RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,717
Posts: 5,432,223
Members: 24,835
Currently online: 606
Newest member: SB118_T'Mar


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 9 2013, 01:45 AM   #2701
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]

BillJ wrote: View Post
A tagline of "Star Trek's greatest villain returns!" in the weeks running up to release might have put some butts in theater seats.
Trekkie butts or non-Trekkie butts ?

We've seen both sides of the argument so far: on the one hand, some people say the movie would be more popular if they had made a connection with previous Trek more obvious; and on the other, people say the movie would have worked better if they had stopped making connections with previous Trek.

I think both are wrong: the movie is as successful as it could have been.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

Last edited by M'Sharak; July 9 2013 at 02:31 AM. Reason: quote attribution clean-up
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 03:07 AM   #2702
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

donners22 wrote: View Post
It obviously shouldn't be the sole assessment of success, but surely the raw number of people going to see the film is relevant in some respects?
Rarely for purposes of comparison between movies, especially over a number of years.

Every one of these attempts to apply some kind of formula to find equivalence founders on the premise that all other significant factors are equal - and they never are.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 03:42 AM   #2703
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Paramount Exec 1 - "Star Trek into Darkness is doing great."

Paramount Exec 2 - "Yeah. Too bad Grady Smith from EW didn't mention it in his internet article."

Paramount Exec 1 - "... Pull the plug."

Paramount Exec 2 - "But-"

Paramount Exec 1 - "Pull. The. PLUG!"
__________________
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 9 2013, 06:13 AM   #2704
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Looks like even with Japan the movie will finish off around $460 million
__________________
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 July 9 2013, 08:10 AM   #2705
Noname Given
Vice Admiral
 
Location: None Given
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

BTW - For those believing Paramount sees ST:ID as a disappointment/failure; you might want to look at this chart from Box Office Mojo showing the Box Office Gross for films released by Paramount in 2013 to date (note what's at the top) (link)
Noname Given is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 08:57 AM   #2706
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]

I don't know, I guess it's possible Trek has a "ceiling" beyond which it cannot push through. But I still feel the franchise has the potential to reach $700m+ territory given the right circumstances, marketing and, well, luck.
__________________
YOU MONOTONE HUMANS ARE ALL ALIKE... FIRST YOU CONDEMN, THEN ATTACK.
LOKAI of CHERON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 12:24 PM   #2707
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

I guess that's good...

What does Grady Smith have to say about it?
__________________
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 9 2013, 01:54 PM   #2708
KGator
Lieutenant Commander
 
KGator's Avatar
 
Location: Mentally? . . . that's debatable.
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Opus wrote: View Post
Paramount Exec 1 - "Star Trek into Darkness is doing great."

Paramount Exec 2 - "Yeah. Too bad Grady Smith from EW didn't mention it in his internet article."

Paramount Exec 1 - "... Pull the plug."

Paramount Exec 2 - "But-"

Paramount Exec 1 - "Pull. The. PLUG!"


Having Opus as an avatar just makes this even funnier. I could see this as an actual Bloom County snippet.
KGator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 01:59 PM   #2709
KGator
Lieutenant Commander
 
KGator's Avatar
 
Location: Mentally? . . . that's debatable.
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

YEAAAHHH!!! Suck it "Hansel and Gretel"!!!

Hey Jack Reacher. How do you like Dem Apples!!! STID rules!!!
KGator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 04:41 PM   #2710
khan2
Ensign
 
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Rules what? Certainly not the studio's return on investment.

Let's take a closer look at the numbers as of 7/7/13 according to boxofficemojo.com

Hansel and Gretel:
Budget: $50 million, Total Gross: $225,703,475 = 4.51 ROI ratio

Jack Reacher:
Budget: $60 million, Total Gross: $216,568,266 = 3.61 ROI ratio

G.I. Joe:
Budget: $130 million, Total Gross: $371,876,278 = 2.86 ROI ratio

So what about Star Trek Into Darkness?
Budget: $190 million, Total Gross: $443,865,011 = 2.34 ROI ratio

The lowest ROI of all Paramount's major releases this year.

For a more direct comparison vis-a-vis film budget:
WWZ budget = STID budget but after less than 3 weeks of release,
WWZ's total gross is already 82.5% of STID's total gross and will certainly eclipse STID's performance.

For reference, Star Trek (2009)'s ROI was 2.57 which means that STID would have to earn an additional amount of nearly $45 million just to match ST09's ROI performance - at this point, not very likely at all.

STID has done "fine" but not "great" so while no "pulling of the plug" is in order, we'll very likely see a tightening of budget purse-strings with the next film.
khan2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 04:46 PM   #2711
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

khan2 wrote: View Post
Rules what? Certainly not the studio's return on investment.
You have no idea what the studio's ROI is on any of those films. You're simply playing with the publicly discussed "production budgets" and the published gross box office numbers.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 05:38 PM   #2712
khan2
Ensign
 
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

I made a comparison based on the best available public data. If you have additional information on which to base an analysis, be my guest.
khan2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 05:43 PM   #2713
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

khan2 wrote: View Post
I made a comparison based on the best available public data. If you have additional information on which to base an analysis, be my guest.
Of course he doesn't, no one does, that's the point he's trying to make.

There's also Product Placement, TV sales (Domestic and international), DVD/BluRay sales, etc, that all stem from total Box Office, and they will never share that information with us, because it's all gravy.
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 05:44 PM   #2714
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]

khan2 wrote: View Post
I made a comparison based on the best available public data. If you have additional information on which to base an analysis, be my guest.
But when your making an analysis while missing a ton of needed information, you're making a poor analysis.
__________________
"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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 9 2013, 05:47 PM   #2715
KGator
Lieutenant Commander
 
KGator's Avatar
 
Location: Mentally? . . . that's debatable.
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

khan2 wrote: View Post
Rules what? Certainly not the studio's return on investment.

Let's take a closer look at the numbers as of 7/7/13 according to boxofficemojo.com

Hansel and Gretel:
Budget: $50 million, Total Gross: $225,703,475 = 4.51 ROI ratio

Jack Reacher:
Budget: $60 million, Total Gross: $216,568,266 = 3.61 ROI ratio

G.I. Joe:
Budget: $130 million, Total Gross: $371,876,278 = 2.86 ROI ratio

So what about Star Trek Into Darkness?
Budget: $190 million, Total Gross: $443,865,011 = 2.34 ROI ratio

The lowest ROI of all Paramount's major releases this year.

For a more direct comparison vis-a-vis film budget:
WWZ budget = STID budget but after less than 3 weeks of release,
WWZ's total gross is already 82.5% of STID's total gross and will certainly eclipse STID's performance.

For reference, Star Trek (2009)'s ROI was 2.57 which means that STID would have to earn an additional amount of nearly $45 million just to match ST09's ROI performance - at this point, not very likely at all.

STID has done "fine" but not "great" so while no "pulling of the plug" is in order, we'll very likely see a tightening of budget purse-strings with the next film.
So what is your point? That its better to make less money more efficiently than more money less efficiently?

So if I came to you and said give me $50 and I'll get you $225 in 6 months or give me $190 and I'll get you $450 in 6 months time you would prefer a lesser return because its a lesser investment?

I don't know . . . it seems to me that if you had the $190 to invest I'd rather make that back with a $260 profit than invest $50 (keeping the other $140 in the bank) and get that back with an extra $175 at the end.

Now clearly this is a simplistic analysis but it would seem like these results show that it takes money to make money. The more you want to make the more you have to spend and the efficiency decreases as the amounts get larger.
KGator 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 07:27 PM.

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