Profitability of Star Trek Movies

[MakeshiftPython]

I fail to see how things would be any different had ID made a billion dollars. Another big budget, action packed Trek movie is coming. Failing to see how this isn't a win.

It's a win, but it's not a "fuck you, my movie made a billion dollars" kind of win which is what studios are desperate for, especially after Paramount having lost Marvel to Disney. Had it joined the ranks of TRANSFORMERS and Marvel films, I assume Orci would have kept the job and be given a lot of leeway with this project. Instead, Paramount is a bit underwhelmed with the results and don't want Trek 3 (and what could be Trek's future) in the hands of an unproven director who hasn't brought anything to the table that made Paramount confident of him. It's given to someone who's well known for giving another series a shot in the arm that made it become more successful than ever.

In the end, we're still getting a Trek film, but now with someone outside of Bad Robot at the helm. I'm very interested to see how this turns out.

And I demand the film to be titled.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I suspect that, if Trek became a Transformers-level cash cow, Paramount would decide it's future was too important to entrust to a first-time director, and bring in someone like Lin - just like they've done.

Until I hear otherwise, I'm calling it STAR TR3K.

 

[Giarc1982]

As others have said, you also need to add DVD/Blue Ray sales.

I believe that Paramount acknowledged STiD made a 3% return on investment so it couldn't have made a 15% loss, which is perhaps where the DVD/Blue Ray figures will carry it across the line into the barely profitable column.

The reason Paramount were very unhappy was they were hoping to give their investors a 10% RoI.

Cheers, these numbers are believable once you factor in the DVD/Blue Ray market, that said sticking their money in a bank for 2 years would be a safer way to earn 3%

 

[Commishsleer]

I suspect that, if Trek became a Transformers-level cash cow, Paramount would decide it's future was too important to entrust to a first-time director, and bring in someone like Lin - just like they've done.

Until I hear otherwise, I'm calling it STAR TR3K.

But according to the formula the last Transformers movie only made $84 million. Hardly a cash cow.

 

[Giarc1982]

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.

That's massively off, I don't know where to start... we'll gross figures as they can't be disputed
X-Men: Days of Future Past VS Into Darkness
Budget:
$200,000,000(+5.3%) So it cost more to make
US Gross:
$233,921,534(+2%) So it made gross 2% more so yeah I could see where you made your mistake but...
International Gross:
$510,400,000(+114%) This mean it made over double internationally, even if they only made 15% of that, it pushes them into profitability according to equation on the box office take alone

Fast 6
Budget:
$160,000,000(-15.8%)So it cost less to make
US Gross:
$238,679,850(+4.3%)Made more money in US, I'm sure you can see if they made it for less money and still beat it at the BO it's not good.
International Gross:
$551,272,961(+131%)See these films you are comparing made over double at the International BO

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Budget:
$170,000,000(-10.5%) So it cost less to make
US Gross:
$208,545,589(-8.8%)True it made less but you look at the raw number it made almost $20m less, given the production budget was $20m less, they are pretty much evenly matched so far
International Gross:
$286,454,411(+20.2%)Erm... I thought you said Into Darkness "comfortably beat" Apes...

The Amazing Spider Man 2
I thought you had a chance here as, even though you'd said it was considered big successes the word is with the sony leaks that the high up were disappointed
http://www.nerdandtie.com/2014/12/15/spider-man-a-franchise-in-turmoil/ (Incidentally the equation predicts a 6.25% loss but I guess Marvel have all the merch rights which makes things slightly different for Into Darkness)
Budget:
$200,000,000(+5.3%) So it cost more to make
US Gross
$202,853,933(-11.5%)WahHey! Into Darkness is doing well here we might be on our horse...
International Gross:
$506,142,403(+112%)Or Not, this film that has thrown the Spiderman franchise into limbo, made over double internationally than Into Darkness

Last One...
Godzilla
$160,000,000(-15.8%)So it cost less to make
US Gross:
$200,672,193(-12.3%)Again it cost less to make and made less by roughly the same as the production budget, given a $ saved is worth more than a $ earned, this stat doesn't look favourably on Into Darkness
International Gross:
$307,500,000(+29%)Here Godzilla yet again out performed Into Darkness Internationally

It's fair to say out of these 5 contemporary films, Into Darkness performed the worst, given the state of Spiderman at the moment, that has to be slightly concerning for anyone hoping for a bright future for Star Trek. Interestingly when I wrote the OP I thought that the studio really needed a stronger US BO return given it was the US BO that let it down compared to XI, but given these results it appears that the international BO take needs to substantially increase for XIII

 

[Giarc1982]

I suspect that, if Trek became a Transformers-level cash cow, Paramount would decide it's future was too important to entrust to a first-time director, and bring in someone like Lin - just like they've done.

Until I hear otherwise, I'm calling it STAR TR3K.

But according to the formula the last Transformers movie only made $84 million. Hardly a cash cow.

Less than that, according to the formula it made $50.3M but bare in mind that is a 23.97% return on investment

 

[Amaris]

Massively off? He said STID made over $200 million, which it did, and that any movie that can do that can be considered a success. Everything else you're discussing aside from that is irrelevant to that point.

Less than that, according to the formula it made $50.3M but bare in mind that is a 23.97% return on investment

Source of the formula? If it's yours, that formula is irrelevant as well, since we don't know what you're using as a mechanism.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

It's pretty clear that Trek won't likely continue as a high budget series unless they bring it down significantly or if this third film takes a leap at the box office. This is why Trek before the 2009 film has largely been a series of mid-budget films because they knew back then that they were not expected to make the kind of money other contemporary hits like STAR WARS and TERMINATOR 2 made. It was smart, and it kept the series afloat.

Also interesting is that after THE VOYAGE HOME became the most successful Trek, Paramount finally felt comfortable to give the fifth film a pretty big budget. It's too bad Shatner wasted that dough on Yosemite location shoots and hair glue.

 

[Giarc1982]

Massively off? He said STID made over $200 million, which it did, and that any movie that can do that can be considered a success. Everything else you're discussing aside from that is irrelevant to that point.

Less than that, according to the formula it made $50.3M but bare in mind that is a 23.97% return on investment

Source of the formula? If it's yours, that formula is irrelevant as well, since we don't know what you're using as a mechanism.

If you spend more than you make, you are not a success, you could earn $1Billion but if you spent $2Billion to do it, you bank manager won't be happy.

Read the OP I linked the article the formula is from on there, they also said that the studio's used to get a bigger cut of the opening weekend however that a spate of multiplex's going bust caused most of them to renegotiate to a flat fee of around 55% for the majority of the run, I'm actually concerned that US marketing isn't taken into account at all in this formula and may be an additional cost I haven't factored, but as I say it's a rough guide on it's profitability not a tax return and we can see which films made the studio money and which didn't live up to expectations.

 

[Kelso]

Giarc1982, double check Dawn of the Planet of the Apes' international box office. I suspect that you made a little error there.

 

[Amaris]

It's pretty clear that Trek won't likely continue as a high budget series unless they bring it down significantly or if this third film takes a leap at the box office. This is why Trek before the 2009 film has largely been a series of mid-budget films because they knew back then that they were not expected to make the kind of money other contemporary hits like STAR WARS and TERMINATOR 2 made. It was smart, and it kept the series afloat.

Also interesting is that after THE VOYAGE HOME became the most successful Trek, Paramount finally felt comfortable to give the fifth film a pretty big budget. It's too bad Shatner wasted that dough on Yosemite location shoots and hair glue.

The two latest films have done very well. ST09 broke the box office record for a Star Trek film. While STID didn't break any records, it's still the 4th highest grossing Star Trek film to date. They've each made half a billion dollars. That is a high box office.

Star Trek 2009 is #78 on the Top 100 Domestic Box Office sales chart. That's of all time.

Feel free to take a look for yourself: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm

While it didn't make as much domestically, Star Trek Into Darkness is #153 on the Top 200 Worldwide Box Office sales chart.

Feel free to check it out.

So where it lost out on domestic take, it improved significantly on international take. It can be spun around upside down and through a dozen different calculators, using magical formulas, and it still doesn't change the high level of success these films have enjoyed.

Oh, and here's something neat! A screenshot of Star Trek Into Darkness and it's various rankings on the charts.

You can see the whole thing here: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm

The argument, from some, that these movies were somehow barely profitable, or were a disappointment overall, is fervent wishing, nothing more.

If you spend more than you make, you are not a success, you could earn $1Billion but if you spent $2Billion to do it, you bank manager won't be happy.

Read the OP I linked the article the formula is from on there, they also said that the studio's used to get a bigger cut of the opening weekend however that a spate of multiplex's going bust caused most of them to renegotiate to a flat fee of around 55% for the majority of the run, I'm actually concerned that US marketing isn't taken into account at all in this formula and may be an additional cost I haven't factored, but as I say it's a rough guide on it's profitability not a tax return and we can see which films made the studio money and which didn't live up to expectations.

The article is about the creative accounting used in Hollywood. Are you expecting me to accept a formula that is readily shown to be horridly inaccurate as to hide the vast profits a film makes? You want me to take your word that the formulas are correct, and that they show STID as some kind of financial albatross. I'm sorry, but that's just not going to fly. By those standards, every movie ever made has been a disappointment.

Which means, again, the article itself is irrelevant to the fact that Star Trek Into Darkness not only made money, but made a lot of money. Unless you think half a billion dollars just isn't enough these days to be considered a profitable film?

To be honest, your posts seem to be reaching for a conclusion that just isn't there, no matter how many times the numbers are fudged.

 

[Giarc1982]

Giarc1982, double check Dawn of the Planet of the Apes' international box office. I suspect that you made a little error there.

Cheers, Yeah I did make quite a big mistake I deducted the US take from the International take not the world wide take, it actually made $495M(+107%) so yeah a lot more than Into Darkness did.

 

[CorporalClegg]

It's pretty clear that Trek won't likely continue as a high budget series unless they bring it down significantly or if this third film takes a leap at the box office.

Pretty clear to whom?

If the third film can retain STiD's international take and get back what it lost from ST09 domestically, then it'll find itself in the $500m bracket.

That's not something to trifle at no matter what "adjusted for inflation" sorcery you use.

 

[Giarc1982]

It's not creative accounting to suggest that when you pay $10 for your cinema ticket to suggest that the studio that made the film do not get that entire $10, you have the building your watching it in that has rent, the usher, the guy in the ticket kiosk, the electricity to turn the lights on, cinema equipment, the cleaners, managers to pay for, that article was quite clear that in the US the cinema chains pay an average of 55% of all tickets back to the studios, it's stated on their tax returns, we can be confident on that figure.

Internationally, things are more complicated additional markets, additional layers in the distribution chain, plus currency fluctuations, it'll vary from country to country but the article seemed to think that 15% was a good estimation of how much they make

 

[Giarc1982]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3724&p=.htm

Star Trek Into Darkness: The 2009 Star Trek reboot is one of the most well-liked Summer movies of the past decade, so there was an assumption that sequel Star Trek Into Darkness was going to improve dramatically on its predecessor. That didn't really pan out: the movie earned a bit less at the domestic box office (around $230 million), and its overseas gains weren't quite as big as expected. Ultimately, Star Trek Into Darkness will earn less than $500 million worldwide, which is slightly disappointing.

 

[Smellmet]

Ok Giarc1982, I have one question for you - do you like or dislike JJTrek?

 

[Melakon]

It's not creative accounting to suggest that when you pay $10 for your cinema ticket to suggest that the studio that made the film do not get that entire $10, you have the building your watching it in that has rent, the usher, the guy in the ticket kiosk, the electricity to turn the lights on, cinema equipment, the cleaners, managers to pay for, that article was quite clear that in the US the cinema chains pay an average of 55% of all tickets back to the studios, it's stated on their tax returns, we can be confident on that figure.

Are you now, or have you ever been, employed in the film industry or been an accountant?

Theater owners make very little from a film itself. Most of their money comes from concession sales.

 

[Giarc1982]

I hate it with a passion, I think it is the death of Trek, sacrificing the future for short term success based on the same logic that put Baird in charge of Nemesis and we are starting to bare witness to it's unfortunate death rattle, I think it can be turned around, I hope Lin is the man to do it.

It says it all when you say that it ranks:
108 in the All Time Domestic Chart
153 in the All Time Worldwide Chart

Lets look this chart
http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/budgets/all
46-51 in the Movie Budget Chart

So a Top 50 budget and it didn't even feature in US Top 100 or the WW Top 150 of all time movies, that's bad

 

[Smellmet]

I hate it with a passion

Why didn't you just say? You didn't need to ram these 'numbers' down our throat really did you?

 

[SalvorHardin]

I hate it with a passion, I think it is the death of Trek, sacrificing the future for short term success ....

I'm shocked.