RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,938
Posts: 5,390,210
Members: 24,721
Currently online: 622
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 October 2 2013, 04:44 PM   #181
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Sindatur wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post
Not to start profit and loss wars again on these boards, but World War Z is mentioned in the article as having barely made a profit. Wonder what the source for that is. Its reported budget of $190 million is identical to the one reported for STID, but WWZ made $70 million more that STID in worldwide gross ($467 million for STID to $540 million for WWZ).
WWZ made more box office over all, however, they only made $202M Domestically, compared to their budget of $190M. STiD made $228M Domestically.

The International Box Office share for Paramount is much, much smaller than Domestic.

Also, you have to wonder about Productizing, did STiD sell more Product Placement or TV Rights? Was $190M WWZ's true Budget after all was said and done? There were lots of delays, and rewrites and budget overruns, etc.

STiD definitely seems to be making up for any less than desired Box Office by it's stellar Disc sales
When a budget say 190 million, does it already include the 5 millions they got from Nokia and the 5 millions they got from Budweiser, etc...? A third of the film is already paid for by product placement.

Hollywood accounting is a mystery in itself. Don't trust anyone when they say it didn't make a profit. As far as I know, David Prowse has still not seen a penny for his performance in Return of the Jedi, because it didn't make a profit.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 04:52 PM   #182
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Sindatur wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post
Not to start profit and loss wars again on these boards, but World War Z is mentioned in the article as having barely made a profit. Wonder what the source for that is. Its reported budget of $190 million is identical to the one reported for STID, but WWZ made $70 million more that STID in worldwide gross ($467 million for STID to $540 million for WWZ).
WWZ made more box office over all, however, they only made $202M Domestically, compared to their budget of $190M. STiD made $228M Domestically.

The International Box Office share for Paramount is much, much smaller than Domestic.

Also, you have to wonder about Productizing, did STiD sell more Product Placement or TV Rights? Was $190M WWZ's true Budget after all was said and done? There were lots of delays, and rewrites and budget overruns, etc.

STiD definitely seems to be making up for any less than desired Box Office by it's stellar Disc sales
When a budget say 190 million, does it already include the 5 millions they got from Nokia and the 5 millions they got from Budweiser, etc...? A third of the film is already paid for by product placement.

Hollywood accounting is a mystery in itself. Don't trust anyone when they say it didn't make a profit. As far as I know, David Prowse has still not seen a penny for his performance in Return of the Jedi, because it didn't make a profit.
1. Yea, absolutely, the published numbers don't give a true Profit/Loss picture. When they say a movie made a profit or a loss, they mean it achieved or didn't achieve a certain profit margin, which isn't the same as making back expenses plus more.
2. No, Product Placements, Selling Toys, TV/streaming Rights, Disc sales, none of that is included in Box Office, that's all gravy, they expect to reach the "required" numbers on Box Office alone
__________________
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 October 2 2013, 09:40 PM   #183
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

I see we're back to "The Best (or 'Worst' depending on your viewpoint I suppose) of the ST XI+ Message Board" repeats:

Episode 47:

"The Big Box Office Bruhaha!"
__________________
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 October 4 2013, 03:59 AM   #184
plynch
Commodore
 
plynch's Avatar
 
Location: Outer Graceland
View plynch's Twitter Profile
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

I move to call the question.
__________________
Author of Live Like Louis! Inspirational Stories from the Life of Louis Armstrong, http://livelikelouis.com
plynch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 07:33 AM   #185
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
Yep. I almost mentioned "Planet of the Titans", a proposal for TMP, in which we were to learn that, at the end of the 5YM, the Enterprise saucer had separated and softlanded on a planet, and was considered lost for a decade. IIRC.

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
But it was for a version of PotT.

ie. "The first visualization of a saucer separation was conceptualized by Ralph McQuarrie, as he worked on the pre-production of the abandoned 1976-1977 Star Trek: Planet of the Titans project. He stated, 'I had devised a concept for the end of the film...'."
My point was that there's no PotT script summary I know of which describes that the saucer soft landed and was "lost". McQuarrie had a concept which had the saucer separating and being trapped inside the "shroud", which isn't the same thing. I think Gene was enamored of the separation and it cropped up in different places in different guises.
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 06:16 PM   #186
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

SeerSGB wrote:
...
I think maybe that was intended as a response to this post?
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.

Last edited by M'Sharak; October 7 2013 at 07:19 PM. Reason: to edit content of post which has been moved
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 07:06 PM   #187
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote:
...
I think maybe that was intended as a response to this post?
Thanks, and fixed. Don't know how I did that. Bad Seer, bad!
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)

Last edited by M'Sharak; October 7 2013 at 07:18 PM. Reason: to edit content of post which was moved to other thread
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 07:16 PM   #188
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
M'Sharak wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote:
...
I think maybe that was intended as a response to this post?
Thanks, and fixed. Don't know how I did that. Bad Seer, bad!
Too many tabs open, perhaps. I've now moved the post to that thread.
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 07:41 PM   #189
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote: View Post
M'Sharak wrote: View Post
I think maybe that was intended as a response to this post?
Thanks, and fixed. Don't know how I did that. Bad Seer, bad!
Too many tabs open, perhaps. I've now moved the post to that thread.
Thank ya'
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
SeerSGB 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 03:47 PM.

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