STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by RAMA, Apr 26, 2013.

  1. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Because The Motion Picture, for example, seems to be wildly unpopular with people even though it has been the most successful Trek film at the box office.
     
  2. Dream

    Dream Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2001
    Location:
    Hotel Transylvania
    It's not about how many tickets are sold, since that would decrease every year. Studios only release data on how much money movie a movie makes since that tends to stay the same or increase every year.
     
  3. Therin of Andor

    Therin of Andor Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Location:
    New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
    Also, when TMP opened in Sydney, Australia, in December 1979, it was only available in one cinema in the Central Business District. By the time the 1980 Easter school holidays had come along, a few new prints had arrived Down Under and the film had begun to appear in large suburban cinemas for short runs. By the August school holidays, it was appearing in the smaller civic centre one-day-only school holiday screenings, and in cinemas in the country towns of New South Wales. It was a very different world.
     
  4. Beyerstein

    Beyerstein Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Yeah but if you just wanna know how many people went to see a movie and compare it with a movie from a different time frame tickets sold would be the best metrik.

    I mean, albums sales have dramatically decreased but they still report it

    I think if you're comparing the success of different films, ticket price is kind of irrelevant. A movie does business by people buying a ticket and going to see it. If that cost more or less over time doesn't matter, its the number of people who went that counts.
     
  5. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    Some issues:

    - Ten tickets sold in a population of ten people is great. Everybody experiences the film; perhaps it's very popular. Only fifty people showing up to watch another film in a population of a thousand, maybe not as great. Do you consider the second film five times as popular as the first, or only five percent as popular, or what? Larger markets support pieces of more marginal interest, that aren't necessarily popular overall.

    - If a theater only seats 100, and shows sell out, that's good. Indications are that the movie showing there is popular, and very possibly more could have been seated. If a theater seats 1000 in a large market, but only 100 buy tickets, that's not as good. Both count the same number of tickets sold, but there's likely a different thing going on in terms of popular interest.

    - A movie that has only a limited release or limited showtimes can't rack up very many tickets no matter what. Maybe if people saw it, they'd like it. But if they don't have the opportunity to decide whether or not to see it, how can you really say it's unpopular?
     
  6. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    How is that relevant, considering the question you were answering ?

    Yeah but nation- or worldwide would average that out.

    I think ticket # has the advantage of showing how many people saw it, while gross allows us to get at least a vague idea of profit. Adjusted is just a way to compare movies across time. None of those is very useful, just interesting.
     
  7. JamesRye

    JamesRye Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2012
    Apparently F/X channel have purchased the TV rights for Into Darkness, but I cant find any information regarding the price.
     
  8. Timelord Victorious

    Timelord Victorious Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Location:
    Germany, Earth, the Solar System
    So what would be a useful formula to determine the movie success index factoring in average ticket price, population percentage, total profit, adjusted inflation, number of screens/seats.

    After you do that you measure the index of every competing movie at the time and calculate how that impacted the movie.

    Would that be sufficient to determine if it was a success?
     
  9. Cyrus

    Cyrus Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Attendance numbers are also not something that can be used to make a fair comparison of the movies from different eras, basically not much different that the inflation adjusted box office numbers.

    The inflation adjusted boxoffice numbers are not based on the general inflation or dollar value, they are based on ticket price inflation and estimated attendance. They multiply the attendance number by the latest average ticket price (currently at $7.94) to get the inflation adjusted boxoffice. If there are no attendance numbers available then they create one based on average ticket price of the year the movie was released.

    For example the average ticket price in 1982 was $2.94, TWOK boxoffice was $78.9M, resulting an estimated attendance of 26.8 million. Multiplying that by the 2013 average ticket price of $7.94 creates the inflation adjusted boxoffice number of $213.1.
     
  10. Sindatur

    Sindatur The Grey Owl Wizard Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    Population is a lot bigger nowadays, so more available eyes. Entertainment choices are more vast now. Back then, if you wanted to see a movie, seeing it at the theater was the only choice. More competition now.

    The most meaningful metric would be probably be to compare and tabulate the numbers for the movies in a specified year (Attendance, box office take, profit) and see what percentages of the total your specific movie that you want to compare to accomplished. Then do the same thing with the other movie you want to compare

    GWTW made $100
    GWTW sold 100 tickets
    Total Box office for year was $1000
    Total tickets sold in the year was 1000
    GWTW took 10% of Total Box Office
    GWTW sold 10% of the tickets sold that year
    Do the same with profit
    Then do the same for the movie you are comparing it to, and see how they measure up

    Even this has it's problems, but, it's closer, IMHO
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2013
  11. RAMA

    RAMA Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1999
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    Im thinking the sheer number of spectacles this summer (and World War Z is a spectacle, and teen/20s reaction seems to be positive) is making STID die a little sooner, same with the other films. IM3 had the benefit of an early start to go with it's universal popularity. Still think it's odd because both STID and MoS are light years better....but I digress...

    The WW total stands at $415,310,916 and it looks like only these late foreign openings will keep STID in the $440-450 million range.
     
  12. The Transformed Man

    The Transformed Man Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Monster's University opened huge with an estimated $79 million, and World War Z looks to take in $62 million. Man of Steel collapsed (as I expected) taking in an estimate $42 million in it's second weekend.

    Still waiting on numbers for STID.


    Yancy
     
  13. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Damn Man Of Steel is making a ton of money. No wonder Warners is thrilled.

    Let's hope the next Trek doesn't have to go up against it in 2016
     
  14. Lance

    Lance Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Location:
    The Enterprise's Restroom
    Nothing to do with how it's tracking globally, but I thought I'd share this.

    My local cinema screened it for barely three weeks and then moved onto other movies, dropping STID from the schedule.

    I dunno. Maybe I'm old fashioned. :confused: But you know, back in the old days even the lowest grossing movies would usually be given at least a month, even if their screenings per day were pared right back to the bare minimum required.

    I don't know if it's because the digital age means it's easier for small-town cinemas to just ditch movies that don't smash their own localized box office instantly, or whether it's just that my particular local cinema only has four screens and Star Trek didn't do enough locally to justify keeping other, more potentially profitable upcoming movies from taking it's spot. But to my mind, three weeks seems to be a stupidly short amount of time for any movie to be in a theater. :(
     
  15. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    That's conjecture. What does it even mean in this case, to "average out"?

    Once you've answered that, apply it to a different era, when there were far fewer theaters, like, say, the silent era in 1915.
     
  16. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    Because I want to know how many people saw it total, so local theatres don't matter.

    I already admitted that it has its flaws. This is the third time that I say that there are no ways to reliably compare movies financially across different time periods.
     
  17. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Location:
    Land of Enchantment
    Also, how are the "adjusted numbers" figured? Is it based on inflation or change in ticket prices? Because it seems to me that these calculations often fail to hold true to either.
     
  18. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    :techman:

    Conditions are just so radically different across the decades that there is simply no fair way to compare films from differing eras.
     
  19. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    Well, if that's the data you're after, then fine. However, you don't even need to know anything about "averaging out" for that.

    My point in raising the examples was that, without the consideration of additional data, that alone doesn't correspond to what one means by the term "popularity" (or, for that matter, even the term "interest").

    Yep. It's an apples-to-oranges world.
     
  20. Opus

    Opus Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bloom County
    1.) Value - Out of pocket hurt the wallet far less back in the day vs. today. The 'amount' for 2 people to go to a movie is far higher today.

    2.) Options - Movies used to be the only game in town. If you don't see a film in the theater, you will most likely never see it. Now if you don't see it, wait a couple of months and it's out on BD, or Netflix, or OnDemand, or Premium Cable...

    3.) Cost - It costs more for studios to make movies today. From explosive salaries because actors are no longer signed under contract by studios, to explosive SFX prices, films that draw audiences need to spend more. And the price reflects it.