RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,387
Posts: 5,505,199
Members: 25,128
Currently online: 492
Newest member: krash661

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

Rumor Mill: Saldana Gives Birth
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 10 2013, 06:30 PM   #1921
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

johnjm22 wrote: View Post
If you adjust all the older TNG & TOS movies for inflation, this is where STID stands domestically right now:

The Motion Picture...............260M
Star Trek 2009....................257M (140M Budget)
The Voyage Home................235M
The Wrath Of Khan..............216M
Into Darkness...................200M (190M Budget)
The Search For Spock..........180M
First Contact......................166M
Generations........................142M
The Undiscovered Country....141M
Insurrection.......................118M
The Final Frontier................104M
Nemesis.............................59M


Factoring in world wide numbers, and the film's budget, it doesn't look like STID is going to be any more profitable than ST2009 (maybe slightly less).

I think that's a bit of a disappointment for Paramount.

Hopefully they'll cut the budget for the next film which will force the writers to focus more on story and less on FX/action. Sometimes limitations are the best thing for creativity.
So what you are saying is that due to the increased budget for STID it'll end up about as profitable as ST(2009). Couldn't that indicate that they managed to grow the audiance in certain markets? How is that a bad thing?


Sure they might cut the budget back a bit for the next film but if they do I suspect it'll be to around US$170m.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 06:36 PM   #1922
johnjm22
Lieutenant
 
Location: California
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

CrazyHorse89 wrote: View Post
This film has cracked the overseas market in a way that no previous Star Trek film, including ST09, ever has. What's more, it's shown strong legs in important markets like China.
46.8% of STID's current revenue has come from the foreign market, which is an improvement over ST2009's 33%.

However, most big budget summer movies have about 60-70% of their revenue come from overseas markets, so Star Trek is more dependent on the domestic market than most.

Paramount spent more to make this film, so it's going to be less profitable even if it does a little better overseas. How is that not a disappointment financially?

Other big budget summer movies are pulling in a lot more.
johnjm22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 06:38 PM   #1923
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

johnjm22 wrote: View Post
If you adjust all the older TNG & TOS movies for inflation, this is where STID stands domestically right now:

The Motion Picture...............260M
Star Trek 2009....................257M (140M Budget)
The Voyage Home................235M
The Wrath Of Khan..............216M
Into Darkness...................200M (190M Budget)
The Search For Spock..........180M
First Contact......................166M
Generations........................142M
The Undiscovered Country....141M
Insurrection.......................118M
The Final Frontier................104M
Nemesis.............................59M


Factoring in world wide numbers, and the film's budget, it doesn't look like STID is going to be any more profitable than ST2009 (maybe slightly less).

I think that's a bit of a disappointment for Paramount.

Hopefully they'll cut the budget for the next film which will force the writers to focus more on story and less on FX/action. Sometimes limitations are the best thing for creativity.
Youre figures are incorrect, ST09 is first with an inflation adjusted number of $274 million.

When all is said and done, STID will make close to $500 million from BO alone. Roughly $110-115 million more than ST09. If it makes anywhere near ST09's $101 million for DVD, or another $50 million for bluray along with the rights for cable, the final tally minus merchandising will be upwards of $650-675 million. You're simply wishing it wasn't so, but the numbers don't back you. Fail

RAMA
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 06:39 PM   #1924
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

johnjm22 wrote: View Post
Paramount spent more to make this film, so it's going to be less profitable even if it does a little better overseas. How is that not a disappointment financially?
You don't actually know what Paramount spent to make this film. You've just read the public figure for the overall production budget.

It cannot have escaped your notice that Paramount has financing partners on the nuTrek films. Do you know what their investments are, what the structure of their deals are, and what they actually intend to accomplish with their investments?

(Credit will not be given for "to make as much money as possible, duh," or the equivalent. )
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 06:52 PM   #1925
johnjm22
Lieutenant
 
Location: California
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

RAMA wrote: View Post
Youre figures are incorrect, ST09 is first with an inflation adjusted number of $274 million.
You apparently didn't read the first sentence of my post.

RAMA wrote: View Post
When all is said and done, STID will make close to $500 million from BO alone. Roughly $110-115 million more than ST09. If it makes anywhere near ST09's $101 million for DVD, or another $50 million for bluray along with the rights for cable, the final tally minus merchandising will be upwards of $650-675 million. You're simply wishing it wasn't so, but the numbers don't back you.
I never said it wasn't profitable; just not as profitable as paramount hoped. It's not going to make anywhere near as much as similarly expense summer time movies. I think Paramount was hoping to get it up into that echelon, and it just hasn't worked out.
johnjm22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 07:05 PM   #1926
johnjm22
Lieutenant
 
Location: California
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
You don't actually know what Paramount spent to make this film. You've just read the public figure for the overall production budget.
Do you doubt that the film cost a similar amount as other summer time special FX laden big budget movies?

The movie's budget has been reported by multiple reputable publications. Of course no one knows the exact amount, but I don't think anyone would dispute that it's in the ball park of 200M. That's just what it costs to make a film like that today.

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
It cannot have escaped your notice that Paramount has financing partners on the nuTrek films. Do you know what their investments are, what the structure of their deals are, and what they actually intend to accomplish with their investments?
Too much unknown to speculate here. But it seems likely to me that the ROI on STID, isn't as high as it contemporaries for most parties involved.

Again, Paramount goes out and gets Abrams, ramps up the budget, and makes "nuTrek" a summer time release for obvious reasons. Revenue wise, it's just not living up to films that get similar treatment from their backers.
johnjm22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 07:06 PM   #1927
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
Yep. Paramount is disappointed with the domestic gross but happy that their strategy for building Trek up in the international market is working so well.

The bottom line is this: another Trek movie in three years, written and produced by Bad Robot in the successful style of their last two Trek movies. Will the budget come down a bit? Maybe so.
I think many, many folks were probably too optimistic about the domestic gross. In the Bond franchise, "Skyfall" rebounded off a not so good "Quantum of Solace" to make $300 million, domestically. Seeing that, I'd have easily bet STID could follow ST09's $257 million with $300 million. Maybe the four year gap in the movies was too long. Then again, it was four years between "Quantum of Solace" and "Skyfall", so who knows? The Bond movies were November movies, too. The movie world is fickle, I guess.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 07:08 PM   #1928
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

johnjm22 wrote: View Post
You apparently didn't read the first sentence of my post.
The sentence where you acknowledge skewing the scales by adjusting all the box office grosses for inflation except for Star Trek (2009)? Admitting that you're doing something nonsensical doesn't mean it suddenly makes sense.

To your other point, the movie isn't going to be the biggest hit of the summer, but it will likely be among the top ten domestic grossing films of 2013. Worldwide, it's performing far better than any film in the franchise ever has. Speculating about Paramount's financial hopes for the film without a bit of evidence is a waste of time (i.e. "I think Paramount was hoping to get it up into that echelon, and it just hasn't worked out").
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 07:11 PM   #1929
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Franklin wrote: View Post
Maybe the four year gap in the movies was too long. Then again, it was four years between "Quantum of Solace" and "Skyfall", so who knows?
Or maybe Bond > Trek.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 07:41 PM   #1930
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

johnjm22 wrote: View Post
Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
It cannot have escaped your notice that Paramount has financing partners on the nuTrek films. Do you know what their investments are, what the structure of their deals are, and what they actually intend to accomplish with their investments?
Too much unknown to speculate here.
Exactly.

That's the only statement that matters.

This is why with the exception of extreme cases - obvious failures or unexpected successes (see The Purge, this week) online debates about whether this or that big budget movie is "more profitable" are flat-out bullshit.

You don't have the basic information you'd have to have to determine whether Paramount is making, or stands to make, more or less profit on STID than on ST '09. You simply don't. You only know the reported production budgets and the reported gross box office for the two films. Any conclusions you're drawing at this point might as well be divined by casting sticks or reading goat entrails.

You can follow what you consider to be logical inferences as far as you like, but in the absence of real information the most logical of conclusions is meaningless.

Here, let me make this clearer:
  1. Paramount would like to have made more money on this movie than they have;
  2. Paramount predicted that they'd make more money on this movie than they have;
  3. This movie is making less of a profit for Paramount than the last Star Trek movie.

Even if one grants both of the first two statements as likely true, the third statement does not necessarily follow from them. Do you understand?
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 07:55 PM   #1931
mos6507
Captain
 
mos6507's Avatar
 
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Phily B wrote: View Post
I feel like people saying "it's not Star Trek" have an idealised version, instead of an actual version that the rest of us watched.
People decide what they want to 'support' and put on rose-colored-glasses accordingly. That goes for purists and JJ fans alike.
__________________
Fem Trekz on Facebook
mos6507 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 07:56 PM   #1932
throwback
Captain
 
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Quantum of Solace is generally regarded as a weaker film than its predecessor, Casino Royale, and some felt the plot was incomprehensible. Skyfall is a far better written film that the general audience embraced, and became the first Bond film to make over $1 billion at the box office.

The formula and its elements for the Bond franchise was established with the first film, and, as is the case with all the very good and best films of this franchise, Skyfall succeeded because everything clicked.

An example of a franchise where they had to change direction because they were running into the proverbial ceiling, like Star Trek, was Fast and Furious. Previous films in this franchise had focused largely on the car racing. With the last two films, the focus has been less on the racing, which is now considered an aspect of the story. The latest film has grossed over $500 million worldwide.

Admiral Buzzkill

There is a fourth criteria which you failed to mention. Paramount was hoping to increase the percentage of international audience members who bought tickets to see this movie. Both the domestic market and the purchase of post-release copies of a film are shrinking. (I have read about both being cited as the reason that corporations are pushing harder for their films to succeed overseas.)

There are general rules of thumb. One such rule states that a film has to make twice its budget to be successful. ST:ID will meet this benchmark.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 08:02 PM   #1933
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

So, after Star Trek ran into its ceiling and faltered early in the 21st century, Paramount changed the direction of the franchise and is now going from success to success by letting Bad Robot do it their way.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 08:05 PM   #1934
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Studios will always want to make more money at the box office, this is true of a film that only takes US$50m, or one that takes US$3bn.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 08:09 PM   #1935
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
Any conclusions you're drawing at this point might as well be divined by casting sticks or reading goat entrails.
I wish you'd have made that clear three days ago before I sold my goat herd !
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.