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

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

  1. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    And it's getting harder for the blockbuster films to recoup their costs. For "Man of Steel", a film with a budget of $225, to be successful, it will need at least $450 million in profits. Not improbable. However, the number of films that make over $500 million is small, and there has to be a ceiling there.
     
  2. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    What I meant was simply that taking into consideration all theatres eliminates the problem you mentioned.
     
  3. The Transformed Man

    The Transformed Man Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    $855,000 for Friday. So probably a $2.5 million weekend.

    Yancy
     
  4. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    We'd need cost AND gross in order to be able to at least get a grasp of how good a movie did. Unfortunately even BoxOfficeMojo doesn't have costs for the older movies, and as Buzzkill mentioned we're not exactly clear on how much these movies cost today.
     
  5. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    No, it doesn't. If you're only counting tickets sold, you can't count seats that aren't there. Remember, the question, as phrased, was whether tickets sold is a good measure of popularity.

    The fact that seats would be filled, if only they were available, has to determined by considering more information. Again, this may not be important for the measure you're considering, but it matters when gaging the interest level in a movie. Observing that you're selling a lot of tickets for the area you're in might help in deciding whether to expand the distribution of a film, or, when considering films in aggregate, it might help in deciding to build more theaters.
     
  6. Opus

    Opus Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bloom County
    This is a bogus fallacy that's been bandied about these boards for years. Untrue.
     
  7. Sindatur

    Sindatur The Grey Owl Wizard Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    I don't think Throwback means what was posted. I believe what throwback meant was MoS needs to take in about $450M in order to show a profit. It would be insane to say it needs to have $450M in Profit to be successful, it would need to take in about a Billion to cover a $450M profit

    Basic formula that's used around here, I believe is,
    Budget + half of Budget for Marketing = Break Even/Profitable
    Studio only gets about 1/3 of Foreign Box Office

    STID:
    $190M Budget + $95M = $285M
    $214.5M Domestic + $67M (1/3 of $201.7 Foreign) = $281.5
    This is with a current figure of $416M

    So, The other 4 countries who are to still to release it, The DVD/BD, TV sales and Netflix is all gravy, because the box office has already covered the cost of making the film (The Studios don't want to consider After-theater in Profitability, they want that all to be gravy)

    How much Man of Steel needs to bring in, depends upon what percent is Foreign vs Domestic
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2013
  8. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    It doesn't matter, if we want to know how many times it was seen in theatres. You are creating a problem that doesn't exist.

    That would certainly be a very interesting piece of information if it were available, but the factors getting those seats filled are impossible to determine anyway.
     
  9. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    Oh, good grief. Moving on....
     
  10. Beyerstein

    Beyerstein Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    That stuff is all irrelevant though. If you just wanna compare what kind of business two movies did you just wanna know how many people went and saw this movie and how many people went and saw that movie.

    Like, Avatar is one of the highest grossing movies ever, but with the 3D surcharges it was also one of the most expensive movies to go see ever, so how is that meaningful data?
     
  11. Opus

    Opus Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bloom County
    Except people are motivated (or not motivated) to see movies in the theater in different generations (as my list attempted to explain). Thus comparing past movies to current movies by ticket sales (or any means for that matter) is like comparing apples to oranges. You simply cannot.
     
  12. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    What ? I simply don't care about tickets NOT sold.
     
  13. Flake

    Flake Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    I think they should try for Christmas 2015 for the next movie! That would be great. No point leaving it for too long between movies again. 50th anniversary can still be celebrated some other way, like a new TV show or even a spinoff Abrams-verse movie.
     
  14. Therin of Andor

    Therin of Andor Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Location:
    New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
    Are you sure there were fewer theatres in those days?

    Once upon a time, every suburb in Australia had a picture theatre. It was the only way for the general public to see visual news ("newsreels") and cartoons. Many of the buildings still exist today, but most got turned into supermarkets, car showrooms or office complexes in the 60s (competition of TV), McDonalds restaurants or video rental shops in the 80s. The successful suburban ones were eventually divided up into multiplexes. It would be a similar story for the US?

    The law of supply and demand. It's not as if good films ever had trouble finding audiences. Or that people missed out on seeing movies because it was hard to find a cinema. Rural towns ran "picture shows" in local community halls - and even tents.
     
  15. Dart

    Dart Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2001
    Location:
    Co. Kerry. Ireland
    Seems throwback wasn't clear enough but Opus is on the ball.

    The point was made that this whole "formula" you're using which seems to be quoted a lot is in fact rubbish. Let's see some real document from the studios to prove it!! Personally I can't see any business being run in such a terrible way - except banks and they destroyed the economy of a lot of the western world over and over. Sad but true.
     
  16. Therin of Andor

    Therin of Andor Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Location:
    New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
    The "formula" being touted is one I recall being explained by "Starlog" magazine in the early 80s, but the filmmaking world has definitely moved on from there. "Creative accounting" has hidden many costs of some films.

    Home video sales are definitely not counted. A film from the 60s can be released on Blu-Ray today for its first time and that money (mostly gravy) won't get added to its old 60s totals.

    I also recall discussion about "Batman Returns" in 1992. Potential licensees had been caught on the hop by the surprise blockbuster that was "Batman" (1989) - the tie-in rights had been "too cheap" - and Warner Bros made an absolute killing on the sequel by preselling the rights (to sell international spin-off merchandise rights) to lots of little promotions companies all over the world (who didn't make their money till they sold enough local rights). They sold the rights to sell the rights! As it was told to me, Warner Bros and DC Comics made enough money on this new business model that the film had theoretically already paid for itself before release. But, of course, this money sat in a different pot and wasn't "counted" in final totals. (And, of course, many once-tiny promotions companies all over the world went to the wall because they failed to sell enough rights. But Warners already had their $$$$$)
     
  17. Sindatur

    Sindatur The Grey Owl Wizard Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    Sure, the marketing may be less than half of budget, or they get a bigger percentage of foreign box office, and maybe there is a minimum profit built into that.

    But,I don't see any reason to doubt the formula as to what studios consider a success, if movies make those required numbers, they get sequels, if they come close but don't quite make it there needs to be a compelling reason to approve a sequel (Lucrative tie-in/toy line(s), product placements, better than expected Disk sales, or some reason that gives them faith next one will do better)
     
  18. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    In cost accounting, there is the concept of the break-even. This is when cost and revenue are equal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break_even_analysis)

    So, for a movie like "Man of Steel", this is $225 million (production budget=gross profits). This film has reached the break-even stage.

    For the film to be successful, it needs to make $450 million, which is twice the budget. This will cover the cost of marketing and distribution.

    The formula for a film is,

    Negative Cost=Development Cost+Pre-Production Cost+Production Cost+Post Production Cost

    Negative Cost is known aka as "production budget". Man of Steel was $225 million.

    http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/movies/2010/03/the-cost-of-making-a-hollywood-movie/
     
  19. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Except that the formula doesn't have anything do do with reality.
     
  20. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    "Who are you?"
    Pretty sure.

    As of 2011, there were almost 40,000 screens in the US [link].

    The number of nickelodeons exceeded 10,000 by 1910, but they were in decline and being shut down by 1915 [link]. They were replaced by movie palaces, that were fewer in number but which could seat more. Movie palaces in the US in 1922 numbered only around 4,000 [link].

    Interestingly, the population of the US in 1920 was one-third of what it is today [link]. That means that, in aggregate, the ratio of screens per person was approaching what it is today, until the nickelodeon market collapsed. However, the typical seating at the nickelodeons (of 50-200 people) was more limited than at the typical movie theater today (about 200).

    Again, I was simply trying to help show why the straightforward metric of counting tickets alone can't serve to accurately quantify a comparison of films from different eras, as if there were any question of that to begin with. As I said, I firmly believe that taking into account multiple metrics can give a clearer picture, by providing better context for data. Analyzing the distribution of theaters is just such an exercise, one that cannot be simply glossed over without consideration of the evidence. What exactly the lay of the land is affects the quantitative measures.

    I was going to avoid opening this can of worms, but since I'm here, I may as well mention this too. The question I was responding to was whether ticket sales indicate popularity. In answering, I implicitly interpreted "popularity" as "interest", even though that's not really accurate.

    People can line up and buy tickets to see a film, but still come away "meh" by the whole experience. A pretty good example here might be Superman Returns. Somehow, Warner made the call that, even though there was arguably a lot of revenue generated, it wasn't really a popular enough film to spawn a sequel (they're pros after all, so they must look at things from a lot of different angles). Now that MoS appears to be rejuvenating Superman on film, maybe more people can agree now that SR was best left as the period on the end of that continuity.

    Actually, just to clarify, despite my repeated suggestion that maybe you were interested in something else than what I was discussing (in response to a question from someone other than you in the first place), you said:
    As if I'm responsible for the complexities involved, or was even intending to address the issues you had in mind in the first place!