Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by RAMA, Apr 26, 2013.
Soderbergh probably got that number from a studio executive.
I'm sure he knows better than to take their word for anything.
Well, I guess it's time to check my PMs.
Inflating the budget for tax purposes is an industrywide practice. It's also useful for playing games with profit participants. Forbes had pegged the true and correct budget for ST09 at 120.5 million. I haven't seen anything on STID, but my personal, uneducated guess would be 145-165 million.
Note that World War Z, from the same studio, has an identical reported (i.e. false) budget of 190 million. It's global run is projected to conclude about 20 million below STID. I believe its sequel has also been greenlit.
Our canon enthusiast had neglected to mention that.
Can you provide a link for that?
What projections are you referring to? That seems on the low side. World War Z looks likely to have a worldwide gross a little higher than STID.
It's all about expectations.
WWZ was went way over budget due to bad planning, and everyone expected it to flop, but it looks like it is going to be a small hit now. They've learned what not to do, and the next movie should have a much more reasonable budget. That is the reason why it looks like WWZ will be getting a sequel.
STID was expected to blow the roof off and make way more than the original move, of course that didn't happen. I blame the moronic choice of keeping Khan a secret in all the trailers. I still expect a sequel, but Paramount will be thinking twice before giving the next movie a very large budget.
World War Z is on track for a good return, the kind of return that usually leads to a sequel, even against its inflated budget, though they can hedge against any potential drop-off for a sequel by bringing it in on a lower budget.
Given your facts are always something like:
"If you take away X mount of money that STID made because of <insert ridiculous arbitrary reason here> then STID is a failure..."
I wouldn't put much stock in your analysis.
As for ST:ID - It's brought in the most money of any Star trek feature film to date; and that is a fact. Further, no one is saying it's the best movie ever; but they are saying it's a good and very successful Star Trek film.
^Untrue. But I'm not putting any stock in your posts, either.
And I’m not sure that anyone can take what’s said in a complaint as gospel, either. There are 2 sides to the story, and no one on the sidelines really knows.
Rather than just going off of the complaint, I wanted to see what the result was. I expected some sort of out-of-court settlement, and that’s what happened. To be fair, I think it’s only right to see what Paramount had to say about it:
We don’t know what the financing agreement was or what happened with it, but no one here can know enough to say that it’s all Paramount. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m personally not a fan of the studio, but that’s neither here nor there. I also don’t know anything about Melrose 2, and so I can’t say if they’re on the up-and-up or not with their claims.
One thing I did find interesting is that they got their case against Paramount in California thrown out (essentially, because they were told they had to "amend" it), seemingly because they were trying to sue the studio at the same time for the exact same thing in New York, or at least that’s what I got from this:
Take from it what you will…
Yeah, it might get there. We'll see...
All you have to do is google "Hollywood Accounting" and you'll find some interesting reading. It simply proves that we really know absolutely nothing as far as whether a film is financially successful or not.
Kind of like Nielsen ratings, but definitely not exactly, if all of Hollywood is doing their "accounting" in the same way, then at least they have the same baseline, so to speak.
Anyway, I'm happy to say that we don't know if the film is a success/failure or somewhere in between, but it seems like that's not the case with everyone.
That's an overstatement.
They will change their marketing strategy for the next movie.
They'll simply continue to emphasize those aspects of the movies that sell well in foreign markets. The next one will probably be more action-oriented and less talky than even this one. I'm sure they'll find a way to make it back to Earth for the climax, as well.
They might trim the budget down a bit, but the next one will still have a very sizeable budget. They'll definitely make the next one a 3D release again. It's too important to the Asian box office not to.
This again ? I'd like someone to explain to me how the general public is supposed to care about a villain they never heard about.
I thought they liked the talking part in other parts of the world...
Not according to "Fast and Furious 6", "The Avengers" and a huge chunk of "Man of Steel".
There's plenty of talk in those movies.
Obviously not like "12 Angry Men", of course.
I hope their accounting is as bad as the current TV ratings system.
Maybe I'm alone here but I think the Nielson ratings couldn't be more inaccurate, I know they are making attempts to be more accurate but as far as polling goes they are a long ways off.
Weekend estimate: $690,000 for $224.3 million so far. The international gross is now $222.5 million for $446.8 million worldwide so far.
Separate names with a comma.