RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,381
Posts: 5,357,241
Members: 24,628
Currently online: 466
Newest member: suryaprabu02

TrekToday headlines

The Gene Roddenberry Project Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Moore: No Deep Space Nine Regrets
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Pegg Star Wars Rumor
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Borg Cube Fridge
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Free Enterprise Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Siddig To Join Game Of Thrones
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28


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 I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 3 2014, 08:44 PM   #1
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
ST Film Franchise By the Numbers (via Startrek.com)

Not sure if this has been posted here before but I don't see it, so I'll take the opportunity to link this interesting comparison of ST movie box office from the forums of startrek.com.

What's interesting about it is that the poster sourced worldwide and inflation-adjusted data for all the films, and compiled a list --the only such that I've seen -- of how profitable the films actually were. This result is this table:

Title............................................. .Adjusted Profit
Star Trek: The Motion Picture................$328,952,000
Star Trek...........................................$26 1,403,995
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.............$229,044,800
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.............$227,701,000
Star Trek: First Contact.......................$186,160,000
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock........$163,047,000
Star Trek: Generations.........................$155,554,000
Star Trek Into Darkness........................$142,450,586
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country..$132,320,700
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier...............$80,400,000
Star Trek: Insurrection.........................$79,491,400
Star Trek: Nemesis..............................$9,879,628

There's more detail at the link, and also keep in mind that STiD may have moved up a rank or two since he posted this back in June of 2013. Nevertheless it is interesting to note that TMP was the most profitable film in the franchise, that ST09 was not very much more profitable than TWOK, and that STID in terms of profit comes somewhere in the middle of the pack.

(The list also makes lamentably clear why Nemesis was a franchise killer.)
__________________
It's got electrolytes!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 3 2014, 08:56 PM   #2
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: ST Film Franchise By the Numbers (via Startrek.com)

This list, of course, assumes that profitability at the box office is where studios make their money. They don't. They make it on television.

It also gets a few details wrong (The-Numbers claims TWOK cost $12 million, but it was actually $13 million).

It also doesn't take into account the exhibitor's take of the gross.

Still, as a measure of box office grosses against stated costs, it's reasonably accurate. I'm just not sure how useful that information really is.
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3 2014, 09:04 PM   #3
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: ST Film Franchise By the Numbers (via Startrek.com)

Harvey wrote: View Post
This list, of course, assumes that profitability at the box office is where studios make their money. They don't. They make it on television.
I hear tell doing well at the box office is pretty important both for recovering your production costs* and ensuring your movie will be popular enough to continue making money in other formats.

(* Not to mention the marketing costs, which are not known and not factored in the above, that's the real X factor. Exhibitor's take of the gross is another factor -- but I understand concessions and advertising to be the primary ways theatres make money, so I'm not sure how significant it really is. Be interesting to see if anyone here knows?)

(EDIT: HowStuffWorks has an interesting piece on movie budgets. According to them the cost of marketing is generally part of the production budget, and that reported production budgets can be... inexact.)
__________________
It's got electrolytes!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig

Last edited by BigJake; January 3 2014 at 09:19 PM.
BigJake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 3 2014, 09:06 PM   #4
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: ST Film Franchise By the Numbers (via Startrek.com)

Wow. That's quite a drop-off with Nemesis.
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3 2014, 09:16 PM   #5
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: ST Film Franchise By the Numbers (via Startrek.com)

Oh, certainly. Television sales go up when you hit certain box office benchmarks, as per the deals the studios have with cable and other television outlets for their product (that's one of the reasons Paramount re-released World War Z as a double bill with Star Trek Into Darkness last summer, to push it over the $200 million mark).

The exhibitors' take is complicated. It used to be that each week a movie was in release, the exhibitor took a little bit more percentage-wise, which is one of the reasons why the opening weekend has been so important to distributors (where the split was something like 90-10 in their favor).

Apparently, those front-loaded deals have gone out of fashion in the past decade (after several theater bankruptcy cases circa 2000). Now exhibitors more often simply take a fixed percentage of the box office (between 45-50%). International exhibitors take more of that (as high as 60%).

None of that, of course, deals with marketing costs, which can be difficult (read: impossible) to calculate.
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3 2014, 09:25 PM   #6
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: ST Film Franchise By the Numbers (via Startrek.com)

Interesting to see TMP come out on top despite the fact that thenumbers and most other sources have TMP as pulling in 139 mill.

Yet back in the early 80s (when Paramount had good reason to claim LESS profit or income in order to avoid paying net profit points) the figure bandied about most often was 175 million worldwide. TMP's domestic rentals (reported in VARIETY) were 55 or 56, and you can either x2 or x2.5 on that to get the ballpark on grosses, or that was the rule of the day back then.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3 2014, 09:31 PM   #7
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: ST Film Franchise By the Numbers (via Startrek.com)

Harvey: 45-50% for exhibitors? Wow, really? I would have expected the distributor's take to be way higher, especially using a fixed-rate system.

trevanian: Remember all these figures are inflation adjusted.
__________________
It's got electrolytes!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 3 2014, 09:47 PM   #8
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: ST Film Franchise By the Numbers (via Startrek.com)

BigJake wrote: View Post
Harvey: 45-50% for exhibitors? Wow, really? I would have expected the distributor's take to be way higher, especially using a fixed-rate system.
It depends on the film, of course, and the studio. (You can bet that sequels to big blockbusters like, say, Avatar or Marvel's The Avengers have deals that are more titled to the distributor's favor) But, that's apparently a good average figure. This article, for example, indicates that 54.5% of Cinemark's ticket sales went to the studios according to the company's latest quarterly filing at the time (2011).
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2014, 01:31 AM   #9
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: ST Film Franchise By the Numbers (via Startrek.com)


I made this a few years ago as an example to illustrate how profitable or unprofitable the first 6 films might have been if you went on a few basic assumptions. I'm not saying it's accurate, as I don't know what the exactly box office splits were between the studio and the exhibitors (it was sometimes a sliding scale), but it gives a general idea of how it works. I believe I was only using domestic box office, as well.
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010

Last edited by Maurice; January 4 2014 at 03:15 AM.
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2014, 02:35 AM   #10
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: ST Film Franchise By the Numbers (via Startrek.com)

I'm surprised at TUC's place.
Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Wow. That's quite a drop-off with Nemesis.
No joke.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2014, 03:23 AM   #11
CommishSleer
Fleet Captain
 
CommishSleer's Avatar
 
Location: Way back of nowhere
View CommishSleer's Twitter Profile
Re: ST Film Franchise By the Numbers (via Startrek.com)

STID 2013 figure is now $276 million profit so it moves up to number 2.

Its really difficult to directly compare a 1979 movie with a 2013 one. TMP would have played for months and months at the cinema. I personally remember Star Wars being there over a year. How long was STID there - 2 months?
And it doesn't take into account DVD/Blu-Ray/VHS sales which would have been negligible in 1979 but significant in 2013.

There's also merchandising such as games and toys which unfortunately are probably negligible in any decade.
CommishSleer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2014, 09:56 AM   #12
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: ST Film Franchise By the Numbers (via Startrek.com)

Maurice wrote: View Post
I made this a few years ago as an example to illustrate how profitable or unprofitable the first 6 films might have been if you went on a few basic assumptions.
That looks really interesting. Are there any details about the basic assumptions you used that aren't readily evident on that table? I'd be interested in subjecting the data here to that kind of treatment.
__________________
It's got electrolytes!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2014, 10:08 AM   #13
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: ST Film Franchise By the Numbers (via Startrek.com)

Not really. It's just basic math in Excel.
__________________
* * *
"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 January 4 2014, 01:50 PM   #14
Botany Bay
Commodore
 
Botany Bay's Avatar
 
Location: shores of Australia
View Botany Bay's Twitter Profile
Re: ST Film Franchise By the Numbers (via Startrek.com)

Harvey wrote: View Post
This list, of course, assumes that profitability at the box office is where studios make their money. They don't. They make it on television.

It also gets a few details wrong (The-Numbers claims TWOK cost $12 million, but it was actually $13 million).

It also doesn't take into account the exhibitor's take of the gross.

Still, as a measure of box office grosses against stated costs, it's reasonably accurate. I'm just not sure how useful that information really is.
Yep, great points.

I think it's worth noting that the stated expenses are hard to take seriously. I remember in an accounting class a few years ago seeing an income statement for one of the Harry Potter films that made nearly $1 billion at the box office, yet according to the studio accountants, it lost hundreds of millions of dollars

Why? By the parent company (studio), charging the subsidiary (the film) 'fees' for making the movie.

The reason for this particular piece of 'earnings management' was to avoid having to pay people a % of net profits.

Anyway, thanks for sharing BigJake. Taking these profits at face value, it must have been touch and go as to whether Nemesis was even given the green light after the dreadful performance of Insurrection. Bet they wish they hadn't bothered.
__________________
"Sometimes I get the feeling the only way we could achieve a STAR TREK segment on budget would be to have 60 minutes of Mr. Spock playing kazoo solo as Captain Kirk holds him in his arms while standing in a telephone booth."
Bob Justman, 1967.
Botany Bay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2014, 03:27 PM   #15
2takesfrakes
Commodore
 
2takesfrakes's Avatar
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: ST Film Franchise By the Numbers (via Startrek.com)

All of this use of Charts and Graphs is a little ... constipated ... doesn't it seem?
__________________
― I see only The Gold.™
2takesfrakes 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 09:50 AM.

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