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

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by RAMA, Apr 26, 2013.

  1. BillJ

    BillJ The King of Kings Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    America, Fuck Yeah!!!
    I'm not sure it would be the same movie at $100 million.
     
  2. Harvey

    Harvey Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2005
    You could make a Star Trek movie for $100 million, but you couldn't make one like Star Trek Into Darkness (or Star Trek (2009) for that matter).
     
  3. AbramsIsSatan

    AbramsIsSatan Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Don't think Paramount is getting what they wanted when they dumped another $40 million into the budget. This won't outgross 09 Trek from the looks of things, particularly from a domestic standpoint.

    In fact, pay particular attention to the 10-day gross. It's far behind 09 Trek.

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=trekshowdown.htm

    Hopefully this spells the end of Lindelof, Abrams and Co!
     
  4. BillJ

    BillJ The King of Kings Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    America, Fuck Yeah!!!
    Since they have a contract for three films, I doubt it.
     
  5. OpenMaw

    OpenMaw Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    May 26, 2013
    Location:
    Everett, Washington
    The worst thing that will happen is they'll drop the budget down a little bit. Which won't necessarily be a problem. They have a lot of standing sets and props from two films now, they can still make it work for say 120 million.
     
  6. Out Of My Vulcan Mind

    Out Of My Vulcan Mind Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Wherever you go, there you are.
    Star Trek's 12-day gross was $155,536,131. STiD's is $156,013,879. STiD will likely fall behind some after the third weekend domestically, but it's making significant gains in foreign box office.

    They may well trim the budget, but I can't see them going below $150-160 million.
     
  7. thumbtack

    thumbtack Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Ankh-Morpork

    Extremely.
     
  8. Dream

    Dream Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2001
    Location:
    Derry, Maine
    They reduced the budget from TMP to TWOK and also TFF to TUC. It's something Paramount in the past has been shown to do to cut costs.
     
  9. AbramsIsSatan

    AbramsIsSatan Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    They will likely "mutually agree to go a different direction". It happens all the time.

    Do you really believe that Abrams will go directly from Star Wars back to Star Trek in May 2015?

    I certainly don't.
     
  10. AbramsIsSatan

    AbramsIsSatan Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    And they were better for it.
     
  11. Out Of My Vulcan Mind

    Out Of My Vulcan Mind Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Wherever you go, there you are.
    Abrams won't direct the next Trek film. His schedule won't allow for it. Bad Robot will still be involved, though.
     
  12. OpenMaw

    OpenMaw Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    May 26, 2013
    Location:
    Everett, Washington
    Well, it's not just about how much it makes back. It's about how much it cost to make. Those two numbers, along with whatever was spent for advertisement, should always be considered when discussing the box office return.

    Examples. If you spend 80 million on one movie, and then 120 million on the next, and your returns are 150 and 155 respectively, you've just barely gotten yourself out in front of your budget the second time, and hardly made any traction in expanding the audience. Some will respond to that by saying that the foreign markets are doing much better this time around. Yes, that's true, but they had to buy those numbers in advertisement. That could give the studio significant pause on putting another big budget down.
     
  13. Flake

    Flake Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    They should make it in another country instead of in LA. Maybe China? Gotta be cheap in China! ;)
     
  14. MacLeod

    MacLeod Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Great Britain
    Well then can always follow SW and film in the UK.
     
  15. Harvey

    Harvey Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2005
    To split hairs, Paramount didn't reduce the budget between the fifth and sixth features -- they just kept it the same. According to Nick Meyer's book, at least one higher up at Paramount (I forget who) regretted they didn't spend more money after seeing the finished movie.
     
  16. Chrono85

    Chrono85 Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Location:
    USA
    I'd imagine it is cheapest for Paramount to film on their own lot in California :) If not that, then some states in the midwest are offering big tax breaks to bring in movie studios, but they would have to choose the right time of year, because it can get very cold in the upper midwest.
     
  17. StevenM

    StevenM Ensign Newbie

    Joined:
    May 29, 2013
    Location:
    Dundas, Ontario, Canada

    I doubt they would film it in China or any other country, it would likely be to expensive to ship all the sets.
     
  18. Dream

    Dream Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2001
    Location:
    Derry, Maine
    Where did they film STID? At least they won't have to rebuild all the Enterprise sets if they kept them in storage, which saves a ton of money.
     
  19. RAMA

    RAMA Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1999
    Location:
    USA
    I predicted a $180 million international gross... But said if China made $30-35 million it could bring it up to $200 million.

    wow stid only lost 32%....goaod reviews and wom!
     
  20. Robert_T_April

    Robert_T_April Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Location:
    Yesterday's Enterprise
    Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country cost approximately $30 million to make which I'm not sure what the equivalent is today. Maybe $100 million?

    That movie was so well written, and masterfully directed by Nick Meyer that it was a huge success. To me, from the score...sound and special effects and writing, it was really a beautiful movie...the best in the series IMHO.

    My point is that you can do more with less if the movie is written, directed, and produced properly. What's sad to me, and I hope that I'm wrong, is that after Star Trek 3 is released, it will be a miracle to re-assemble this cast in it's entirety for a 4th Trek. There is always a sour apple or two in the group that won't want to come back, or will want an exorbitant amount of money to do so.

    I loved Into Darkness but, $190 million to me is a ridiculous budget for a Trek movie. I hope this franchise goes on for many more movies but, it's not likely due to these escalating budgets. Again...I hope I'm wrong.