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

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by RAMA, Apr 26, 2013.

  1. Flake

    Flake Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    Box office mojo is updating the OS total figure but has not updated the individual figures. The $29.1m from UK is part of the $102m figure.
     
  2. Out Of My Vulcan Mind

    Out Of My Vulcan Mind Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Wherever you go, there you are.
    According to ERC STiD made $2.7 million on Wednesday. Star Trek made $3.1 million on the Wednesday following its second weekend.
     
  3. Borgminister

    Borgminister Admiral Moderator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2001
    Location:
    California
    That comparative number is really not bad...!
     
  4. Out Of My Vulcan Mind

    Out Of My Vulcan Mind Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Wherever you go, there you are.
    Wednesday actual: $2,741,570 for $162,193,907 to date.
     
  5. Flake

    Flake Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    OK my weekend predict is going to be:

    Thursday: $2.83m +3.5%
    Friday: $5.66m +100%
    Sat: $8.2m +45%
    Sun: $5.33 -35%

    Total Weekend: $19.2m
    Total by end of Weekend: $184.2m
    Total of ST09 at same point: $184.5m

    I don't think I am being too optimistic here? I am quite surprised it has turned out like that. It will be a 50% drop from Memorial Day weekend 3-day.
     
  6. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    That's reasonable.
     
  7. Neumann

    Neumann Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Location:
    Sol III
    No. That's epic, just like STAR TREK. :klingon::vulcan::bolian::borg::cardie:
     
  8. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    For giggles,

    Standard for Success: Profits 2x or greater than budget
    Each x represented by a smile

    Star Trek: The Motion Picture :):):)

    $46,000,000 in budget (1979)
    $143,224,565 in budget (2012)

    $139,000,000 in profits (1979)
    $432,787,274 in profits (2012)

    Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan :):):):):):):):)
    $11,000,000 in budget (1982)
    $25,760,629 in budget (2012)

    $97,000,000 in profits (1982)
    $227,161,917 in profits (2012)

    Star Trek III: The Search for Spock :):):):):)

    $16,000,000 in budget (1984)
    $34,811,262 in budget (2012)

    $87,000,000 in profits (1984)
    $189,286,237 in profits (2012)

    Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home :):):):):):)

    $21,000,000 in budget (1986)
    $43,279,789 in budget (2012)

    $133,000,000 in profits (1986)
    $274,105,334 in profits (2012)

    Star Trek V: The Final Frontier :eek:

    $33,000,000 in budget (1989)
    $60,173,880 in budget (2012)

    $63,000,000 in profits (1989)
    $114,877,408 in profits (2012)

    Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country :):):)

    $27,000,000 in budget (1991)
    $44,828,015 in budget (2012)

    $96,888,996 in profits (1991)
    $160,864,496 in profits (2012)

    Star Trek: Generations :):):)

    $35,000,000 in budget (1994)
    $53,386,565 in budget (2012)

    $118,071,125 in profits (1994)
    $180,097,481 in profits (2012)

    Star Trek: First Contact :):):)

    $45,000,000 in budget (1996)
    $65,015,268 in budget (2012)

    $146,027,888 in profits (1996)
    $210,978,719 in profits (2012)

    Star Trek: Insurrection :eek:

    $58,000,000 in budget (1998)
    $81,099,227 in budget (2012)

    $112,587,658 in profits (1998)
    $157,426,910 in profits (2012)

    Star Trek: Nemesis :eek:

    $60,000,000 in budget (2002)
    $75,937,237 in budget (2012)

    $67,312,826 in profits (2002)
    $85,192,500 in profits (2012)

    Star Trek (2009) :):)

    $150,000,000 in budget (2009)
    $160,112,811 in budget (2012)

    $385,494,555 in profits (2009)
    $411,484,311 in profits (2012)

    Star Trek, as a movie franchise, had its greatest success in the 1980s. I think that people expected the reboot would have the phenomenal success of other rebooted properties, but I think this brief survey shows that it hasn't happened. I think the new film may get one :).

    Here is a new article on the box office:
    http://io9.com/whats-the-future-of-star-trek-after-into-darkness-510291083

    After quoting another article which said that only 25% of people under 25 saw this movie, I read this in the above article:
    That is a rather bleak assessment about the health and future of this franchise.
     
  9. RevDMV

    RevDMV Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 1999
    Location:
    RevDMV in the Bay Area, CA
    I'm losing all nerd cred at this point...
     
  10. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    They really need an animated series at this point to begin building a new fan base.
     
  11. Out Of My Vulcan Mind

    Out Of My Vulcan Mind Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Wherever you go, there you are.
    Star Trek went up to comparable success to the 1980s movies when you take into account the nature of movie economics in the two eras. What you have to bear in mind is that the movie business changed dramatically in the 1990s and 2000s. Prior to that budgets were much lower, even adjusted for inflation, and theatrical box office was the primary source of revenue. Theatrical profits were the name of the game.

    In the 1990s and 2000s budgets went way up - although the 1990s Trek films were kept under a much tighter leash compared to budgets in general - and home entertainment became a very important source of revenue, delivering more revenue than the studio's cut of theatrical box office. That, together with the development of foreign box office, which is particularly drawn to huge FX-heavy action films, kept budgets high and delivered the revenue to sustain those budgets. The much higher budgets of today means that theatrical profits alone usually won't match those of the most successful films from the pre-1990s era, but the business model isn't built on theatrical box office to the extent it was then.
     
  12. Flake

    Flake Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    WTF does this randomer from 'io9' know? Its a bullshit article by someone who knows nothing on a website that has no credibility within the movie industry. Just someone trying to score points.

    Show me an article in Hollywood Reporter or Variety discussing this and I might be a tiny little bit concerned.

    As for budgets, yes they have spiralled out of control enormously and I presume profit margins are lower across the board except for behemoths that do over $600-700m worldwide. There is not only box office here, there is DVD, Blu-Ray, TV, PPV, Rentals to come - something the 80s movies did not have.
     
  13. LOKAI of CHERON

    LOKAI of CHERON Commodore Commodore

    Yep, I've been a hardcore fan since the early 80's. I've lost count of the times I've read about the proverbial death knell for Trek - only for it to return phoenix-like over and over.
     
  14. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    I simply looked at the money that the films generated. I am aware of the changes in the model.

    Paramount was expecting this franchise rebooted for the next generation would be as big as a hit as the comic book films, which were reboots of films made earlier. I think Paramount was expecting the same returns as one of those early 80s films, where the films were returning 5 to 8 times their profits. It hasn't happened, and erosion in the audience is occurring.

    For Star Trek to work as a movie franchise, the property has to lose some of its "Trek"-ness, because the international audience demands that. And the film has to appeal to those who are under 25, who, from a corporate perspective, seem to have different expectations than a person over 25. (These people seem to like F&F 6, which is doing really well at the box office.)

    I think there might be a third film in 2016. I am dubious about a TV show because of the costs associated with sci-fi shows.

    (The 80s movies had premium channels, laser discs, and vhs.)
     
  15. indranee

    indranee Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Location:
    Warrrrrrrrrshington, DC
    the fact remains that hardcore fans are mostly older and many of them have problems with this movie and JJ-Trek in general. And they're vociferous to boot.

    That's the IMAGE. It's also easily provable via the IMDB board. It's been in the pits ever since we knew for sure that Cumberbatch plays Khan.

    The problem with going after the juveniles is that unlike all those other comic book franchises, Trek does not have a superman/superbeing at its heart.

    And the "Trekness" you speak of is in direct opposition to what brings those other franchises their mullah: casual and willful destruction of life and property.

    That is in direct contrast to what Trek has always been and should be.
     
  16. Flake

    Flake Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    I think the lack of under 25s watching is down solely to the competition. I think the under 25s are the most likely to pass on Trek in favour of something else (FF6, Gatsby, IM3, Hangover) because it is not their first choice movie. If it is released in amongst less competition the percentage would be up like ST09 was.

    Most under 20s will have been exposed to Trek TV shows from channel hopping. They probably think it looks dated and likely does not appeal to the majority of them at all. They also might compound that by catching a bad episode. So they wont give the movie a chance.

    At some point the concept of Star Trek will become as dated to people as Flash Gordon from the 1930s does now. It will take a bold producer to really shake up the concept way beyond what Abrams has done to make it relevant again. Times change.
     
  17. indranee

    indranee Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Location:
    Warrrrrrrrrshington, DC
    So you're saying that the less we see of "old" Trek (even TNG) on TV, the better for the reboot? Hmm.
     
  18. Flake

    Flake Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    Yes.

    However I would prefer Trek stay on TV and everyone in the world of all ages experiences its awesomeness :) I just think that it might look dated now to today's teens and as a result might perhaps impact on that demographic at STID box office.

    Let 1000 teens watch a random episode of any Star Trek and I think chances are 900+ won't like it.

    The obvious antidote is a new TV show or cartoon.
     
  19. Out Of My Vulcan Mind

    Out Of My Vulcan Mind Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Wherever you go, there you are.
    The latter needs to inform analysis of the former.

    No, they weren't expecting returns like that. Very few films with production budgets of $150-200 million gross five, six or seven times their budgets (The Avengers being one of those exceptions - maybe four or five films in that budget range will gross more than 4X or 5X their budgets per year, depending on how many uber-franchise sequels there are, and only on rare occasions will one go up to 6X or 7X its budget). If a film grosses 3X its poduction budget a studio will be thrilled under today's business model (unless it's a rare franchise that usually delivers higher) and if it grosses 2.5X they'll generally be satisfied. Even a lower return than 2.5X can lead to a sequel if the ancillaries are strong enough.

    And they delivered far less revenue than resulted from the explosion in home entertainment revenue that occured in the 1990s.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2013
  20. Flake

    Flake Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    It wouldn't surprise me if The Avengers had a $250m budget and a $250m worldwide ad campaign!