RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,938
Posts: 5,390,177
Members: 24,721
Currently online: 647
Newest member: Miltan08

TrekToday headlines

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Cumberbatch To Voice Khan
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Shaun And Ed On Phineas and Ferb
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

New Ships Coming From Official Starships Collection
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Trek Stars Take On Ice Bucket Challenge
By: T'Bonz on Aug 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 July 13 2013, 04:17 PM   #2791
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

^Since the last few pages of this thread have centered around folks trying to prove Into Darkness was unsuccessful, I'm going with that.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 08:18 PM   #2792
Squiggy
LORD SHIT SUPREME
 
Squiggy's Avatar
 
Location: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
View Squiggy's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Squiggy
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

I'll just leave this here...

__________________
ENOUGH OF THIS TURGID BASH WANKERY!
Squiggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 08:26 PM   #2793
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

The next film might have a smaller budget than STID, maybe more on par with ST (2009)
__________________
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 July 13 2013, 08:51 PM   #2794
Cinema Geekly
Lieutenant Commander
 
Cinema Geekly's Avatar
 
View Cinema Geekly's Twitter Profile
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

MacLeod wrote: View Post
The next film might have a smaller budget than STID, maybe more on par with ST (2009)
This is my feeling as well. Even though STiD did better box office numbers all around it wasn't a run away blockbuster by current standards.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they went back to the same ST09 budget for the next Trek film.
Cinema Geekly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 08:57 PM   #2795
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

I may be in the minority here, but I cannot tell any difference FX-wise on a movie with a $150m budget (Star Trek), $190m (Into Darkness) budget or even a $225m (Man of Steel) budget.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 09:06 PM   #2796
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

As many have mentioned here and elsewhere, the reported budget is a "funny money" number. Studios do things like pay themselves to rent studio space and equipment, so who knows how much the studio actually paid out of pocket hard cash.
__________________
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 July 13 2013, 09:17 PM   #2797
Spock/Uhura Fan
Captain
 
Spock/Uhura Fan's Avatar
 
Location: Where It's At.
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
^Since the last few pages of this thread have centered around folks trying to prove Into Darkness was unsuccessful, I'm going with that.
Except that hasn't happened. All I've seen is people posting facts.

I think you have more people on this thread that seem to have a problem with the numbers not supporting "best movie evah!!1!" That's okay though. I think the last comment I read was about how someone doesn't think the $190 million budget was actually really spent on making the film, lol.
__________________
MA'AM. Hot damn, I can dig it.

“The history of men's opposition to women's emancipation is more interesting perhaps than the story of that emancipation itself.” - Virginia Woolf
Spock/Uhura Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 09:31 PM   #2798
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
I may be in the minority here, but I cannot tell any difference FX-wise on a movie with a $150m budget (Star Trek), $190m (Into Darkness) budget or even a $225m (Man of Steel) budget.
Into Darkness was converted to 3D and shot in IMAX, so presumably that added some expense (in addition to some cost of inflation). Man of Steel also shot in IMAX and converted to 3D; on top of that it had actors like Russell Crowe and Kevin Costner who presumably demand more of a salary than the more unknown cast of the Abrams films.

Of course, Opus is right that these reported numbers don't tell the whole story.
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 09:37 PM   #2799
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
^Since the last few pages of this thread have centered around folks trying to prove Into Darkness was unsuccessful, I'm going with that.
Except that hasn't happened. All I've seen is people posting facts.

I think you have more people on this thread that seem to have a problem with the numbers not supporting "best movie evah!!1!" That's okay though. I think the last comment I read was about how someone doesn't think the $190 million budget was actually really spent on making the film, lol.
Unless you work for or know someone at one of the studios, how do you know what numbers are correct?
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 09:48 PM   #2800
LOKAI of CHERON
Commodore
 
LOKAI of CHERON's Avatar
 
Location: Post-apocalyptic ruins of my once mighty Homeworld.
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

$450m+ added to what will no doubt be stellar home video sales equals another Bad Robot Trek with a similar budget, which, even if slightly reduced, will probably not be noticed on screen.

Honestly, this is all I'm concerned about. I don't need Avengers box office numbers to validate my opinion the movie is f**king awesome.
__________________
YOU MONOTONE HUMANS ARE ALL ALIKE... FIRST YOU CONDEMN, THEN ATTACK.
LOKAI of CHERON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 09:52 PM   #2801
Spock/Uhura Fan
Captain
 
Spock/Uhura Fan's Avatar
 
Location: Where It's At.
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

BillJ wrote: View Post
Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
^Since the last few pages of this thread have centered around folks trying to prove Into Darkness was unsuccessful, I'm going with that.
Except that hasn't happened. All I've seen is people posting facts.

I think you have more people on this thread that seem to have a problem with the numbers not supporting "best movie evah!!1!" That's okay though. I think the last comment I read was about how someone doesn't think the $190 million budget was actually really spent on making the film, lol.
Unless you work for or know someone at one of the studios, how do you know what numbers are correct?
Didn't say I did. However, even Paramount has said that the budget for the film was $190 million. But of course they spent the money on themselves.

Honestly, the argument is not necessary. You'll get another film out of this, and like someone else said, that's all that should matter to you.
__________________
MA'AM. Hot damn, I can dig it.

“The history of men's opposition to women's emancipation is more interesting perhaps than the story of that emancipation itself.” - Virginia Woolf
Spock/Uhura Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 09:58 PM   #2802
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
^Since the last few pages of this thread have centered around folks trying to prove Into Darkness was unsuccessful, I'm going with that.
Except that hasn't happened. All I've seen is people posting facts.

I think you have more people on this thread that seem to have a problem with the numbers not supporting "best movie evah!!1!" That's okay though. I think the last comment I read was about how someone doesn't think the $190 million budget was actually really spent on making the film, lol.
Huh? How is posting "facts" not 'folks trying to prove Into Darkness was unsuccessful"?

No ones really claiming "best movie evah!!1!" They've said the film was successful, but it did not pull the domestic numbers the studio hoped for. That's a bit more honest than the naysayers.

Really? Who said that? Opus? All he did was comment how studio's have some creative ways to pay themselves. Which is about Hollywood accounting in general. Perhaps King Daniel? Nope, he was comment on how he cant spot were the money goes because he sees little difference between the films he mention.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 10:03 PM   #2803
LOKAI of CHERON
Commodore
 
LOKAI of CHERON's Avatar
 
Location: Post-apocalyptic ruins of my once mighty Homeworld.
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
^Since the last few pages of this thread have centered around folks trying to prove Into Darkness was unsuccessful, I'm going with that.
Except that hasn't happened. All I've seen is people posting facts.

I think you have more people on this thread that seem to have a problem with the numbers not supporting "best movie evah!!1!" That's okay though. I think the last comment I read was about how someone doesn't think the $190 million budget was actually really spent on making the film, lol.
Huh? How is posting "facts" not 'folks trying to prove Into Darkness was unsuccessful"?

No ones really claiming "best movie evah!!1!" They've said the film was successful, but it did not pull the domestic numbers the studio hoped for. That's a bit more honest than the naysayers.

Really? Who said that? Opus? All he did was comment how studio's have some creative ways to pay themselves. Which is about Hollywood accounting in general. Perhaps King Daniel? Nope, he was comment on how he cant spot were the money goes because he sees little difference between the films he mention.
This.
__________________
YOU MONOTONE HUMANS ARE ALL ALIKE... FIRST YOU CONDEMN, THEN ATTACK.
LOKAI of CHERON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 10:04 PM   #2804
Spock/Uhura Fan
Captain
 
Spock/Uhura Fan's Avatar
 
Location: Where It's At.
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

^Just like no one said the movie was completely "unsuccessful," just disappointing. Now anyone posting what you might not agree with is a "naysayer," okay.

As to the rest of your comment, I'm just going to say the same thing I said to Bill. You'll get another movie, so there's no need...
__________________
MA'AM. Hot damn, I can dig it.

“The history of men's opposition to women's emancipation is more interesting perhaps than the story of that emancipation itself.” - Virginia Woolf
Spock/Uhura Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 10:06 PM   #2805
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post

Except that hasn't happened. All I've seen is people posting facts.

I think you have more people on this thread that seem to have a problem with the numbers not supporting "best movie evah!!1!" That's okay though. I think the last comment I read was about how someone doesn't think the $190 million budget was actually really spent on making the film, lol.
Unless you work for or know someone at one of the studios, how do you know what numbers are correct?
Didn't say I did. However, even Paramount has said that the budget for the film was $190 million. But of course they spent the money on themselves.

Honestly, the argument is not necessary. You'll get another film out of this, and like someone else said, that's all that should matter to you.
Its not like they spent it on hookers, blow and cars. They spent it on studio space, equipment and personnel. Yeah the studios and equipment was theirs and the personnel were employees, but that's Hollywood.

Now its not necessary? There's a late on arrival statement, if there was one.

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post
^Just like no one said the movie was completely "unsuccessful," just disappointing. Now anyone posting what you might not agree with is a "naysayer," okay.
Look up naysayer in the dictionary. yes saying it was disappointing or unsuccessful is nay saying or trying to put a negative spin on the film. If you're making negative comments, you're a naysayer. You don't even have to be wrong to be one. It has nothing to do agreeing with my opinion of the film or yours. Yea= Nay= Simple.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is online now   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 03:17 PM.

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