RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 142,344
Posts: 5,556,626
Members: 25,275
Currently online: 551
Newest member: Kilana2

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Penumbra
By: Michelle on Jan 31

Trek Commemorative Coins
By: T'Bonz on Jan 30

Urban In Dragon Remake
By: T'Bonz on Jan 30

January-February 2015 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Jan 30

New Shatner Priceline Commercial
By: T'Bonz on Jan 29

Pine Joins Netflix Series
By: T'Bonz on Jan 29

Ortiz Art Mugs
By: T'Bonz on Jan 28

Ingham Passes
By: T'Bonz on Jan 28

Star Trek Online Celebrates Five Years
By: T'Bonz on Jan 27

WizKids/Star Trek Online Caption Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jan 26


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 I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 4 2014, 04:58 PM   #16
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England
Re: ST Film Franchise By the Numbers (via Startrek.com)

CommishSleer wrote: View Post
STID 2013 figure is now $276 million profit so it moves up to number 2.
Woohoo! *dances*
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2014, 06:39 PM   #17
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: ST Film Franchise By the Numbers (via Startrek.com)

Botany Bay wrote: View Post
I think it's worth noting that the stated expenses are hard to take seriously. I remember in an accounting class a few years ago seeing an income statement for one of the Harry Potter films that made nearly $1 billion at the box office, yet according to the studio accountants, it lost hundreds of millions of dollars

Why? By the parent company (studio), charging the subsidiary (the film) 'fees' for making the movie.

The reason for this particular piece of 'earnings management' was to avoid having to pay people a % of net profits.
You know, I heard a similar story to this with Forrest Gump, where the author of the novel that was the story's basis never saw a dime because the studio claimed the film had lost money.

That sounds like it should be kind of... illegal?
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2014, 09:18 PM   #18
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
View Maurice's Twitter Profile
Re: ST Film Franchise By the Numbers (via Startrek.com)

The more famous case is Buchwald vs. Paramount (link) over related to Coming to America and Paramount's dubious "Hollywood Accounting" by which they claimed the hit movie never made a profit as defined by the terms of their contract with Art Buchwald.
__________________
* * *
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.”
― Winston S. Churchill
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6 2014, 04:00 AM   #19
Botany Bay
Commodore
 
Botany Bay's Avatar
 
Location: shores of Australia
Re: ST Film Franchise By the Numbers (via Startrek.com)

BigJake wrote: View Post
Botany Bay wrote: View Post
I think it's worth noting that the stated expenses are hard to take seriously. I remember in an accounting class a few years ago seeing an income statement for one of the Harry Potter films that made nearly $1 billion at the box office, yet according to the studio accountants, it lost hundreds of millions of dollars

Why? By the parent company (studio), charging the subsidiary (the film) 'fees' for making the movie.

The reason for this particular piece of 'earnings management' was to avoid having to pay people a % of net profits.
You know, I heard a similar story to this with Forrest Gump, where the author of the novel that was the story's basis never saw a dime because the studio claimed the film had lost money.

That sounds like it should be kind of... illegal?
I'm not sure what the US accounting standards are precisely, but internationally these 'fake' revenues and expenses from dealings between a parent company and subsidiary are not allowed, and will be struck out by the accountant or auditor so investors reading financial statements can be assured they're only reading about legitimate revenues and expenses from transactions with third parties.

But for the Forrest Gump author, and Buchwald, a contract is a contract, and as long as the parties go into it with their eyes open (and there is no unconscionability or anything else that can have the contract voided in contract law, as there was in the Buchwald case), a deal's a deal, that's how the writer gets remunerated, so 'Hollywood accounting' lives on presumably.
__________________
"Sometimes I get the feeling the only way we could achieve a STAR TREK segment on budget would be to have 60 minutes of Mr. Spock playing kazoo solo as Captain Kirk holds him in his arms while standing in a telephone booth."
Bob Justman, 1967.
Botany Bay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6 2014, 07:05 AM   #20
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: ST Film Franchise By the Numbers (via Startrek.com)

CommishSleer wrote: View Post
Its really difficult to directly compare a 1979 movie with a 2013 one. TMP would have played for months and months at the cinema. How long was STID there - 2 months?
But, ST:TMP may have only been in one cinema per city for all those months.

Here Down Under, TMP opened in Sydney at the Paramount Theatre - just the one - in our Central Business District at the end of December, and was still playing till just before Easter. Then it moved to do two- or three-week runs at several suburban cinemas at a time. By the next August, it was playing little country cinemas and those suburban school holiday makeshift theatres in civic centres and town halls. It was a wait of several years for it to reach (very expensive) home video.

From ST V onwards, each Trek film was opening simultaneosly in every Sydney suburb that had a Greater Union-owned multiplex. In recent years, every multiplex seems to host every new big movie, but only for a few weeks. And in just a few months, the DVD/Blu-ray is out.

I personally remember Star Wars being there over a year.
I recall seeing a movie poster in the original CBD cinema showing it that boasted: "Our 14th big month!"
__________________
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 January 7 2014, 07:11 AM   #21
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
View Maurice's Twitter Profile
Re: ST Film Franchise By the Numbers (via Startrek.com)

The weird thing about Hollywood accounting is that for the studio to make the most money possible it has to simultaneously demonstrate that a film made a lot of money at the box office (read: it's a hit) and at the same time try to ensure that on the books it never turns a profit. They need the "hit" status because that helps them command top dollar when selling the film to television, etc. They also need the film to stay in the red or make minimal profit "on the books" for tax reasons and to avoid paying out "participation" to people who get a cut of the profits.

Sausage making...it's an ugly business.
__________________
* * *
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.”
― Winston S. Churchill
Maurice 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 05:54 PM.

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