 in profits (1989)
$114,877,408 in profits (2012)

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

$27,000,000 in budget (1991)
$44,828,015 in budget (2012)

$96,888,996 in profits (1991)
$160,864,496 in profits (2012)

Star Trek: Generations

$35,000,000 in budget (1994)
$53,386,565 in budget (2012)

$118,071,125 in profits (1994)
$180,097,481 in profits (2012)

Star Trek: First Contact

$45,000,000 in budget (1996)
$65,015,268 in budget (2012)

$146,027,888 in profits (1996)
$210,978,719 in profits (2012)

Star Trek: Insurrection

$58,000,000 in budget (1998)
$81,099,227 in budget (2012)

$112,587,658 in profits (1998)
$157,426,910 in profits (2012)

Star Trek: Nemesis

$60,000,000 in budget (2002)
$75,937,237 in budget (2012)

$67,312,826 in profits (2002)
$85,192,500 in profits (2012)

Star Trek (2009)

$150,000,000 in budget (2009)
$160,112,811 in budget (2012)

$385,494,555 in profits (2009)
$411,484,311 in profits (2012)

Star Trek, as a movie franchise, had its greatest success in the 1980s. I think that people expected the reboot would have the phenomenal success of other rebooted properties, but I think this brief survey shows that it hasn't happened. I think the new film may get one .

Here is a new article on the box office:
http://io9.com/whats-the-future-of-star-trek-after-into-darkness-510291083

After quoting another article which said that only 25% of people under 25 saw this movie, I read this in the above article:

That is a rather bleak assessment about the health and future of this franchise.

 

I'm losing all nerd cred at this point...

 

They really need an animated series at this point to begin building a new fan base.

 

Star Trek went up to comparable success to the 1980s movies when you take into account the nature of movie economics in the two eras. What you have to bear in mind is that the movie business changed dramatically in the 1990s and 2000s. Prior to that budgets were much lower, even adjusted for inflation, and theatrical box office was the primary source of revenue. Theatrical profits were the name of the game.

In the 1990s and 2000s budgets went way up - although the 1990s Trek films were kept under a much tighter leash compared to budgets in general - and home entertainment became a very important source of revenue, delivering more revenue than the studio's cut of theatrical box office. That, together with the development of foreign box office, which is particularly drawn to huge FX-heavy action films, kept budgets high and delivered the revenue to sustain those budgets. The much higher budgets of today means that theatrical profits alone usually won't match those of the most successful films from the pre-1990s era, but the business model isn't built on theatrical box office to the extent it was then.

 

WTF does this randomer from 'io9' know? Its a bullshit article by someone who knows nothing on a website that has no credibility within the movie industry. Just someone trying to score points.

Show me an article in Hollywood Reporter or Variety discussing this and I might be a tiny little bit concerned.

As for budgets, yes they have spiralled out of control enormously and I presume profit margins are lower across the board except for behemoths that do over $600-700m worldwide. There is not only box office here, there is DVD, Blu-Ray, TV, PPV, Rentals to come - something the 80s movies did not have.

 

Yep, I've been a hardcore fan since the early 80's. I've lost count of the times I've read about the proverbial death knell for Trek - only for it to return phoenix-like over and over.

 

I simply looked at the money that the films generated. I am aware of the changes in the model.

Paramount was expecting this franchise rebooted for the next generation would be as big as a hit as the comic book films, which were reboots of films made earlier. I think Paramount was expecting the same returns as one of those early 80s films, where the films were returning 5 to 8 times their profits. It hasn't happened, and erosion in the audience is occurring.

For Star Trek to work as a movie franchise, the property has to lose some of its "Trek"-ness, because the international audience demands that. And the film has to appeal to those who are under 25, who, from a corporate perspective, seem to have different expectations than a person over 25. (These people seem to like F&F 6, which is doing really well at the box office.)

I think there might be a third film in 2016. I am dubious about a TV show because of the costs associated with sci-fi shows.

(The 80s movies had premium channels, laser discs, and vhs.)

 

the fact remains that hardcore fans are mostly older and many of them have problems with this movie and JJ-Trek in general. And they're vociferous to boot.

That's the IMAGE. It's also easily provable via the IMDB board. It's been in the pits ever since we knew for sure that Cumberbatch plays Khan.

The problem with going after the juveniles is that unlike all those other comic book franchises, Trek does not have a superman/superbeing at its heart.

And the "Trekness" you speak of is in direct opposition to what brings those other franchises their mullah: casual and willful destruction of life and property.

That is in direct contrast to what Trek has always been and should be.

 

I think the lack of under 25s watching is down solely to the competition. I think the under 25s are the most likely to pass on Trek in favour of something else (FF6, Gatsby, IM3, Hangover) because it is not their first choice movie. If it is released in amongst less competition the percentage would be up like ST09 was.

Most under 20s will have been exposed to Trek TV shows from channel hopping. They probably think it looks dated and likely does not appeal to the majority of them at all. They also might compound that by catching a bad episode. So they wont give the movie a chance.

At some point the concept of Star Trek will become as dated to people as Flash Gordon from the 1930s does now. It will take a bold producer to really shake up the concept way beyond what Abrams has done to make it relevant again. Times change.

 

So you're saying that the less we see of "old" Trek (even TNG) on TV, the better for the reboot? Hmm.

 

Yes.

However I would prefer Trek stay on TV and everyone in the world of all ages experiences its awesomeness I just think that it might look dated now to today's teens and as a result might perhaps impact on that demographic at STID box office.

Let 1000 teens watch a random episode of any Star Trek and I think chances are 900+ won't like it.

The obvious antidote is a new TV show or cartoon.

 

The latter needs to inform analysis of the former.

No, they weren't expecting returns like that. Very few films with production budgets of $150-200 million gross five, six or seven times their budgets (The Avengers being one of those exceptions - maybe four or five films in that budget range will gross more than 4X or 5X their budgets per year, depending on how many uber-franchise sequels there are, and only on rare occasions will one go up to 6X or 7X its budget). If a film grosses 3X its poduction budget a studio will be thrilled under today's business model (unless it's a rare franchise that usually delivers higher) and if it grosses 2.5X they'll generally be satisfied. Even a lower return than 2.5X can lead to a sequel if the ancillaries are strong enough.

And they delivered far less revenue than resulted from the explosion in home entertainment revenue that occured in the 1990s.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if The Avengers had a $250m budget and a $250m worldwide ad campaign!

 

Modern action-adventure films are appealing to an international audience. Iron Man 3 speaks to an international audience. Changes were made to one of the characters so as not to offend the people of one country, a country with a large reserve of money.

According to one article, Paramount conducted focus groups across the world. These groups were asked what they wanted to see in the next film. Their response:

(http://whatculture.com/film/star-tr...-9-point-guide-to-rebooting-a-franchise.php/2)

{The article is snarkey, so if you aren't OK with that, don't read it.)

I would say that the new film meets most of those points. If you are a fan of Star Trek, is that the Star Trek you want?

I have observed that people can adjust to changes, if the changes are gradual. A major issue with the first film by JJ Abrams is that the changes weren't gradual - they were sudden and immediate. I remember as a kid being introduced to my dad's stepfamily when I was visiting him. I was expected on the first day that I met these new people to take on the role of a brother to a stepbrother and a stepsister I didn't know previously. I was resistance to the change. However, if the change was gradual, I might have acted differently. JJ Abrams could have introduced his vision of Star Trek with minor changes, and, once we had become comfortable with those changes, make a bolder statement with the second film.

 

Keep in mind the way people see movies has changed dramatically since the 1980s. I know a lot of people who never step foot in a movie theater these days. With the excellent home entertainment systems you can buy now, a lot of people will simply choose to wait for the Blu-Ray release.

 

Well, it's cheaper to see a movie at home and you can choose who you see the movie with.

 

I would say STID is more 'Star Trek' than ST09 personally. All the in-jokes and references that only the fans would get.

Yes there is action but I don't think its relentless and non-stop and it does not overshadow and detract from character interactions, it compliments them and moves the story along.

I realise that Paramount were told to get away from the 'Trekness' of it by international audiences but I think that was ignored completely by Abrams and they went MORE Trek. The difference was in the marketing. Paramount marketed the action and destruction just like the focus groups wanted. All they needed is action and destruction to throw in the trailers to market the movie more effectively overseas and they got it.

Its just a new producer that is doing things differently and has brought with him his own unique look and style that is new and fresh and just what we needed. This has happened before in the Star Trek franchise!

I would say Trek has fundamentally changed itself on a number of occasions under different producers. Roddenberry on TOS and then TMP. Bennett from TWOK to TUC. Roddenberry again changed everything on TNG. Berman made DS9. Enterprise again was a change in styles and era etc. Now we have Abrams. I think it is a refreshing new angle but I have some trouble with the writing which I will get over eventually

Changes in the look and style and production of Star Trek from the sets to the ships to the stories have occurred:

TOS > TMP > TWOK > TNG > DS9 > ENT > ST09

So it has re-invented itself 7 times with 5 different producers.