RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,070
Posts: 5,432,297
Members: 24,926
Currently online: 499
Newest member: wod_freak

TrekToday headlines

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Cracked’s New Sci-Fi Satire
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

Beltran Introduces Shakespeare To Theater Group
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

Burton To Be Honored at Facets Boo! Bash
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16


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, 10:14 PM   #2806
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
Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

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.
As well as filming in new locations, new actors, etc., which all means that the money was spent on the making of the film. So, thank you for agreeing with me.

Yes, your childishness above is not necessary. It's just sad, really.

And since we're going for the laughing smilies... .
__________________
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, 10:20 PM   #2807
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post

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.
As well as filming in new locations, new actors, etc., which all means that the money was spent on the making of the film. So, thank you for agreeing with me.

Yes, your childishness above is not necessary. It's just sad, really.

And since we're going for the laughing smilies... .
Again, huh? I was commenting on your statement they spent it on themselves. Something common in Hollywood.

Childishness? What are you referring to? The smiley? You can use smilies, but I can't? Explain that one.
__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 10:22 PM   #2808
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]

^Now that the discussion has moved to talking about who can and can't use smilies--Goodbye, Nerys. And just so you know, you can use as many smilies as you please to have the last word here.
__________________
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, 10:27 PM   #2809
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post
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.
Hey, I happen to be very cute...

Also, I was responding to someone else who said they don't notice any difference between a movie claiming $150m, $190m and $225m budget, not you. It's not much of a stretch to consider that studios inflate budget costs to offset profit margins. It happens in business all the time.
__________________
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, 10:31 PM   #2810
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]

Opus wrote: View Post
Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post
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.
Hey, I happen to be very cute...

Also, I was responding to someone else who said they don't notice any difference between a movie claiming $150m, $190m and $225m budget, not you. It's not much of a stretch to consider that studios inflate budget costs to offset profit margins. It happens in business all the time.
I can accept that, Opus. Thank you. And yes, Penguins are cute.
__________________
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, 10:36 PM   #2811
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

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.

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...
ST (2009) did US$385 on a reported budget of US$150m if you use the ballpark x2 that means a profit of US$85

STID has thus far done US$444m on a reported budget of US$190 using the same x2 multipler would be a profit of US$65m.

So slightly down but as the film hasn't yet finished it's box offie run around the world the final figure might not be too dissimliar from ST (2009).

Perhaps the only place where Paramount might be dissapointed is at the US & Canada box office as many other countries showed growth in terms of takings
__________________
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, 11:21 PM   #2812
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

MacLeod wrote: View Post
ST (2009) did US$385 on a reported budget of US$150m if you use the ballpark x2 that means a profit of US$85
That "ballpark x2" is meaningless, referring to nothing in the current reality of producing, marketing or distributing movies.

It's been repeated authoritatively numerous times on the Internet, though, so it must be right.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 11:25 PM   #2813
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

If you not I used the word IF, I made no comment on if it was right or not.
__________________
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, 11:32 PM   #2814
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

It's not.
__________________
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, 11:36 PM   #2815
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post

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.
As well as filming in new locations, new actors, etc., which all means that the money was spent on the making of the film. So, thank you for agreeing with me.

Yes, your childishness above is not necessary. It's just sad, really.

And since we're going for the laughing smilies... .
Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post
^Now that the discussion has moved to talking about who can and can't use smilies--Goodbye, Nerys. And just so you know, you can use as many smilies as you please to have the last word here.
Enough. Warning for trolling. Comments to PM.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 11:42 PM   #2816
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]

MacLeod wrote: View Post
If you not I used the word IF, I made no comment on if it was right or not.
It seems Hollywood has been playing a shell game with production costs and revenue for years in order to short-change the various people who would see more money from higher profits...

http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00045706.html

"This lopsided distribution of earnings comes about as a direct result of Defendants' practice of understating gross receipts, delaying payments to Merlose 2, overstating production and distribution costs and hindering Merlose 2's ability to verify the revenues and costs associated with the films it funded," so read the complaint.
This is not the first time Paramount faces a lawsuit over similar case, which is also known as "Hollywood accounting". Back in 2008, Melrose 1 sued the studio over security fraud and the financing company was seeking for $30 million in damages.
So I'm not sure how anyone can really take anything associated with Hollywood numbers as gospel.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 11:49 PM   #2817
Out Of My Vulcan Mind
Vice Admiral
 
Out Of My Vulcan Mind's Avatar
 
Location: Wherever you go, there you are.
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Steven Soderbergh applied the rule of thumb of needing to gross 2X your costs to reach theatrical beakeven in his interviews this year when he was talking about the current financial state of the industry, so it's not an outdated rule of thumb, nor something that only box office sites talk about.

That's not to say you can't achieve overall profitability while falling short of grossing 2X your costs. You might make up the difference and go into profit from other revenue streams. Many films do so. And there are other potential complicating factors, like how many participation points are being given away, equity splits, etc. Plus one would have to know what the real costs are and not just the ballpark public figures to have a really accurate view of the theatrical breakeven point. An outsider observer can usually get a decent sense of whether a film is a success or not on a macro level, but not in a detailed, granular way.
__________________
"I'll see you in another life, brother."
Out Of My Vulcan Mind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 14 2013, 12:05 AM   #2818
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]

Out Of My Vulcan Mind wrote: View Post
Steven Soderbergh applied the rule of thumb of needing to gross 2X your costs to reach theatrical beakeven in his interviews this year when he was talking about the current financial state of the industry, so it's not an outdated rule of thumb, nor something that only box office sites talk about.
But I've seen other film makers talk about needing 2.5 times the production budget to break even. So which is it? It doesn't seem like even those in the know really agree on how much a film needs to make to be successful.

It seems the only thing we know is that we really don't know much.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 14 2013, 12:12 AM   #2819
Out Of My Vulcan Mind
Vice Admiral
 
Out Of My Vulcan Mind's Avatar
 
Location: Wherever you go, there you are.
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

BillJ wrote: View Post
But I've seen other film makers talk about needing 2.5 times the production budget to break even. So which is it? It doesn't seem like even those in the know really agree on how much a film needs to make to be successful.

It seems the only thing we know is that we really don't know much.
Soderbergh was talking about 2X total costs, i.e. production budget and distribution and marketing costs. Other filmmakers will sometimes talk about 2.5X production budget alone.
__________________
"I'll see you in another life, brother."
Out Of My Vulcan Mind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 14 2013, 12:13 AM   #2820
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]

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote: View Post
Except that hasn't happened. All I've seen is people posting facts.
Posting numbers is fact. Interpreting those numbers and drawing conclusions while not privy to the whole deal is not.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... 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 06:59 AM.

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