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

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

  1. MacLeod

    MacLeod Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Great Britain
    So what you are saying is that due to the increased budget for STID it'll end up about as profitable as ST(2009). Couldn't that indicate that they managed to grow the audiance in certain markets? How is that a bad thing?


    Sure they might cut the budget back a bit for the next film but if they do I suspect it'll be to around US$170m.
     
  2. johnjm22

    johnjm22 Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2013
    Location:
    California
    46.8% of STID's current revenue has come from the foreign market, which is an improvement over ST2009's 33%.

    However, most big budget summer movies have about 60-70% of their revenue come from overseas markets, so Star Trek is more dependent on the domestic market than most.

    Paramount spent more to make this film, so it's going to be less profitable even if it does a little better overseas. How is that not a disappointment financially?

    Other big budget summer movies are pulling in a lot more.
     
  3. RAMA

    RAMA Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1999
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    Youre figures are incorrect, ST09 is first with an inflation adjusted number of $274 million.

    When all is said and done, STID will make close to $500 million from BO alone. Roughly $110-115 million more than ST09. If it makes anywhere near ST09's $101 million for DVD, or another $50 million for bluray along with the rights for cable, the final tally minus merchandising will be upwards of $650-675 million. You're simply wishing it wasn't so, but the numbers don't back you. Fail

    RAMA
     
  4. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    You don't actually know what Paramount spent to make this film. You've just read the public figure for the overall production budget.

    It cannot have escaped your notice that Paramount has financing partners on the nuTrek films. Do you know what their investments are, what the structure of their deals are, and what they actually intend to accomplish with their investments?

    (Credit will not be given for "to make as much money as possible, duh," or the equivalent. :lol:)
     
  5. johnjm22

    johnjm22 Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2013
    Location:
    California
    You apparently didn't read the first sentence of my post.

    I never said it wasn't profitable; just not as profitable as paramount hoped. It's not going to make anywhere near as much as similarly expense summer time movies. I think Paramount was hoping to get it up into that echelon, and it just hasn't worked out.
     
  6. johnjm22

    johnjm22 Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2013
    Location:
    California
    Do you doubt that the film cost a similar amount as other summer time special FX laden big budget movies?

    The movie's budget has been reported by multiple reputable publications. Of course no one knows the exact amount, but I don't think anyone would dispute that it's in the ball park of 200M. That's just what it costs to make a film like that today.

    Too much unknown to speculate here. But it seems likely to me that the ROI on STID, isn't as high as it contemporaries for most parties involved.

    Again, Paramount goes out and gets Abrams, ramps up the budget, and makes "nuTrek" a summer time release for obvious reasons. Revenue wise, it's just not living up to films that get similar treatment from their backers.
     
  7. Franklin

    Franklin Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Location:
    Captain's chair of the USS Franklin
    I think many, many folks were probably too optimistic about the domestic gross. In the Bond franchise, "Skyfall" rebounded off a not so good "Quantum of Solace" to make $300 million, domestically. Seeing that, I'd have easily bet STID could follow ST09's $257 million with $300 million. Maybe the four year gap in the movies was too long. Then again, it was four years between "Quantum of Solace" and "Skyfall", so who knows? The Bond movies were November movies, too. The movie world is fickle, I guess.
     
  8. Harvey

    Harvey Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    The sentence where you acknowledge skewing the scales by adjusting all the box office grosses for inflation except for Star Trek (2009)? Admitting that you're doing something nonsensical doesn't mean it suddenly makes sense.

    To your other point, the movie isn't going to be the biggest hit of the summer, but it will likely be among the top ten domestic grossing films of 2013. Worldwide, it's performing far better than any film in the franchise ever has. Speculating about Paramount's financial hopes for the film without a bit of evidence is a waste of time (i.e. "I think Paramount was hoping to get it up into that echelon, and it just hasn't worked out").
     
  9. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    Or maybe Bond > Trek.
     
  10. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Exactly.

    That's the only statement that matters.

    This is why with the exception of extreme cases - obvious failures or unexpected successes (see The Purge, this week) online debates about whether this or that big budget movie is "more profitable" are flat-out bullshit.

    You don't have the basic information you'd have to have to determine whether Paramount is making, or stands to make, more or less profit on STID than on ST '09. You simply don't. You only know the reported production budgets and the reported gross box office for the two films. Any conclusions you're drawing at this point might as well be divined by casting sticks or reading goat entrails.

    You can follow what you consider to be logical inferences as far as you like, but in the absence of real information the most logical of conclusions is meaningless.

    Here, let me make this clearer:

    1. Paramount would like to have made more money on this movie than they have;
    2. Paramount predicted that they'd make more money on this movie than they have;
    3. This movie is making less of a profit for Paramount than the last Star Trek movie.

    Even if one grants both of the first two statements as likely true, the third statement does not necessarily follow from them. Do you understand?
     
  11. mos6507

    mos6507 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    People decide what they want to 'support' and put on rose-colored-glasses accordingly. That goes for purists and JJ fans alike.
     
  12. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Quantum of Solace is generally regarded as a weaker film than its predecessor, Casino Royale, and some felt the plot was incomprehensible. Skyfall is a far better written film that the general audience embraced, and became the first Bond film to make over $1 billion at the box office.

    The formula and its elements for the Bond franchise was established with the first film, and, as is the case with all the very good and best films of this franchise, Skyfall succeeded because everything clicked.

    An example of a franchise where they had to change direction because they were running into the proverbial ceiling, like Star Trek, was Fast and Furious. Previous films in this franchise had focused largely on the car racing. With the last two films, the focus has been less on the racing, which is now considered an aspect of the story. The latest film has grossed over $500 million worldwide.

    Admiral Buzzkill

    There is a fourth criteria which you failed to mention. Paramount was hoping to increase the percentage of international audience members who bought tickets to see this movie. Both the domestic market and the purchase of post-release copies of a film are shrinking. (I have read about both being cited as the reason that corporations are pushing harder for their films to succeed overseas.)

    There are general rules of thumb. One such rule states that a film has to make twice its budget to be successful. ST:ID will meet this benchmark.
     
  13. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    So, after Star Trek ran into its ceiling and faltered early in the 21st century, Paramount changed the direction of the franchise and is now going from success to success by letting Bad Robot do it their way. :cool:
     
  14. MacLeod

    MacLeod Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Great Britain
    Studios will always want to make more money at the box office, this is true of a film that only takes US$50m, or one that takes US$3bn.
     
  15. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    I wish you'd have made that clear three days ago before I sold my goat herd !
     
  16. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

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

    People here have been more than honest about the flaws in the last two Trek movies, myself included.

    What's tiresome is the "this isn't Star Trek!!!" and the "Star Trek never did that!!!" brigade.
     
  17. thumbtack

    thumbtack Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Ankh-Morpork
    It's not doing a little better overseas, and you know it.


    You can always tell what their agenda is when they try to sneak TMP into first place.



    .
     
  18. throwback

    throwback Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Fast and Furious changed its direction, by focusing less on car racing.

    The question becomes, what has Star Trek to change for it to succeed? I think some people are thinking the change was too much, that it lost something of its quality when it was adapted to international markets.

    For me, the quality that changed the most was the character of James Kirk. I once wrote a thread where I used a line from ST V and AB responded:

    To me, that is the definition of this new Kirk. I wouldn't follow this Kirk for a single day, let alone five years.

    I can tell you something about the story arc of characters in IM3 or F6, but I can't tell you anything about those arcs for the characters in this new film. I don't feel the familiarity that some have expressed - that Kirk has gone through this arc before. I don't know what I feel for these characters.
     
  19. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    This is a fair criticism of the character. I like Pine and I like this version of Kirk but they've simply moved him along much too quickly in these films.
     
  20. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    :wtf:

    Is Star Trek Into Darkness really not succeeding? Really?
     

Share This Page