Profitability of Star Trek Movies

[Giarc1982]

Look at it this way the first film made them 15% the last film lost them 15% collectively even if you take into account the increase in budget for XII they only made a collective 5.8% loss which isn't too bad once you do factor in merchandising,DVD and blu ray in but I'm just saying those things alone won't carry the franchise for ever.

If your competing with Marvel movies on budget you need to start getting similar numbers at the box office, the closest one to Into Darkness's production budget was Iron Man, saying it was the first MCU entry so was starting from scratch and it was one of the more modest successes (15.49%), it made $90M more on its US gross and $25M more Internationally for $115M more that Into Darkness in total, saying that it was made for $4M less massively shows how much XII under performed

 

[urbandefault]

Look at it this way the first film made them 15% the last film lost them 15% collectively even if you take into account the increase in budget for XII they only made a collective 5.8% loss which isn't too bad once you do factor in merchandising,DVD and blu ray in but I'm just saying those things alone won't carry the franchise for ever.

If your competing with Marvel movies on budget you need to start getting similar numbers at the box office, the closest one to Into Darkness's production budget was Iron Man, saying it was the first MCU entry so was starting from scratch and it was one of the more modest successes (15.49%), it made $90M more on its US gross and $25M more Internationally for $115M more that Into Darkness in total, saying that it was made for $4M less massively shows how much XII under performed

Look at it this way: Paramount is making another Trek movie set in the timeline we've seen in two previous movies. If it wasn't worth the monetary investment they'd kick the franchise over the nearest cliff and move on to something else. It's just good business.

 

[Jedi_Master]

OP - you do realize that building ideas on spotty information and outdated formulas is not a recipe for success?

 

[urbandefault]

OP - you do realize that building ideas on spotty information and outdated formulas is not a recipe for success?

In this case, I think you nailed it with the Chico quote.

 

[drt]

Here's an article from late 2013 about Paramount's profitability, Brad Grey, the chief executive of Paramount Pictures, states that of Paramount's 2013 slate of films (which would include STID) all released to date were profitable.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/2...es-a-hollywood-shift.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

My assumption is that "15%" number is from the old days (since I remember seeing similar percentagess 25 years ago) when international box office was an afterthough, but studios today are specifically targeting international audiences, so it would make sense that they're negotiating contracts where they are probably obtaining much closer to domestic percentages for big markets like China, etc.

 

[Mudd]

Probably. There's also the likelihood that costs of promotion don't scale 1:1 across all budget levels (certainly costs of distribution don't) as well as the question of where the money comes from and why folks invest.

 

[Giarc1982]

So provide alternate figures then and back them up with references if you disagree

 

[drt]

I just posted a New York Times article that states Into Darkness made a profit.

 

[Mudd]

So provide alternate figures then and back them up with references if you disagree

No, that's not the way it works.

You're making assertions of fact, and presenting evidence and/or reasoning to support that. People can challenge that, and it's up to you to defend it if you like. People don't have to present alternative numbers or scenarios in order for their doubt about yours to be completely valid.

It's like the old "Perry Mason syndrome" - at one point during the heyday of the show's popularity there were anecdotes to the effect that the series was giving defense attorneys headaches because juries supposedly not only expected them to create reasonable doubt as to their clients' guilt but to provide alternative theories of the crime pointing to "the real culprit" because that's what Mason did every week.

Of course, that's not how the law works - nor how this does. The point is not that we know, it's that you're not providing any real evidence that you do...and this is not a novel conversation here, we've had it many times and always seem to come around to the same non-conclusions.

 

[urbandefault]

So provide alternate figures then and back them up with references if you disagree

Numbers aren't really necessary here. Paramount has obviously made enough money on the last two films to justify to the shareholders making a third.

If you signed on here looking for a roundup of JJ haters, you'll probably have a nice litte rodeo. If you just came here to deny that Paramount is making money on these movies? It'll be a long and lonely ride, pardner.

 

[Giarc1982]

They made another film after Nemesis, just because they make a sequel, it doesn't mean the previous effort was sucessful, also a throw away line infering that their entire slate was profitable, is reaching, you don't know what calendar he was referring to, or what criteria he was using to make that claim, a lot of pr speak is spin, where they spin failure in to success, put it this way even if you don't want to admit it made a loss, it vastly under performed and failed to meet studio expectations

 

[Jedi_Master]

put it this way even if you don't want to admit it made a loss, it vastly under performed and failed to meet studio expectations

Please reference the documents that support this declarative statement.

 

[urbandefault]

They made another film after Nemesis, just because they make a sequel, it doesn't mean the previous effort was sucessful, also a throw away line infering that their entire slate was profitable, is reaching, you don't know what calendar he was referring to, or what criteria he was using to make that claim, a lot of pr speak is spin, where they spin failure in to success, put it this way even if you don't want to admit it made a loss, it vastly under performed and failed to meet studio expectations

No ...

ST09 was not a sequel to anything.

The rest of your rant is near incomprehensible, so I can't address it. (I think you probably meant "implying" instead of "inferring." Friendly hint.)

But it's pretty clear to me that something is spinning.

 

[Mudd]

...it vastly under performed and failed to meet studio expectations

Possibly, but we're still just slinging opinions here...and everybody's got one.

 

[drt]

No, the article specifically states that of Paramount's eleven 2013 releases (which would include Into Darkness), eight were profitable and the other three (the ones recently or about to be released) were expected to be profitable. Now, the article states that the margins for the entire industry aren't particularly robust, so at worst Into Darkness might have been on the lower end of that number.

 

[Giarc1982]

I've given facts, figures,and links if you don't like them, that's upto you but I certainly think very interesting and carry a lot of weight, personally I currently believe in these quite strongly, I doubt anybody is happy with the us return from into darkness a that a raw figure

 

[Jedi_Master]

'Failing to meet studio expectations' is a rather weaselly comment, as it can mean anything, anything at all.

Without the actual paperwork outlining what the studio projected to make for the film in question than one can assume that if revenue exceeded budget, all is well.

 

[Smellmet]

They made another film after Nemesis, just because they make a sequel, it doesn't mean the previous effort was sucessful, also a throw away line infering that their entire slate was profitable, is reaching, you don't know what calendar he was referring to, or what criteria he was using to make that claim, a lot of pr speak is spin, where they spin failure in to success, put it this way even if you don't want to admit it made a loss, it vastly under performed and failed to meet studio expectations

Yes, but that was with the previous team, Paramount effectively hit the reset button after Berman Trek and hired a new one, with new writers, director, the lot, repackaged and relaunched the franchise.

Star Trek 2009 other than chronologically following Nemesis had very little to do with that movie, or it's box office performance.

 

[Mudd]

Yep, the nuTrek movies aren't sequels to the earlier Trek movies. They're a different level of production altogether, budgeted and promoted differently. They're intended to attract a broader, larger audience than the old films; us old timers are just being invited to come along for the ride...or not.

 

[Smellmet]

I've given facts, figures,and links if you don't like them, that's upto you but I certainly think very interesting and carry a lot of weight, personally I currently believe in these quite strongly, I doubt anybody is happy with the us return from into darkness a that a raw figure

Star Trek Into Darkness practically matched X-Men: Days of Future Past, Fast & Furious 6 and comfortably beat Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, The Amazing Spider Man 2, and Godzilla to name but a few of it's contemporaries, and all of these movies are considered big successes - especially when you take into account their greater overseas grosses, which is exactly what they were aiming for with STID, and the next movie.

Yes STID could and maybe should have done better, but any film that breaks the 200 million barrier in the US alone can be considered a success, end of.