RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 143,234
Posts: 5,601,598
Members: 25,407
Currently online: 543
Newest member: stephanieshepar

TrekToday headlines

Saturday Night Live Trek Skit
By: T'Bonz on Mar 3

Two IDW Publishing Trek Comics Previews
By: T'Bonz on Mar 3

Shatner: Celebrate Life
By: T'Bonz on Mar 3

March-April 2015 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Mar 2

Shatner Shares Nimoy Memories
By: T'Bonz on Mar 2

Retro Review: When It Rains…
By: Michelle on Feb 27

Nimoy Dead At Eighty-Three
By: T'Bonz on Feb 27

Breaking news: Leonard Nimoy – ‘Mr Spock’ – dies aged 83
By: AntonyF on Feb 27

Hurley Passes
By: T'Bonz on Feb 26

USS Excelsior Model Coming Soon
By: T'Bonz on Feb 25


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 > Misc. Star Trek > Future of Trek

Future of Trek Discussion of future Trek projects.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 7 2014, 01:28 AM   #91
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
Re: Captain of the next Trek series

The Stig wrote: View Post
In actuality, the cachet of Kirk and Spock sold audiences on the first film. The skilled execution of these younger versions fueled the appetite for the second film, which did quite a bit more money than the first.
ST: Twelve's opening weekend was about five million dollars short of ST: Eleven's. They were in a similar number of theaters.

Overall Twelve made about thirty million dollars less than Eleven.

__________________
.
Vulcans refer to this as a'Tha
T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 7 2014, 02:28 AM   #92
BigJake
Vice Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Captain of the next Trek series

T'Girl wrote: View Post
The Stig wrote: View Post
BigJake wrote: View Post
They just want to see some space adventures and be told a halfway decent story.
If that was even remotely true, Serenity would have been a monster hit.
Okay, add air the pilot as the first epiosde, airing the episodes in their intended order, actually advertize the show, and don't preempt randomly the scheduled showings.

Maybe then it will be a "monster hit."

Too true.
__________________
"Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most... human."
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14 2014, 05:38 PM   #93
The Stig
Rear Admiral
 
The Stig's Avatar
 
Location: Dunsfold Aerodrome, Surrey
~$387

T'Girl wrote: View Post
The Stig wrote: View Post
In actuality, the cachet of Kirk and Spock sold audiences on the first film. The skilled execution of these younger versions fueled the appetite for the second film, which did quite a bit more money than the first.
ST: Twelve's opening weekend was about five million dollars short of ST: Eleven's. They were in a similar number of theaters.

Overall Twelve made about thirty million dollars less than Eleven.

No, it really didn't. STiD made ~$467 million world-wide to ST09's ~$385 million.
__________________
Some say that, of all the souls he has encountered in his travels, his was the most human.
All we know is, we've lost a legend.
Goodbye Leonard Nimoy.
The Stig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14 2014, 08:18 PM   #94
BigJake
Vice Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: ~$387

The Stig wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote: View Post
The Stig wrote: View Post
In actuality, the cachet of Kirk and Spock sold audiences on the first film. The skilled execution of these younger versions fueled the appetite for the second film, which did quite a bit more money than the first.
ST: Twelve's opening weekend was about five million dollars short of ST: Eleven's. They were in a similar number of theaters.

Overall Twelve made about thirty million dollars less than Eleven.

No, it really didn't. STiD made ~$467 million world-wide to ST09's ~$385 million.
I think she was talking about net, not gross.
__________________
"Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most... human."
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14 2014, 10:12 PM   #95
The Stig
Rear Admiral
 
The Stig's Avatar
 
Location: Dunsfold Aerodrome, Surrey
Re: ~$387

BigJake wrote: View Post
The Stig wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote: View Post
ST: Twelve's opening weekend was about five million dollars short of ST: Eleven's. They were in a similar number of theaters.

Overall Twelve made about thirty million dollars less than Eleven.

No, it really didn't. STiD made ~$467 million world-wide to ST09's ~$385 million.
I think she was talking about net, not gross.
No, she was using the US domestic take and ignoring the massive growth that Trek saw overseas.

Trek has never been more popular internationally than it is today.
__________________
Some say that, of all the souls he has encountered in his travels, his was the most human.
All we know is, we've lost a legend.
Goodbye Leonard Nimoy.
The Stig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14 2014, 10:21 PM   #96
BigJake
Vice Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Captain of the next Trek series

Whatever T'Girl had specifically in mind, ST09 really was more profitable in worldwide terms than its sequel:

1701news wrote:
So what is the most profitable Star Trek film of all time? Will we find it in the Abrams area, where the films have grossed $888 million worldwide, adjusting for inflation? Or will we find it in a different era?

The 1701News researchers decided to find out. They looked only at what would be apples-to-apples comparisons, and didn't factor in any expenses other than the film's overall budget. Of course, marketing, distribution and other costs also play factors, but this is a straight profit margin based on box office gross and the film's reported budget.

For "The Motion Picture," the $264.6 million domestic total created a 135 percent profit margin. On the worldwide scale, that profit margin jumps to just less than 300 percent -- both very strong outings. "The Voyage Home" boasted even better profit margins -- 172 percent domestically and 432 percent worldwide.

Yet, among all the Star Trek movies, "The Motion Picture" is ranked fifth domestically and fourth worldwide. "The Voyage Home" did a little better, but didn't quite earn the crown -- third domestically and second globally.

Then we jump to the Abrams films. When adjusted for inflation, the 2009 "Star Trek" earned $280.7 million domestically, and $420.2 million worldwide. However, "Star Trek" had a budget of $152.5 million, meaning it made just 84 percent over budget in North America, and 176 percent over budget worldwide. That ranked "Star Trek" ninth and eighth among all Star Trek movies.

Last year's "Star Trek: Into Darkness" actually had one of the smallest profit margins both in North American and domestically. It earned $228.8 million in North America, but the film cost $190 million to make, leaving a profit margin of just 20 percent. That's slightly worse than the 21 percent profit margin of 1998's "Star Trek: Insurrection," and better only than "Star Trek: Nemesis" in 2002, which actually finished 28 percent in the red.

Worldwide, "Into Darkness" did get a lot better. It's $467.4 million haul provided Paramount a profit margin of 146 percent, but again that was only better than "Insurrection" (105 percent) and "Nemesis" (12 percent).

Who is the winner? "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan." When adjusted for inflation, the 1982 film made $190.3 million domestically and $234.9 million worldwide. This fell considerably short of what "The Motion Picture" made three years before. However, "Wrath of Khan" also had the smallest budget of any Star Trek film. Even adjusted for inflation, it cost just $26.6 million to produce. Paramount kicked up the budget a bit for "Star Trek III: The Search For Spock" (to $38.4 million), but then the budget would hover in the $50 million range until "Star Trek: First Contact" in 1996, which had a budget of $67.1 million after adjustment.

This gave "Wrath of Khan" a whopping 615 percent profit margin, just in North America. When the rest of the world was factored in, the final tally put Paramount 783 percent in the black -- the difference between the nearly $27 million budget and the $235 million total haul.
(emphases mine )

The Abrams films rank 8th and 10th in terms of worldwide profitability among Trek films. (Although I think it's correct to say that they relied much more on international markets to reach those totals than previous films. So strictly-speaking it's probably accurate to say this version of the franchise is more internationalized.)
__________________
"Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most... human."
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14 2014, 10:32 PM   #97
The Stig
Rear Admiral
 
The Stig's Avatar
 
Location: Dunsfold Aerodrome, Surrey
Re: Captain of the next Trek series

That's all well and good, but doesn't actually respond to my post in any way. I didn't make any claims about profit margins or inflationary adjustments. STiD took in more money than any other Trek movie, even when 'adjusted for inflation.' It did more business internationally than any other Trek film and built and audience for Trek around the world that didn't exist before.
__________________
Some say that, of all the souls he has encountered in his travels, his was the most human.
All we know is, we've lost a legend.
Goodbye Leonard Nimoy.
The Stig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14 2014, 10:35 PM   #98
BigJake
Vice Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Captain of the next Trek series

The Stig wrote: View Post
That's all well and good, but doesn't actually respond to my post in any way.
You were claiming that STiD made more money than ST09. In terms of net profits, which is what "making money" generally refers to, that is false. (And I don't know why you're scare-quoting "adjusting for inflation." Adjusting for inflation is in fact how you make meaningful comparisons between box office takes in different years.)
__________________
"Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most... human."

Last edited by BigJake; March 14 2014 at 11:05 PM.
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14 2014, 10:48 PM   #99
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Captain of the next Trek series

I don't se any evidence there that they are also adjustng the budget for inflation? It appears they are only adjusting the Box Office take for inflation, and then comparing that against the actual budget?

They should be taking the Box Office Gross and multiplying it by the Inflation factor, then taking the Budget and multiplying it by the inflation factor, and then subtracting The Adjusted budget from the adjusted box office and comparing that for comparitive Profit Margin.

Talking about percentages is merely talking about Profit Margin, not actual Profit
__________________
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 March 14 2014, 11:02 PM   #100
BigJake
Vice Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Captain of the next Trek series

It would be surprising to me if they weren't adjusting the budget totals as well. TMP's budget total is definitely adjusted; there's no way it cost 112 million to make in 1979, its budget unadjusted would be under 50 million.

Sindatur wrote:
Talking about percentages is merely talking about Profit Margin, not actual Profit
Profit Margin is how you calculate actual profitability, which obviously is the point of article. (It's of course quite easy to convert the profit margin percentages into actual dollars*.

(*EDIT: Actually, why not do this? Gimme a sec.)
__________________
"Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most... human."

Last edited by BigJake; March 14 2014 at 11:13 PM.
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14 2014, 11:33 PM   #101
urbandefault
Fleet Captain
 
urbandefault's Avatar
 
Location: Lemon Wacky Hello
Re: Captain of the next Trek series

Has anyone suggested Bruce Willis yet? He has that smirk, and can do the "twinkle in the eye" thing. He can do action, and he can do ... other stuff--I think. Slap a decent rug on him (I don't like his shaved head look) and there you go.
__________________
"GARY BUSEY!" - Gary Busey
urbandefault is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 15 2014, 12:46 AM   #102
BigJake
Vice Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Captain of the next Trek series

Bruce Willis as a rebooted Picard, you wouldn't even need the rug.

Apologies to The Stig: looking at Hinman's data again, I think it's him (and by extension, me) that's made a mistake and not you. Hinman's claiming that STID's profit margin worldwide was 146%, but that doesn't seem like it can be true if his claim about the cost to make it is accurate; the real number should be 246%.

Ranked by profit margin with that error corrected, the list would look like this:



And in terms of actual dollars of profit:



You therefore are correct that STID made more money and was more profitable than ST09, and that it saw most of that profit from the international market.
__________________
"Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most... human."
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 15 2014, 03:07 AM   #103
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Captain of the next Trek series

BigJake wrote: View Post
It would be surprising to me if they weren't adjusting the budget totals as well. TMP's budget total is definitely adjusted; there's no way it cost 112 million to make in 1979, its budget unadjusted would be under 50 million.
Ah, I see what I did. I misread and mistook that 135% TMP Profit Margin as Before inflation Adjustment, and TVH 300% Profit Margin as TMP's Inflation adjusted Margin

Margin, yes, is Profitability. But when you say "Made the Most Profit", that means resulted in the most money after taking out the expenses (IE: Budget in this exercise).
__________________
One Day I hope to be the Man my Cat thinks I am

Where are we going? And why are we in this Handbasket?

Last edited by Sindatur; March 15 2014 at 03:20 AM.
Sindatur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 15 2014, 06:31 AM   #104
SolitaryJustice
Lieutenant
 
SolitaryJustice's Avatar
 
Location: Bozeman, MT
Re: Captain of the next Trek series

Getting back on step, Captain Jack Harkness (or the like). Broke the barriers of bald captain, black captain, and woman captain. Time for a gay (or at least indiscriminately horny) captain. My 2.
__________________
"In the course of my life, I have more than once been too ignorant to know that something was impossible before I did it anyway." -Maximus from the Codex Alera
SolitaryJustice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 17 2014, 08:35 AM   #105
Bry_Sinclair
Commodore
 
Bry_Sinclair's Avatar
 
Location: Tactical withdrawl along the Klingon border
Re: Captain of the next Trek series

SolitaryJustice wrote: View Post
Getting back on step, Captain Jack Harkness (or the like). Broke the barriers of bald captain, black captain, and woman captain. Time for a gay (or at least indiscriminately horny) captain. My 2.
Yup
__________________
Avatar: Captain Naya, U.S.S. Renown NCC-1415 [Star Trek: Four Years War]
Manip by: JM1776 (STPMA.net)
Bry_Sinclair is online now   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 06:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.