Profitability of Star Trek Movies

[Giarc1982]

Hi, I'm new, I used to be quite a frequent poster on the StarTrek.com forums but tbh I left the fold when JJ took the control and they seem to have disappeared.

A bit about me first, I'm pretty much a 24th century TNG/VOY fan, grew up buying VOY on VHS fortnightly as I'd get to see the episodes about 3 weeks before UK airing. I'd also enjoyed DS9/DS9 though not so much the Wormhole aliens(I hate fate/destiny stories,that said predestination paradoxes are my favorite kind of paradox)/Temporal Cold War plots (TCW in particular as I never felt it reach a full conclusion(who was the shadow man?)), Oh yeah I don't read the books, I know some things a finished off better there

That's probably more than enough about me.

I was having an argument about the profitability of the Trek films on another website that I'm interested to hear other Trek fan views.

Basically somebody that thinks that the XI and XII movies were a good sacrifice to ensure Trek continues as franchise argued that :

"they have made more money than all the rest combined."

I thought it was an interesting proposition to challenge as I was very doubtful that was true

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Star-Trek
These are the numbers I used as my starting point, and I'm not adjusting for inflation because, I felt that the figure I really want is the % return given the capital invested, sure you can just grab the $853M Worldwide gross deducting the $330M budget and hail it as a $523M success so far but realistically how much do the studio's make back? When you take into account other expenses like marketing, taxes, international distribution costs, and the multiplex gets it cut?

http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable
I looked at this and used it as the basis for my calculations, I know it's a bit of a stretch to assume all their assumptions have remained constant since 1979 but like I say it's just a guide, and as we get to present day the figures probably get more accurate I'd guess

So yeah the formula
(((55% of Domestic) + (15% International)) - Production Budget) / Production Budget

Based on that formula the films rank like this:
1.Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan (287.38% return)
2.Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (165.98% return)
3.Star Trek III: The Search For Spock (142.44% return)
4.Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (64.78% return)
5.Star Trek: The Motion Picture (53.58% return)
6.Star Trek: First Contact (28.94% return)
7.Star Trek: Generations (27.02% return)
8.Star Trek XI (14.96% return)
9.Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (4.71% return)
10.Star Trek: Into Darkness (14.97% loss)
11.Star Trek: Insurrection (34.65% loss)
12.Star Trek: Nemesis (54.34% loss)

Now it hurts me to see my beloved Insurrection making a loss but to see Into Darkness alongside it and Nemesis as loss makers I do find quite shocking, does make me wonder if pushing forward with another JJverse film is a good idea, personally I'd rather Star Trek returned to TV and have event movies that impact the series like Agents Of Shield and the MCU, long term I think that would put the franchise into a much healthier state.

That said I'm totally biased and I would adore a return to the prime universe. I don't know Lin's Trek credentials, I hope they are better than Baird and JJ.

Wow that was a wall of Text, let me know your thoughts.

 

[SalvorHardin]

let me know your thoughts.

My thoughts are that none of all those millions goes in my pockets, sadly.
All I need to know is that I've had two very good, enjoyable Star Trek movies so far directed by Abrams and they made enough to guarantee I'm getting a third one.

Now I'll go grab my popcorn & get ready for this interesting thread.

 

[F. King Daniel]

That they're making a third one says it all - it clearly made enough. Justin Lin's recent films made a fortune, he can't have come cheap.
Your stats don't factor in home video - ST'09 is the #5 best selling bluray of all-time. ID is at #31, but was the #3 digital download of 2013.
http://www.the-numbers.com/alltime-bluray-sales-chart
http://investor.rentrak.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=825897

If you think a return to the Prime Universe is coming, you might want to check out the numbers post-1993. They're not good. Any new Trek on TV will either spin-off from the new movies or be another fresh start.

 

[Commishsleer]

My thoughts are that that formula is bogus.

Paramounts tax accountants can make what they like look like a loss to rip off writers, agents etc but they aren't really going to make movie after movie at a loss. We can all make up formulas to prove what we want. Since STID performed well overseas lets reduce the International to say 5% and while we're there reduce the Domestic to say 30% and you can say all the Star Trek movies lost money and we're better off making TV shows in the Prime Universe in the 24th Century because the venture into movies for Star Trek was a complete failure.

The guy in the article didn't say to ignore all the DVD/blu ray sales. If Paramount don't make any money from them then why even bother having them. I heard the figure of $300 million bandied about for those sales for STID. There's also books, TV right s etc.

 

[Giarc1982]

Sure the secondary VHS,DVD,BR,VOD markets do add to the bottom line, but I don't have comparable stats, also hazard a guess that Star Trek XI and Star Trek: Into Darkness had much more spent on marketing, would that be proportional to the increase in Box Office return? I certainly saw more advertising guff, compared to Insurrection.

Regardless something definitely went wrong with Into Darkness looking at the raw stats they increased the budget by $50M but made $29M less at US box office than XI, the bean counters at Paramount can't be too happy with those stats

 

[Mudd]

Well, they're happy with the increased overseas success - that's important going forward if they're going to keep making Star Trek movies. They went from about 127 million on the first one to 238 on the second.

 

[Commishsleer]

Sure the secondary VHS,DVD,BR,VOD markets do add to the bottom line, but I don't have comparable stats, also hazard a guess that Star Trek XI and Star Trek: Into Darkness had much more spent on marketing, would that be proportional to the increase in Box Office return? I certainly saw more advertising guff, compared to Insurrection.

Regardless something definitely went wrong with Into Darkness looking at the raw stats they increased the budget by $50M but made $29M less at US box office than XI, the bean counters at Paramount can't be too happy with those stats

I agree that STID wasn't as successful overall or domestically as ST09. It did perform better internationally though. Correction: STID did better overall. Is that right ?

I guess they would have preferred STID to have done better but that would apply to any movie I think.



Take the Fast and Furious franchise. Its making more and more money each time and most would consider it a great success. But according to the formula FF7 only made a 32% profit on my calculations. Only slightly better than FC .

 

[Giarc1982]

I don't know if this helps anybody, with regards to this the credibility of the formula being a good stick to measure success with but I applied it to the MCU

1.Avengers (111.76% return)
2.Iron Man 3 (69.76% return)
3.Guardians Of The Galaxy (46.27% return)
4.Iron Man 2 (28.53% return)
5.Captain America 2 (24.10% return)
6.Thor 2 (18.37% return)
7.Iron Man (15.49% return)
8.Thor(6.79% loss)
9.Captain America(9.82% loss)
10.Incredible Hulk(32.05% loss)

 

[Commishsleer]

I don't know if this helps anybody, with regards to this the credibility of the formula being a good stick to measure success with but I applied it to the MCU

1.Avengers (111.76% return)
2.Iron Man 3 (69.76% return)
3.Guardians Of The Galaxy (46.27% return)
4.Iron Man 2 (28.53% return)
5.Captain America 2 (24.10% return)
6.Thor 2 (18.37% return)
7.Iron Man (15.49% return)
8.Thor(6.79% loss)
9.Captain America(9.82% loss)
10.Incredible Hulk(32.05% loss)

Why would they make Thor 2 when Thor made a loss. Just because Chris Hemsworth is the sexiest man alive?

Change the formula - Iron Man was a success.
The Avengers cost $225 million to make and made $1.5 billion overseas but using the formula the studio only saw $225 of that $1.5 billion foreign revenue back because of exchange rates and advertising, whatever. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Giarc1982]

Take the Fast and Furious franchise. Its making more and more money each time and most would consider it a great success. But according to the formula FF7 only made a 32% profit on my calculations. Only slightly better than FC .

I'm not sure on your calculations, but FF7 isn't out yet and using the formula, only Tokyo Drift made a loss, they rank:

Fast 1 (133.64% return)
Fast 5 (42.74% return)
Fast 4 (37.04% return)
Fast 6 (33.73% return)
Fast 2 (13.53% return)
Fast 3 (42.69% loss)

 

[BillJ]

...

Do you have credentials in accounting or movie finance and production? What is your background that I should take your calculations seriously?

All I need to know is that I've had two very good, enjoyable Star Trek movies so far directed by Abrams and they made enough to guarantee I'm getting a third one.

Now I'll go grab my popcorn & get ready for this interesting thread.

This. I've had fun watching both films. Which is why I go to the movies, after all.

 

[Giarc1982]

Why would they make Thor 2 when Thor made a loss. Just because Chris Hemsworth is the sexiest man alive?

No, it was a marginal loss, they were building the MCU and they came off the back of the enormously profitable Avengers. Some films payoff some do not, its often the case in computer games where a new IP will make a loss that is recouped later with more profitable sequels, that reasoning certainly makes Into Darkness's failure much more stark as it wasn't a new IP, it's not the first with this cast, there are no excuses, it should have done better.

 

[Commishsleer]

Take the Fast and Furious franchise. Its making more and more money each time and most would consider it a great success. But according to the formula FF7 only made a 32% profit on my calculations. Only slightly better than FC .

I'm not sure on your calculations, but FF7 isn't out yet and using the formula, only Tokyo Drift made a loss, they rank:

Fast 1 (133.64% return)
Fast 5 (42.74% return)
Fast 4 (37.04% return)
Fast 6 (33.73% return)
Fast 2 (13.53% return)
Fast 3 (42.69% loss)

Sorry I meant FF 6. Its 1 am here in the land where only %15 of our box office counts.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Why would they make Thor 2 when Thor made a loss. Just because Chris Hemsworth is the sexiest man alive?

No, it was a marginal loss, they were building the MCU and they came off the back of the enormously profitable Avengers. Some films payoff some do not, its often the case in computer games where a new IP will make a loss that is recouped later with more profitable sequels, that reasoning certainly makes Into Darkness's failure much more stark as it wasn't a new IP, it's not the first with this cast, there are no excuses, it should have done better.

Yet they're making a third in the new Trek film series, with a highly successful director. What more could fans of the first two want?

 

[Giarc1982]

I'm not a fan of the new approach, I find a lot of fans that agree that the movies aren't great, arguing that it is a sacrifice that must be made so that the franchise has a future, my point is that we seem to be on very shaky ground looking at these figures, sure last 2 TNG movies weren't bringing in the cash but there were other changes that could have been made to return to profitability IMO that didn't need Trek's soul ripping out.

I just hope Lin is as passionate about Star Trek as Whedon is with Avengers, Gunn is with Guardians, Singer is with X Men, JJ is with Star Wars... I don't think Trek will survive another Baird/JJ.

 

[BillJ]

I'd say the safest bet is to not try to figure out if a film is profitable or not:

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Here...Tolkien-Adaptations-Even-He-Wanted-40760.html

This isn’t an entirely rare thing in Hollywood. In 2010, a net profit statement for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (another Warner Bros. film) was leaked and reported that despite the movie’s $934 million box office take, the studio actually lost $167 million when the final calculations were made.

We simply have no idea how these films are financed and if the leaked information about budget and box office take are in any way accurate.

 

[BillJ]

I don't think Trek will survive another Baird/JJ.

I think this is where the discussion becomes nonsense. No one in their right mind would compare Stuart Baird's Star Trek work with J.J. Abrams work. Even if you dislike the latter films, they did better at the box office and were more critically well received.

 

[Mudd]

I'd say the safest bet is to not try to figure out if a film is profitable or not:

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Here...Tolkien-Adaptations-Even-He-Wanted-40760.html

This isn’t an entirely rare thing in Hollywood. In 2010, a net profit statement for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (another Warner Bros. film) was leaked and reported that despite the movie’s $934 million box office take, the studio actually lost $167 million when the final calculations were made.

We simply have no idea how these films are financed and if the leaked information about budget and box office take are in any way accurate.

Exactly so. A little Internet "research" and applying these hoary formulae to often-inaccurate publicly available budget figures yields no real information.

 

[The Doctor]

As Dennis points out, STID made way more money overseas than any other Trek film has ever done before. That, more than anything else, is key to the franchise's health and future.

Star Trek is more popular now, in more places, than ever before. No amount of ill-informed fiddling with budget numbers can change that.

 

[Giarc1982]

There is no harm in a little fun trying to work it out though, Harry Potter thing is interesting, it's more likely it was an accounting fudge to get out back end payments as was suggested in my earlier link, using the formula it predicted that it should have made $108M profit, a 72.16% return, I certainly think it gives an indication as to if a film can be judged a success or not, and I find it intriguing as to where it places Into Darkness