RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,244
Posts: 5,348,348
Members: 24,611
Currently online: 685
Newest member: Tiberius Kirk

TrekToday headlines

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

IDW Publishing Comic Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

A Baby For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

Klingon Beer Arrives In The US
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Star Trek: Prelude To Axanar
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Abrams Announces Star Wars: Force For Change Sweepstakes
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22


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 August 23 2013, 04:43 AM   #181
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Trek Box Office debate again - The Circle of Life...

... or The 5th Circle of Hell. Either one.

Anywho...

You can't compare TMP to STiD. Different time, different options for entertainment. What brought people to theaters 30+ years ago (can only see it in the movies for a few months and will be on broadcast TV in 3 years) is no longer the case. STiD is available for Digital Download TODAY. The DVD comes in a few weeks. It will be on DirecTV and Netflix. People know if they miss it in the theater that they can catch it at home. With home theater being what it is, it most likely the better experience and the cheaper and more preferred option.

Or something...
__________________
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 August 23 2013, 10:16 PM   #182
Maxwell Everett
Fleet Captain
 
Maxwell Everett's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

trevanian wrote: View Post
Maxwell Everett wrote: View Post
AUbricklogic wrote: View Post
Maxwell, I was just considering that the other day, but had no idea how to calculate the price inflation or box office numbers to account for the differences in our currency's value from the earlier productions to the new ones. How did you calculate these numbers?

Oftentimes these newer productions are labeled as "vastly more successful" because of a monetary number without considering that the dollar bought a hell of a lot more 50+ years ago. I always thought that might be a fallacy of sorts but didn't know how to go about proving it.
Sure. Here are the wordwide grosses, the average ticket prices and the links where I got the info:

Star Trek: The Motion Picture: $139,000,000 gross @ $2.51 average ticket price
Star Trek Into Darkness: $453,744,180 gross @ $8.16 average ticket price
Without getting into incongruencies with reality and other esoteric horseshit, I still gotta interject that the 139 figure for TMP is WAY WAY less than everybody claimed in the early 80s, when the 175 mil worldwide gross figure was bandied about rather handily.

And if you consider that is back when paramount was TRYING to hide big numbers to avoid paying out net points (something they managed to do up until 1985 or 1986), that they'd let the 175mil stand in STARLOG and pretty much any other mag I saw the number in, I'd figure that is the low-end number.

So how it got downgraded to 139 I really don't know. 139 is actually in keeping with what the domestic total should have been, if you figure about a 2.5X multiplier on the film's rentals, which is how it was reported in VARIETY (the general idea is that 2.5 times rental equals gross -- that was also rather commonly reported back then, along with the gross 2.5 times budget to breakeven as a general principle.) TMP generated 39 mil in rentals just in 79, and a total of I believe 55 mil overall theatrical. 137.5 goes into 55 how many times? 2.5

You can look at Gerrold's old column in STARLOG where as I recall he runs figures much like these proving TMP was well into the green (I think this would have been in 1981 or early 1982.)

All this just makes TMP seem more platinum than golden with respect to current earnings of recent films when inflation and common sense are factored in.
All great information. Thank you for that!
__________________
"Shake off all the fears & servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." -Thomas Jefferson
Maxwell Everett 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 04:21 PM.

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