Profitability of Star Trek Movies
- Thread starter Giarc1982
- Start date
- Status
A
Amaris
Guest
We do see it as relevant, and I can say for certain that it confirms my suspicions from earlier, regarding your need to calculate everything to where it appears the movie fails, when in reality, the movies have done exceptionally well, and both movies are critical and financial successes, whether you like it or not. Feel free to hate it with a passion, but don't expect people to give that opinion any credence.
How is it sacrificing the future? Trek was as dead as it's ever been before the 2009 movie, I'd argue that it's given it a future, not sacrificed it.
The only remotely effective numbers you've put on this thread are these:
108 in the All Time Domestic Chart
153 in the All Time Worldwide Chart
http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/budgets/all
46-51 in the Movie Budget Chart
As they are the only ones that are even close to being factual records.
And before you think I'm attacking you, I'm not, I happen to partially agree you - STID did under perform slightly - I was expecting well over 500 million with a 100 million opening weekend.
But then I realised I was getting swept up in the pre-release hype and then I realised that Star Trek has a 'ceiling' in world-wide box office take and Star Trek into Darkness got fairly close to that.
I'll say again though - two hundred and twenty-eight million dollars is a decent but not spectacular result for the US box office.
Of course it is relevant, you have just said you hate it with a passion, whilst expecting people to blindly accept your highly dubious figures. The truth is no-one but the bean counters at Paramount know the actual figures, it is all speculation. You might as well be trying to convince me how many people are wearing pink shorts in London on a given day.
Paramount have been around for a century - I'm sure they wouldn't be putting 150 million+ into another film if the last one lost money. That is the only statistic that matters to the future of Star Trek.
A
Amaris
Guest
^ Exactly. Paramount got what they wanted, or there would not have been another film. Companies don't just make movies out of the goodness of their hearts.
lol, your all so defensive, I'm just telling you what the numbers say, originally all I was doing was showing how JJTrek is not orders of magnitude more profitable that real Star Trek, sure it pulls in bigger numbers but costs are much higher and was really surprised at how badly Into Darkness did, not saying I don't feel slightly validated because, I've been saying for years JJTrek is a bad idea
What would have been a good idea in your opinion, that would also be more profitable than JJ Trek?
You still haven't proven anything.... sorry but this thread seemed like a bad grasp at straws just to try to prove "something."
Interestingly, here is an article talking about how World War Z and Into Darkness increased Paramount's profitability for Q3 2013. (Edited, I erroneously said Q2.)
http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...t-star-trek-viacom-profit-20130802-story.html
http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...t-star-trek-viacom-profit-20130802-story.html
Me personally, I liked the idea of Singer helmed TNG movie that would conclude the TNG era and at the same time launch a new crew, that would be big budget, respectful and bring in fresh blood, this rumor was knocking round the StarTrek.com boards prior to JJ being announced.
That's if we wanted to stick with the big screen, my ideal would of been the DVD market and exploit the vastness of the Star Trek universe with stand alone movies to test the water on different aspects of the Trek universe, preferable helmed by Manny Coto as he proved sadly too late with Enterprise, very capable.
The more successful movies could act as a backdoor pilot to bring a full season to our screens. MGM had started doing this successfully and profitably with Stargate:SG1 and had plans to make many more before other financing issues got in the way, I don't want to be harsh with Stargate, but Star Trek I think has more pulling power, so could compete well in that market, I remember reading how CBS were setting up a subsidiary explicit designed to exploit older IP in this way.
The key to me is where do I see Star Trek in 2019? Currently I think we'll be lucky to have more than 7hours of Star Trek produced in a 10 year period, that is not a healthy state to be in, even if you do class JJTrek as Star Trek
I wrote about spin, earlier, the studio's never like to admit failure, sure you can spin the WW gross into success as long as nobody looks at the increased production budget and declining domestic gross
Heck, there are less than 50 hours of James Bond movies in the Broccoli run (that is, excluding flicks like the first Casino Royale and Never Say Never...). That's less than ten hours per decade, and the series is going strong despite whole studios collapsing around it. So Trek will likely be fine.
Now, that is weak - overstating earnings to investors can run into a little thing called "securities fraud" and isn't so lightly dismissed.
You'd do better to stick with the "slightly disappointing" line at this point.
I wrote about spin, earlier, the studio's never like to admit failure, sure you can spin the WW gross into success as long as nobody looks at the increased production budget and declining domestic gross
Now, that is weak - overstating earnings to investors can run into a little thing called "securities fraud" and isn't so lightly dismissed.
You'd do better to stick with the "slightly disappointing" line at this point.
Please explain how your idea above would be any more 'respectful' than the Abrams films?
Heck, there are less than 50 hours of James Bond movies in the Broccoli run (that is, excluding flicks like the first Casino Royale and Never Say Never...). That's less than ten hours per decade, and the series is going strong despite whole studios collapsing around it. So Trek will likely be fine.
Well, there you go. No wonder they want another one.
I wrote about spin, earlier, the studio's never like to admit failure, sure you can spin the WW gross into success as long as nobody looks at the increased production budget and declining domestic gross
Now, that is weak - overstating earnings to investors can run into a little thing called "securities fraud" and isn't so lightly dismissed.
You'd do better to stick with the "slightly disappointing" line at this point.
They never overstated anything, the article just mentioned Into Darkness, alongside some good results, that has "A good day to bury bad news" written all over it.
Give the TNG cast a proper send off
No weird mute mini Jem Hadar
No weird turbine warp nacelles
No beaming into pipes
No massive brewery as an engineer set
No iPhone shop as a bridge set
No need to recast iconic characters
No problems with the timeline
No massively convoluted plot points to somehow get the same crew from TOS into the same ranks
No lucky I've been stranded on this planet next to this cave with the only 2 people in the universe that I've never met but that can help me save the day.
No bonkers use of the transporter
No use of magic blood
They got a proper send off with "All Good Things..."
The point Smellmet was making is that Star Trek: Into Darkness broke the $200 million mark which is generally considered a vital benchmark for a "successful" film, and in addition, grossed close to or more domestically than several other films that were considered to be "successful".
Making more money in the International B.O. is a key concern for most studios, especially when it concerns the big budget summer blockbuster. Everyone wants to make the next Avengers, but each studio is still learning how to replicate that success, and even Marvel is still figuring out how to make films that are consistently appealing in the international box office. It seems, in my opinion, that the creative changes made by Paramount to nuTrek III are focused on appealing to the international market.
So I fail to see your point. The only way you have "proven" that STID was not profitable is using unconfirmed information, outdated formulas, and when needed, changing the parameters to fit your conclusion.
Several posters have provided you with information that contradicts your conclusions, indeed information that even attacks your premise, for example the article linked by Dennis shows that studios can be extremely creative when it comes to financing films, doing so in a way that maximizes their profit and minimizes their tax burden.
But your posts continue to hammer away at something that is becoming more and more unclear, but your main goal is becoming more and more obvious. Unfortunately, executives at Paramount are not going to change their entire course of film making based on the 'facts' presented on an Internet website.
Really, you're going to have to start reading these things through.
You started out with "STID had a 14% loss" and have backpedaled to "slightly disappointing." Don't saw off any more of the branch you're standing on.
- Status
Similar threads
