RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,560
Posts: 5,513,979
Members: 25,146
Currently online: 533
Newest member: TM2-Megatron

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


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 22 2013, 11:17 PM   #2371
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Beyerstein wrote: View Post

That stuff is all irrelevant though. If you just wanna compare what kind of business two movies did you just wanna know how many people went and saw this movie and how many people went and saw that movie.
Except people are motivated (or not motivated) to see movies in the theater in different generations (as my list attempted to explain). Thus comparing past movies to current movies by ticket sales (or any means for that matter) is like comparing apples to oranges. You simply cannot.
__________________
Now that I've seen it, and have also had time to mellow, to really think about it, I now find it absolutely, unbearably repulsive in every way except for some of the acting. - about The Wrath of Khan. Interstat, Issue 62: 1982
Opus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2013, 11:38 PM   #2372
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]

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Oh, good grief. Moving on....
What ? I simply don't care about tickets NOT sold.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2013, 12:22 AM   #2373
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

I think they should try for Christmas 2015 for the next movie! That would be great. No point leaving it for too long between movies again. 50th anniversary can still be celebrated some other way, like a new TV show or even a spinoff Abrams-verse movie.
Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2013, 12:22 AM   #2374
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Once you've answered that, apply it to a different era, when there were far fewer theaters, like, say, the silent era in 1915.
Are you sure there were fewer theatres in those days?

Once upon a time, every suburb in Australia had a picture theatre. It was the only way for the general public to see visual news ("newsreels") and cartoons. Many of the buildings still exist today, but most got turned into supermarkets, car showrooms or office complexes in the 60s (competition of TV), McDonalds restaurants or video rental shops in the 80s. The successful suburban ones were eventually divided up into multiplexes. It would be a similar story for the US?

The law of supply and demand. It's not as if good films ever had trouble finding audiences. Or that people missed out on seeing movies because it was hard to find a cinema. Rural towns ran "picture shows" in local community halls - and even tents.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2013, 12:24 AM   #2375
Dart
Commodore
 
Dart's Avatar
 
Location: Co. Kerry. Ireland
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Sindatur wrote: View Post
Opus wrote: View Post
throwback wrote: View Post
And it's getting harder for the blockbuster films to recoup their costs. For "Man of Steel", a film with a budget of $225, to be successful, it will need at least $450 million in profits.
This is a bogus fallacy that's been bandied about these boards for years. Untrue.
I don't think Throwback means what was posted. I believe what throwback meant was MoS needs to take in about $450M in order to show a profit. It would be insane to say it needs to have $450M in Profit to be successful, it would need to take in about a Billion to cover a $450M profit

Basic formula that's used around here, I believe is,
Budget + half of Budget for Marketing = Break Even/Profitable
Studio only gets about 1/3 of Foreign Box Office

STID:
$190M Budget + $95M = $285M
$214.5M Domestic + $67M (1/3 of $201.7 Foreign) = $281.5
This is with a current figure of $416M

So, The other 4 countries who are to still to release it, The DVD/BD, TV sales and Netflix is all gravy, because the box office has already covered the cost of making the film (The Studios don't want to consider After-theater in Profitability, they want that all to be gravy)

How much Man of Steel needs to bring in, depends upon what percent is Foreign vs Domestic
Seems throwback wasn't clear enough but Opus is on the ball.

The point was made that this whole "formula" you're using which seems to be quoted a lot is in fact rubbish. Let's see some real document from the studios to prove it!! Personally I can't see any business being run in such a terrible way - except banks and they destroyed the economy of a lot of the western world over and over. Sad but true.
__________________

Dart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2013, 12:41 AM   #2376
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Dart wrote: View Post
The point was made that this whole "formula" you're using which seems to be quoted a lot is in fact rubbish. Let's see some real document from the studios to prove it!!
The "formula" being touted is one I recall being explained by "Starlog" magazine in the early 80s, but the filmmaking world has definitely moved on from there. "Creative accounting" has hidden many costs of some films.

Home video sales are definitely not counted. A film from the 60s can be released on Blu-Ray today for its first time and that money (mostly gravy) won't get added to its old 60s totals.

I also recall discussion about "Batman Returns" in 1992. Potential licensees had been caught on the hop by the surprise blockbuster that was "Batman" (1989) - the tie-in rights had been "too cheap" - and Warner Bros made an absolute killing on the sequel by preselling the rights (to sell international spin-off merchandise rights) to lots of little promotions companies all over the world (who didn't make their money till they sold enough local rights). They sold the rights to sell the rights! As it was told to me, Warner Bros and DC Comics made enough money on this new business model that the film had theoretically already paid for itself before release. But, of course, this money sat in a different pot and wasn't "counted" in final totals. (And, of course, many once-tiny promotions companies all over the world went to the wall because they failed to sell enough rights. But Warners already had their $$$$$)
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2013, 01:57 AM   #2377
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Dart wrote: View Post
Sindatur wrote: View Post
Opus wrote: View Post
This is a bogus fallacy that's been bandied about these boards for years. Untrue.
I don't think Throwback means what was posted. I believe what throwback meant was MoS needs to take in about $450M in order to show a profit. It would be insane to say it needs to have $450M in Profit to be successful, it would need to take in about a Billion to cover a $450M profit

Basic formula that's used around here, I believe is,
Budget + half of Budget for Marketing = Break Even/Profitable
Studio only gets about 1/3 of Foreign Box Office

STID:
$190M Budget + $95M = $285M
$214.5M Domestic + $67M (1/3 of $201.7 Foreign) = $281.5
This is with a current figure of $416M

So, The other 4 countries who are to still to release it, The DVD/BD, TV sales and Netflix is all gravy, because the box office has already covered the cost of making the film (The Studios don't want to consider After-theater in Profitability, they want that all to be gravy)

How much Man of Steel needs to bring in, depends upon what percent is Foreign vs Domestic
Seems throwback wasn't clear enough but Opus is on the ball.

The point was made that this whole "formula" you're using which seems to be quoted a lot is in fact rubbish. Let's see some real document from the studios to prove it!! Personally, I can't see any business being run in such a terrible way - except banks and they destroyed the economy of a lot of the western world over and over. Sad but true.
Sure, the marketing may be less than half of budget, or they get a bigger percentage of foreign box office, and maybe there is a minimum profit built into that.

But,I don't see any reason to doubt the formula as to what studios consider a success, if movies make those required numbers, they get sequels, if they come close but don't quite make it there needs to be a compelling reason to approve a sequel (Lucrative tie-in/toy line(s), product placements, better than expected Disk sales, or some reason that gives them faith next one will do better)
__________________
One Day I hope to be the Man my Cat thinks I am

Where are we going? And why are we in this Handbasket?
Sindatur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2013, 03:21 AM   #2378
throwback
Captain
 
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

In cost accounting, there is the concept of the break-even. This is when cost and revenue are equal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break_even_analysis)

So, for a movie like "Man of Steel", this is $225 million (production budget=gross profits). This film has reached the break-even stage.

For the film to be successful, it needs to make $450 million, which is twice the budget. This will cover the cost of marketing and distribution.

The formula for a film is,

Negative Cost=Development Cost+Pre-Production Cost+Production Cost+Post Production Cost

Negative Cost is known aka as "production budget". Man of Steel was $225 million.

http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/mov...llywood-movie/
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2013, 04:00 AM   #2379
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Sindatur wrote: View Post
But,I don't see any reason to doubt the formula as to what studios consider a success...
Except that the formula doesn't have anything do do with reality.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2013, 04:16 AM   #2380
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Once you've answered that, apply it to a different era, when there were far fewer theaters, like, say, the silent era in 1915.
Are you sure there were fewer theatres in those days?
Pretty sure.

As of 2011, there were almost 40,000 screens in the US [link].

The number of nickelodeons exceeded 10,000 by 1910, but they were in decline and being shut down by 1915 [link]. They were replaced by movie palaces, that were fewer in number but which could seat more. Movie palaces in the US in 1922 numbered only around 4,000 [link].

Interestingly, the population of the US in 1920 was one-third of what it is today [link]. That means that, in aggregate, the ratio of screens per person was approaching what it is today, until the nickelodeon market collapsed. However, the typical seating at the nickelodeons (of 50-200 people) was more limited than at the typical movie theater today (about 200).

The law of supply and demand. It's not as if good films ever had trouble finding audiences. Or that people missed out on seeing movies because it was hard to find a cinema. Rural towns ran "picture shows" in local community halls - and even tents.
Again, I was simply trying to help show why the straightforward metric of counting tickets alone can't serve to accurately quantify a comparison of films from different eras, as if there were any question of that to begin with. As I said, I firmly believe that taking into account multiple metrics can give a clearer picture, by providing better context for data. Analyzing the distribution of theaters is just such an exercise, one that cannot be simply glossed over without consideration of the evidence. What exactly the lay of the land is affects the quantitative measures.

I was going to avoid opening this can of worms, but since I'm here, I may as well mention this too. The question I was responding to was whether ticket sales indicate popularity. In answering, I implicitly interpreted "popularity" as "interest", even though that's not really accurate.

People can line up and buy tickets to see a film, but still come away "meh" by the whole experience. A pretty good example here might be Superman Returns. Somehow, Warner made the call that, even though there was arguably a lot of revenue generated, it wasn't really a popular enough film to spawn a sequel (they're pros after all, so they must look at things from a lot of different angles). Now that MoS appears to be rejuvenating Superman on film, maybe more people can agree now that SR was best left as the period on the end of that continuity.

Belz... wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Oh, good grief. Moving on....
What ? I simply don't care about tickets NOT sold.
Actually, just to clarify, despite my repeated suggestion that maybe you were interested in something else than what I was discussing (in response to a question from someone other than you in the first place), you said:
Belz... wrote: View Post
You are creating a problem that doesn't exist.
As if I'm responsible for the complexities involved, or was even intending to address the issues you had in mind in the first place!
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2013, 06:07 AM   #2381
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

throwback wrote: View Post
In cost accounting, there is the concept of the break-even. This is when cost and revenue are equal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break_even_analysis)

So, for a movie like "Man of Steel", this is $225 million (production budget=gross profits). This film has reached the break-even stage.

For the film to be successful, it needs to make $450 million, which is twice the budget. This will cover the cost of marketing and distribution.

The formula for a film is,

Negative Cost=Development Cost+Pre-Production Cost+Production Cost+Post Production Cost

Negative Cost is known aka as "production budget". Man of Steel was $225 million.

http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/mov...llywood-movie/
Sooooo... a $5m movie needs to make $10m? A $60m movie needs to then make $120m? And a $250m movie needs to make $500m? Because marketing and distribution is that skewed?

Bullshit.

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
Sindatur wrote: View Post
But,I don't see any reason to doubt the formula as to what studios consider a success...
Except that the formula doesn't have anything do do with reality.
And anyone who buys that malarkey is simply unhinged.

Worst. Accounting. EVER.
__________________
Now that I've seen it, and have also had time to mellow, to really think about it, I now find it absolutely, unbearably repulsive in every way except for some of the acting. - about The Wrath of Khan. Interstat, Issue 62: 1982
Opus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2013, 06:33 AM   #2382
Out Of My Vulcan Mind
Vice Admiral
 
Out Of My Vulcan Mind's Avatar
 
Location: Wherever you go, there you are.
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Opus wrote: View Post
Sooooo... a $5m movie needs to make $10m? A $60m movie needs to then make $120m? And a $250m movie needs to make $500m? Because marketing and distribution is that skewed?
To hit theatrical break-even on the production budget, yes, that's the case as a broad rule of thumb. A movie that misses theatrical breakeven can still turn a profit, though, via revenue from TV, DVD, etc. Plus some films can generate a lot of money in product placement and licensing fees for merchandising.

For example, here are the pertinent parts of an article from Variety about Lions for Lambs in 2007:

The weak box office performance of “Lions for Lambs” marks a rough start for Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner’s United Artists, with the film looking likely to gross no more than $60 million worldwide.

Pic, which boasted the marquee trio of Cruise, Redford (who also directed) and Meryl Streep, isn’t expected to hit the $20 million mark in the U.S. MGM distributed Stateside, and 20th Century Fox Intl. has it overseas.

Removing some of the sting is the fact that the film cost only $35 million to produce.
Some say “Lions” could lose as much as $25 million, although UA and parent company MGM won’t comment on any figures. They said that “Lions” could even be profitable once it gets into its home entertainment and television runs.
And here's Variety on Titanic in December 1997:

The cost to make and market "Titanic" is reportedly close to $300 million. A worldwide gross of $425 million would return about $200 million to the studio, leaving $100 million to be made up by global video, television and other ancillary revenues.
And again in January 1998:

"This picture ("Titanic") has to do something like $500 million [worldwide] just to break even," said a senior production exec. "The good news is that, despite its three hours, it might actually happen."
And a more recent report, this one from CBS/AP, one of many such reports, on John Carter:

The Walt Disney Co. said it expects to book a loss of $200 million on the movie in the quarter through March. That ranks it among Hollywood's all-time biggest money-losers.

Directed by Pixar's Andrew Stanton, the 3-D effects-laden movie about a Civil War veteran transplanted to Mars was already headed to the "Red Ink Planet," according to Cowen & Co. analyst Doug Creutz. Yet he expected a write-down of about half that size.

Disney said "John Carter" has brought in about $184 million in ticket sales worldwide so far. But ticket sales are split roughly in half with theater owners. The movie's production budget is estimated to be about $250 million with about $100 million more spent on marketing.
__________________
"I'll see you in another life, brother."

Last edited by Out Of My Vulcan Mind; June 23 2013 at 07:31 AM.
Out Of My Vulcan Mind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2013, 09:53 AM   #2383
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Out Of My Vulcan Mind wrote: View Post
Opus wrote: View Post
Sooooo... a $5m movie needs to make $10m? A $60m movie needs to then make $120m? And a $250m movie needs to make $500m? Because marketing and distribution is that skewed?
To hit theatrical break-even on the production budget, yes, that's the case as a broad rule of thumb. A movie that misses theatrical breakeven can still turn a profit, though, via revenue from TV, DVD, etc. Plus some films can generate a lot of money in product placement and licensing fees for merchandising.

For example, here are the pertinent parts of an article from Variety about Lions for Lambs in 2007:

The weak box office performance of “Lions for Lambs” marks a rough start for Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner’s United Artists, with the film looking likely to gross no more than $60 million worldwide.

Pic, which boasted the marquee trio of Cruise, Redford (who also directed) and Meryl Streep, isn’t expected to hit the $20 million mark in the U.S. MGM distributed Stateside, and 20th Century Fox Intl. has it overseas.

Removing some of the sting is the fact that the film cost only $35 million to produce.
And here's Variety on Titanic in December 1997:

And again in January 1998:

"This picture ("Titanic") has to do something like $500 million [worldwide] just to break even," said a senior production exec. "The good news is that, despite its three hours, it might actually happen."
And a more recent report, this one from CBS/AP, one of many such reports, on John Carter:

The Walt Disney Co. said it expects to book a loss of $200 million on the movie in the quarter through March. That ranks it among Hollywood's all-time biggest money-losers.

Directed by Pixar's Andrew Stanton, the 3-D effects-laden movie about a Civil War veteran transplanted to Mars was already headed to the "Red Ink Planet," according to Cowen & Co. analyst Doug Creutz. Yet he expected a write-down of about half that size.

Disney said "John Carter" has brought in about $184 million in ticket sales worldwide so far. But ticket sales are split roughly in half with theater owners. The movie's production budget is estimated to be about $250 million with about $100 million more spent on marketing.
The idea that a movie's published production budget has anything to do with what that film cost in reality is simply just laughable.
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2013, 10:12 AM   #2384
Dart
Commodore
 
Dart's Avatar
 
Location: Co. Kerry. Ireland
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Yeah most of these budgets are guesses anyway. It's a made up formula, using made up variables.
__________________

Dart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2013, 10:43 AM   #2385
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]

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Actually, just to clarify, despite my repeated suggestion that maybe you were interested in something else than what I was discussing (in response to a question from someone other than you in the first place), you said:
Belz... wrote: View Post
You are creating a problem that doesn't exist.
As if I'm responsible for the complexities involved, or was even intending to address the issues you had in mind in the first place!
I'm not sure I follow you. You seemed confused as to what I wanted when I suggested going with tickets sold, so I corrected you. For some reason you insisted, so I counter-insisted. I don't care at all for how empty a single theatre want, since what I'd like to know is how many times the movie was seen in its theatrical run.
__________________
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 03:37 AM.

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