RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,315
Posts: 5,352,343
Members: 24,620
Currently online: 660
Newest member: MAC5494

TrekToday headlines

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

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


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 October 2 2013, 12:00 AM   #166
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
On a related note, because of the disappointing box office performance of STD, Paramount needs to lay off 110 positions.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...sitions-639943
STiD is not mentioned in that article.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 12:02 AM   #167
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

I didn't see any mention of Star Trek XII in that article either.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 12:12 AM   #168
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

You guys are absolutely hilarious.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 12:21 AM   #169
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
You guys are absolutely hilarious.
Better than posting something deceitful and misleading.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 01:32 AM   #170
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
You guys are absolutely hilarious.
Warning for trolling. Comments to PM.
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 01:35 AM   #171
Yanks
Fleet Captain
 
Yanks's Avatar
 
Location: NX01 Bridge
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
On a related note, because of the disappointing box office performance of STD, Paramount needs to lay off 110 positions.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...sitions-639943
STID isn't even mentioned in the article.
__________________
We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.”
- Evolution of the Solar System, NASA 1976, H. Alfvén & G, Arrhenius, p. 257.
Yanks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 02:50 AM   #172
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Not to start profit and loss wars again on these boards, but World War Z is mentioned in the article as having barely made a profit. Wonder what the source for that is. Its reported budget of $190 million is identical to the one reported for STID, but WWZ made $70 million more that STID in worldwide gross ($467 million for STID to $540 million for WWZ).
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 02:57 AM   #173
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Franklin wrote: View Post
Not to start profit and loss wars again on these boards, but World War Z is mentioned in the article as having barely made a profit. Wonder what the source for that is. Its reported budget of $190 million is identical to the one reported for STID, but WWZ made $70 million more that STID in worldwide gross ($467 million for STID to $540 million for WWZ).
I'd not sure how much these papers actually know about the profitability of movies.

We already know Paramount wants a sequel to Into Darkness for 2016. I doubt that would be the case if it had been a financial disaster for them.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 03:04 AM   #174
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

BillJ wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post
Not to start profit and loss wars again on these boards, but World War Z is mentioned in the article as having barely made a profit. Wonder what the source for that is. Its reported budget of $190 million is identical to the one reported for STID, but WWZ made $70 million more that STID in worldwide gross ($467 million for STID to $540 million for WWZ).
I'd not sure how much these papers actually know about the profitability of movies.

We already know Paramount wants a sequel to Into Darkness for 2016. I doubt that would be the case if it had been a financial disaster for them.
Agreed.

It's just odd that WWZ would be the example in the article when STID grossed less with the same reported budget.

Could be the margins on both were thinner than hoped and couldn't make up for the movies that were truly bombs. Or, while the profit margin on STID was expected, it was projected that WWZ would turn a bigger profit that it did, making it a relative disappointment.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 03:08 AM   #175
Yanks
Fleet Captain
 
Yanks's Avatar
 
Location: NX01 Bridge
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

BillJ wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post
Not to start profit and loss wars again on these boards, but World War Z is mentioned in the article as having barely made a profit. Wonder what the source for that is. Its reported budget of $190 million is identical to the one reported for STID, but WWZ made $70 million more that STID in worldwide gross ($467 million for STID to $540 million for WWZ).
I'd not sure how much these papers actually know about the profitability of movies.

We already know Paramount wants a sequel to Into Darkness for 2016. I doubt that would be the case if it had been a financial disaster for them.
True.
__________________
We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.”
- Evolution of the Solar System, NASA 1976, H. Alfvén & G, Arrhenius, p. 257.
Yanks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 03:50 AM   #176
drt
Commander
 
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Also, my understanding is that more of the domestic gross goes into the studio's coffers, and STID did better there.
drt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 03:59 AM   #177
HaplessCrewman
Commander
 
HaplessCrewman's Avatar
 
Location: Office of Scientific Intelligence
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

BillJ wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post
Not to start profit and loss wars again on these boards, but World War Z is mentioned in the article as having barely made a profit. Wonder what the source for that is. Its reported budget of $190 million is identical to the one reported for STID, but WWZ made $70 million more that STID in worldwide gross ($467 million for STID to $540 million for WWZ).
I'd not sure how much these papers actually know about the profitability of movies.

We already know Paramount wants a sequel to Into Darkness for 2016. I doubt that would be the case if it had been a financial disaster for them.
Agree.

What would The Hollywood Reporter know about the film industry and profits?
__________________
Better than he was before. Better...stronger...faster.
HaplessCrewman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 04:02 AM   #178
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

HaplessCrewman wrote: View Post

What would The Hollywood Reporter know about the film industry and profits?
I'm sure they have a good flow of general information. But I doubt they're privy to many of the financial details.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 04:07 PM   #179
Sindatur
Rear Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Franklin wrote: View Post
Not to start profit and loss wars again on these boards, but World War Z is mentioned in the article as having barely made a profit. Wonder what the source for that is. Its reported budget of $190 million is identical to the one reported for STID, but WWZ made $70 million more that STID in worldwide gross ($467 million for STID to $540 million for WWZ).
WWZ made more box office over all, however, they only made $202M Domestically, compared to their budget of $190M. STiD made $228M Domestically.

The International Box Office share for Paramount is much, much smaller than Domestic.

Also, you have to wonder about Productizing, did STiD sell more Product Placement or TV Rights? Was $190M WWZ's true Budget after all was said and done? There were lots of delays, and rewrites and budget overruns, etc.

STiD definitely seems to be making up for any less than desired Box Office by it's stellar Disc sales
__________________
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 October 2 2013, 04:35 PM   #180
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Sindatur wrote: View Post
Was $190M WWZ's true Budget after all was said and done?
I was wondering about this. I remember reading that there were rumors that the budget for World War Z was in the $220-230 million dollar range after delays and cost overruns. Filming a new final third of the movie couldn't have been cheap.

I can't remember where I read it though.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ 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 09:27 AM.

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