RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,599
Posts: 5,404,601
Members: 24,870
Currently online: 462
Newest member: The Hooded Man

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Gold Key Archives Vol. 2 Comic
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

Cumberbatch In War Of Roses Miniseries
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

Trek 3 Filming Location Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

October-November 2014 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Cho Selfie TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

TPTB To Shatner: Shhh!
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Mystery Mini Vinyl Figure Display Box
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

The Red Shirt Diaries Episode Five
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

Shatner In Trek 3? Well Maybe
By: T'Bonz on Sep 28

Retro Review: Shadows and Symbols
By: Michelle on Sep 27


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 10 2013, 10:49 PM   #2746
Grant
Fleet Captain
 
Grant's Avatar
 
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Grant wrote: View Post
Hence the part about there being "several non-canon explanations"? If it had been explicitly stated in dialogue such that it could be cited and quoted, what use would anyone have for a non-canon explanation? I suspect that Noname Given did see the "recently transferred" line somewhere, but may be remembering something from a novelization rather than a televised episode.

Probably right.

I was just a little confused someone asks about a quote for the episode where it was stated and the next guy puts a quote for 'non-canon' explanations.

Of course there are many non canon explanations.
Grant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 12:08 AM   #2747
Noname Given
Vice Admiral
 
Location: None Given
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Grant wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
Noname Given wrote: View Post
3) The fact that Chekov WASN'T a part of the Enterprise crew back when the events of "Space Seed" took place -- yet Kahn says to him, "I never forget a face!" (and sorry the fan rationalizations don't wash as there was a line in Season 2 TOS stating Chekov was 'recently transferred to the ship.'
Episode and quote, please.
He can't because it was NEVER said. Made up to cover his weak argument.

The actor came along for season 2---the crewman's posting was never mentioned. PERIOD. Red herring----of course he could have been aboard.
mea Culpa -- I actually thought there was a dialogue snippet about Chekov's crew status at the start of "The Trouble With Tribbles"-- so (I am at work but allowed to bowse on breaks) -- I checked on Hulu and it turns out I was indeed mistaken.

That said, I don't know what part of my 'argument' is 'weal ass' as Chekov WEAS NEVER a part of the cast in Season One and Space Seed was a Season One episode.
^^^
That doesn't change the incongruity in the STII:TWoK script of Khan 'never forgetting Chekov's face' as he hadn't seen it (as far as anything shown on screen in "Space Seed".)

I just am left to wonder if Mr. Abram's and Co had referenced something back to the prime universe and had a similar glaring inconsistency in a script -- how many fans would be calling for their heads, or claiming they did bother to really watch any episodes, etc.

Again, I just find it interesting how some fans hold up STII:TWoK as 'excellent Star Trek writing' when all the inconsistencies I listed in my previous post (and more) exist in said script; yet it gets a complete pass by many, while other Star Trek films, etc. get roasted at the stake for the smallest canon inconsistency at times.

(And again, I repeat that such inconsistencies don't affect my enjoyment of STII:TWoK at all and it's still either tied or slightly behind -- depending on my mood -- with ST:ID as my favorite Star Trek feature film.)
Noname Given is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 12:22 AM   #2748
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Time heals all continuity wounds. Whatever's new is held to a far stricter standard (by some) than what came before. Voyager and TOS/movies I-VI depict warp speeds so differently they can't possibly co-exist, yet nobody seems to care. Instead everyone has a conniption fit over the upteenth time a Trek starship goes underwater...
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 02:06 AM   #2749
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]

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
The thing about The Dark Knight is that nobody there hoped to make a billion with it. Batman Begins was a modest success, and they expected TDK to perform the same. It's just the hype around Ledger's death AND that the film was surprisingly well done that it made those huge numbers. But the point is that they never intended to make that HUGE box office smash hit, they just intended to make a good film. And if you ask me, it shows.

nuTrek Into Darkness was intended to make big bucks first, by copying elements from all successful films coming before it. They wanted to expand the foreign market, so they put London in it and advertised the hell out of that. They wanted TDK and Avengers numbers, so they tried to cash in on that now rather stereotypical super villain with a twisted plan story, and went all out trying to sell this as this DARK film. And they even included the glass prison from Avengers and a forced version of the hero to villain dialog from TDK. And they looked back at what Trek film was the most popular, and ripped that off as much as they could.

STD just feels pretty much in your face to me in that regard.
I especially agree with the bolded. To me, it seemed like STID was thrown together, and I'm guessing that this might be true at least to some extent from the fact that they pushed back filming so the writers could finish putting together a script. I think it was Lindelof that said they were "lazy" in getting together to do it... Like you said, it shows.

BillJ wrote: View Post
The only ones who know with any certainty whether Star Trek Into Darkness over-performed, under-performed or hit its target are the folks at Paramount and Bad Robot.

Everyone else is guessing.
I can agree with this.

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Squiggy wrote: View Post
serenitytrek1 wrote: View Post
However once you take away the 3d prices of STiD and adjust trek 09 by inflation.

Yes. Once you change the numbers, it doesn't look as good.
Comparing success by the numbers of tickets sold (which is essentially what you do when you adjust for ticket price inflation) is fair.
I can agree with this too.

Borgminister wrote: View Post
serenitytrek1 wrote: View Post

the massive overseas gain was expected...
That's crazy.
Your comment reminded me of a few articles that I've read. I'll quote one in particular:


Brook Barnes of The New York Times wrote:
“Star Trek” may be one of the biggest franchises in Hollywood history, but it has one surprising flaw: Capt. Kirk doesn’t travel well.

Foreign moviegoers for one reason or another have never fully embraced the swaggering Starfleet captain and his crew. That is a major problem for Paramount Pictures now that international ticket sales account for up to 80 percent of a movie’s total gross.

A 2009 effort to revive the Star Trek movie series was a smash hit in North America, taking in about $280 million, after adjusting for inflation. But box-office analysts were deeply disappointed by the film’s foreign box office total of $139 million.

So Paramount has revved up its engines to warp speed for “Into Darkness,” which is already playing in some countries and arrives in the U.S. on May 17. The Viacom-owned studio has increased its international marketing budget for the film by 35 percent from that for the 2009 film, asked stars to do an unusual amount of globetrotting and staggered the release dates to shield “Into Darkness” from competition.

Paramount’s bid to draw in more foreign ticket buyers even extended to casting decisions and the script, which turns on a more terrestrial story. “Into Darkness” finds the Enterprise crew called back home, where a terror force has infiltrated the Starfleet organization.

“The team has really been in the weeds, so to speak, going country by country and looking at every possible opportunity,” Brad Grey, Paramount’s chairman, said of the studio’s marketers in particular. “On a profit level, focusing on your shareholders, this is now how detailed you have to be on pictures of this scope and scale.”

Grey added, “Between J.J. outdoing himself and our efforts to build up our global distribution system, I’m very, very confident that the franchise is finally going to live up to its potential.”

In 2009, “Star Trek” may have been a disappointment outside North America, but it also represented enormous progress. The preceding film in the franchise, “Star Trek: Nemesis” in 2002, took in a grand total of $31 million overseas.

But Paramount and its financing and producing partner, Skydance Productions, are counting on “Into Darkness” to do much better – perhaps delivering a 100 percent increase over the 2009 movie’s overseas gross.

The studio has little room for error. Most of Hollywood’s major studios will release as many as eight movies each over the summer, but Paramount will issue only two: “Into Darkness” and the risky “World War Z,” an intense zombie thriller starring Brad Pitt.

Pure science fiction has long been a difficult sell overseas, where audiences generally prefer space movies that have more fantasy elements, like “Star Wars.” The Star Trek movies, at least until Abrams came along to direct the 2009 version, also lacked eye-popping visual effects, leaning more on makeup tricks and drama on the bridge of the Enterprise.

Six “Star Trek” television shows, all notable for their kitsch, have been dubbed and distributed overseas, creating a solid fan base. But the TV show also hurts Paramount’s big-screen efforts, adding to a perception that the franchise is an impenetrable universe of characters and story lines.

The 2009 film, which featured a young cast but no proven stars, was in some ways torpedoed by Paramount’s own distribution decisions. Four other big releases — “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” “Angels & Demons,” “Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian” and “Terminator Salvation” — all opened in the same period, giving “Star Trek” little time to find its way.

This time, Paramount has decided on a staggered rollout, releasing “Into Darkness” in Australia, Germany, Britain and Mexico before the U.S. and Canada, and holding the movie back elsewhere. It will not arrive in Japan until August, for instance. Unlike the 2009 chapter, “Into Darkness” is planned for distribution in China. All told, Paramount will stage red carpet premieres in seven countries.

Cast members and producers have been crisscrossing the globe for months as part of advance marketing efforts. Chris Pine, who plays Capt. James Kirk, was dispatched to Tokyo in December to unveil a nine-minute trailer. More recently, Bryan Burk, an “Into Darkness” producer, went on an 11-city foreign tour — South America, Asia, Europe — to show 35 minutes of the movie to journalists and exhibitors.

Paramount went out of its way to cast foreign actors, in particular adding the British star Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain. And writers tried to produce a self-contained plot that would be exciting to loyal Star Trek fans but not put off people who know nothing about the franchise, which now includes 12 movies. (Research showed that foreign ticket buyers viewed the 2009 film as “too Trekkie and too sci-fi,” in the words of one Paramount executive.)

Please forgive the length. Source: http://www.telegram.com/article/20130510/NEWS/305119990

Edit: Just in case anybody needs me to link to the actual NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/business/media/star-trek-into-darkness-aims-for-world-audience.html?_r=0


Now if Brooks is to be trusted, as well as other sources I've come across, then they did expect this film to do better than the 2009 movie did overseas, and probably much better. They would not have poured such resources and time (and research) into their efforts overseas if they did not expect a significant gain.

Massive? That's a relative and subjective term. If by that Serenity means 100% over ST09's overseas gross, then what she said may not only not be crazy, she may actually be right. But again, only Paramount and Bad Robot can really say what "massive gain" means to them.

Anyway, what they ended up with was kind of an opposite situation. The 2009 film was a domestic smash hit, but it was disappointing overseas. The aggressive marketing campaign overseas worked and STID was a hit there, but domestically it is not performing as well as ST09. STID's overall gross number is better, in an "absolute values" sense, but who knows if it has profited Paramount and Bad Robot more than ST09? Only they can say.

Perhaps the third time will be the charm. Maybe the 2016 movie will perform really well domestically and overseas. Obviously, at least to me, from reading this article, it sounded like ST09 gave them hope for overseas numbers because they saw "potential" (and "progress") there. And it looks like they've tapped into that potential by essentially making an action movie that they heavily marketed as such.

I guess all I'm saying is that I don't think her statement is "crazy" at all, at least not based off of what I've read.

Out Of My Vulcan Mind wrote: View Post
Sucess in business isn't all about volume. It's about a good return on investment. Making a large number of sales at low prices isn't inherently better or more successful than making fewer sales at high prices. It depends on the ROI.

STID is a decent-sized hit, a big enough hit to warrant a sequel. Had it sold the same number of tickets as Star Trek it would be a much bigger hit domestically given the higher ticket prices, especially the 3D premium, but it's done well enough to be marked down as a success nevertheless.
Yep. It seems to have done well enough. So, on to the next one, I guess.

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.
Interesting. I've never looked up ROI on boxofficemojo. I'll have to check into that. But, even without it, I'd figured they'd need to make around 480 million in order to be doing just about as good as ST09. It sounds like from your calculating, they might need a little more. We'll see how things turn out. Thanks for the numbers.
__________________
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

Last edited by Spock/Uhura Fan; July 11 2013 at 02:16 AM.
Spock/Uhura Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 02:31 AM   #2750
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Police State
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Voyager and TOS/movies I-VI depict warp speeds so differently they can't possibly co-exist, yet nobody seems to care.
"I care." - Luke Skywalker
__________________
Thank you very much for your concern, sir, but he does not need your religion, he has science and socialism and birthdays.
Set Harth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 03:23 AM   #2751
KittyDuran
Lieutenant Commander
 
KittyDuran's Avatar
 
Location: Hungry (like the wolf)
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Woo-hoo! It's now showing in the cheap theaters (Danbarry) $3 (1.75 on Tuesdays) 4x a day. Also, still playing @ the 2 AMCs in the area.
KittyDuran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 03:44 PM   #2752
Kruezerman
Fleet Captain
 
Kruezerman's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Trek is number 3 on Rotten Tomatoes' Summer Scorecard.
__________________
Here's proof that I can write something without using the word f**k.
Kruezerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 03:59 PM   #2753
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]

Kruezerman wrote: View Post
Trek is number 3 on Rotten Tomatoes' Summer Scorecard.
But... but... what about all the plot-holes? And why must Star Trek be fun?
__________________
"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 11 2013, 04:29 PM   #2754
Jeff O'Connor
Commodore
 
Jeff O'Connor's Avatar
 
Location: Tampa, FL
Send a message via AIM to Jeff O'Connor Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Jeff O'Connor
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Set Harth wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Voyager and TOS/movies I-VI depict warp speeds so differently they can't possibly co-exist, yet nobody seems to care.
"I care." - Luke Skywalker
I thought I was the only person who replies with this quote.
__________________
Star Trek
1966-
Jeff O'Connor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 04:33 PM   #2755
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post
I'd figured they'd need to make around 480 million in order to be doing just about as good as ST09.
No.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 05:22 PM   #2756
Vyse
Lieutenant
 
Vyse's Avatar
 
Location: Crescent Isle, Arcadia
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Kruezerman wrote: View Post
Trek is number 3 on Rotten Tomatoes' Summer Scorecard.
It's the highest rated of the big summer movies so far as well. The only movies ahead of it are limited releases.
Vyse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 07:46 PM   #2757
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]

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post
I'd figured they'd need to make around 480 million in order to be doing just about as good as ST09.
No.
Can you prove that? And what would be your assessment?
__________________
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 11 2013, 08:08 PM   #2758
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Vyse wrote: View Post
Kruezerman wrote: View Post
Trek is number 3 on Rotten Tomatoes' Summer Scorecard.
It's the highest rated of the big summer movies so far as well. The only movies ahead of it are limited releases.
Still, third is not bad at all.

I didn't even know there was a new Before film. I'm going to have to go look for that.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 08:43 PM   #2759
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

I noticed STID bombed big time in Spain, opening less than ST09 and opened in 3rd place behind After Earths second weekend, a second weekend down nearly 60% from its first weekend! Best to have a limited opening in Spain next time! Same for the other countries that bombed.
Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 08:52 PM   #2760
SalvorHardin
Rear Admiral
 
SalvorHardin's Avatar
 
Location: Star's End
View SalvorHardin's Twitter Profile
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Flake wrote: View Post
Best to have a limited opening in Spain next time! Same for the other countries that bombed.
Or do better marketing there next time.
Also, opening a movie in a Mediterranean country in the middle of summer is not the best. Not to mention all the economy problems going on.
__________________

SalvorHardin 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 08:39 AM.

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