Profitability of Star Trek Movies

[CorporalClegg]

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

Translation:

No fun.

 

[Mudd]

Paramount's not interested in giving anyone "a proper sendoff" unless they have reason to believe that it's worth hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office.

Given history, no one can provide convincing arguments to that effect.

 

[Giarc1982]

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".

The problem with that outdated thinking is that it doesn't factor in at all the money spent to create that film, it's absurd to not even consider that movies don't just appear form the ether, a lot of people have to come together and get paid for the work that they do... this is called a production budget.

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 The only way you have "proven" that STID was not profitable is using unconfirmed information, outdated formulas, and when needed, changing the parameters to fit your conclusion.

I've not changed anything, the formula I've used is still the same formula from the OP.

Several posters have provided you with information that contradicts your conclusions, indeed information that even attacks your premise,

There has been no additional information provided aside from US Blu Ray figures for Into Darkness alone, plus we don't have the details on how much of that is passed on to the studio, I'd luv to incorporate this data but without more information it'd be incomplete and unhelpful for comparison purposes. Aside I'm pretty sure the studio don't want to rely on the Home market to make a marginal profit.

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.

The Article I linked in OP discussed creative accounting, and this is true but this equation is supposedly the real $ value that they get back before they do that, indeed the Harry Potter film in question according to the equation made quite a large profit.

I find it shocking that people can be so hurt by these figures, don't take them personally, you didn't make the movie and your not responsible for its failure, even if do you support JJTrek... For me it's finally feeling like the "I told you so" moment, guess I'm enjoying it a bit

 

[Jedi_Master]

I find it shocking that people can be so hurt by these figures, don't take them personally, you didn't make the movie and your not responsible for its failure, even if do you support JJTrek... For me it's finally feeling like the "I told you so" moment, guess I'm enjoying it a bit

Oh for heaven's sake. Your posts haven't TOLD us anything, other than you have a dislike for the most recent STAR Trek films. You haven't PROVEN anything, other than that your posts cannot be affected by logic, reason, facts, or reality.

In your posts you have repeatedly used the word "failure". By any standard Star Trek (09) and Star Trek Into Darkness have not been a failure. Wishing and hoping and praying does not change reality.

I am at a loss as to how you can be enjoying anything other than the reaction to your deliberately provocative posting style.

 

[Giarc1982]

I find it shocking that people can be so hurt by these figures, don't take them personally, you didn't make the movie and your not responsible for its failure, even if do you support JJTrek... For me it's finally feeling like the "I told you so" moment, guess I'm enjoying it a bit

Oh for heaven's sake. Your posts haven't TOLD us anything, other than you have a dislike for the most recent STAR Trek films. You haven't PROVEN anything, other than that your posts cannot be affected by logic, reason, facts, or reality.

In your posts you have repeatedly used the word "failure". By any standard Star Trek (09) and Star Trek Into Darkness have not been a failure. Wishing and hoping and praying does not change reality.

I am at a loss as to how you can be enjoying anything other than the reaction to your deliberately provocative posting style.

Any standard? Are you sure? You seem very unsure to me. I've given you many, many standards you can judge it on, this equation seem quite accurate to me, with all the films losing 30%+ using this equation generally regarded being a failure.

Judging it by it's contemporaries it's a failure, judging it against Amazing Spiderman 2 one film that widely known to of been a great disappointment it's a failure.

 

[Devon]

For me it's finally feeling like the "I told you so" moment

.....Except you didn't. You really didn't do anything.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I find it shocking that people can be so hurt by these figures

Who's hurt? Just a little annoyed that you keep on this futile crusade.

You haven't "proven" anything. You've only demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding economics. Or maybe you do and you're just being disingenuous.

 

[Giarc1982]

For me it's finally feeling like the "I told you so" moment

.....Except you didn't. You really didn't do anything.

Maybe not here, but soon as JJ started with the whole "TOS reboot for the mainstream" it started alarm bells ringing the "more of a star wars" guy in charge was never going to end well, and I was very vocal in my opposition to it, and how it wouldn't be sustainable in the long term, tbh I thought the rot wouldn't set in till the third film had come out and the cast want to negotiate better deals inflating the budget futher

 

[Jedi_Master]

I find it shocking that people can be so hurt by these figures, don't take them personally, you didn't make the movie and your not responsible for its failure, even if do you support JJTrek... For me it's finally feeling like the "I told you so" moment, guess I'm enjoying it a bit

Oh for heaven's sake. Your posts haven't TOLD us anything, other than you have a dislike for the most recent STAR Trek films. You haven't PROVEN anything, other than that your posts cannot be affected by logic, reason, facts, or reality.

In your posts you have repeatedly used the word "failure". By any standard Star Trek (09) and Star Trek Into Darkness have not been a failure. Wishing and hoping and praying does not change reality.

I am at a loss as to how you can be enjoying anything other than the reaction to your deliberately provocative posting style.

Any standard? Are you sure? You seem very unsure to me. I've given you many, many standards you can judge it on, this equation seem quite accurate to me, with all the films losing 30%+ using this equation generally regarded being a failure.

Judging it by it's contemporaries it's a failure, judging it against Amazing Spiderman 2 one film that widely known to of been a great disappointment it's a failure.

You have provided one 'standard' that requires information that is unavailable to us (accurate revenue numbers and accurate budget numbers), is antiquated, does not include various modern revenue streams, and in the end was and is virtually irrelevant to the decision making process.

 

[Giarc1982]

I find it shocking that people can be so hurt by these figures

Who's hurt? Just a little annoyed that you keep on this futile crusade.

You haven't "proven" anything. You've only demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding economics. Or maybe you do and you're just being disingenuous.

I'm going give you a bit of a mental puzzle, you bake me a cake that costs $6 to make, and give it to me to sell, I sell it for $10 that's a great headline figure, it made $4 profit... but if I give you $5.50 back, maybe with a slice of unsold cake... would you be happy?

 

[Jedi_Master]

I find it shocking that people can be so hurt by these figures

Who's hurt? Just a little annoyed that you keep on this futile crusade.

You haven't "proven" anything. You've only demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding economics. Or maybe you do and you're just being disingenuous.

I'm going give you a bit of a mental puzzle, you bake me a cake that costs $6 to make, and give it to me to sell, I sell it for $10 that's a great headline figure, it made $4 profit... but if I give you $5.50 back, maybe with a slice of unsold cake... would you be happy?

Generally illustrations, metaphors, and examples have to fit the situation you are trying to explain. Using a simplistic illustration to describe a situation that has been repeatedly shown to be extremely complex and full of unknown variables is rather silly.

 

[Mudd]

I'm going give you a bit of a mental puzzle, you bake me a cake that costs $6 to make, and give it to me to sell, I sell it for $10 that's a great headline figure, it made $4 profit... but if I give you $5.50 back, maybe with a slice of unsold cake... would you be happy?

Okay, I think we've established now that you lack either the relevant financial data or accounting background for your hypothesizing about Paramount's profits on these films to be accurate or meaningful. You've also shown a disinterest in relevant information from more authoritative sources than your own "research."

Since you're clinging to this line of "reasoning," unless you demonstrate some interest in actual discussion I have to conclude that your intent is provocation for its own sake.

Really not worth of my time. Moving on.

 

[Smellmet]

Me personally, I liked the idea of Singer helmed TNG movie

Singer, hell yes. TNG movie? Nah. And I'm a fan of TNG, but it failed big time on the big screen.

Give the TNG cast a proper send off

See All Good Things and Nemesis...never gonna happen.

No weird mute mini Jem Hadar

Keenser is several orders of magnitude less annoying than Jar Jar Binks, I'd rather he wasn't there, but he doesn't get in the way of the story at all. His screen time is literally next to nothing.

No weird turbine warp nacelles

Subjective. I think they are too big but on the whole a reasonable update of the original.

No beaming into pipes

Not quite sure what your problem with that scene is.

No massive brewery as an engineer set

Remedied in Star Trek into Darkness.

No iPhone shop as a bridge set

Subjective. What would you rather have? The old 60's sets?

No need to recast iconic characters

Not a Bond fan then...

No problems with the timeline

There's no 'problems' with this one.

No massively convoluted plot points to somehow get the same crew from TOS into the same ranks

How do you know that wouldn't have happened anyway?

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.

I'll give you that one.

No bonkers use of the transporter

Seen as it's Christmas, I'll give you that one too.

No use of magic blood

No worse than any other Trek Maguffin.

 

[Giarc1982]

Ok simple question was This years Tom Cruise film Edge Of Tomorrow a success?

Personally I loved that film, just got it on 3D Blu Ray, here's its stats

Budget:$178m
US Gross:$100m
International Gross:$264m
Total WW Gross:$364m

It's interesting to compare it with, Into Darkness as it made about the same internationally(maybe a little $26m more) but a massive $128m less domestically which is a lot. The WW the Gross looks great it was $364m saying the budget was $178m... Do you think they made their money back? Profit or Loss? I'm intrigued, personally the equation puts them well into negative territory, what criteria do you judge it on?

 

[Giarc1982]

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.

I'll give you that one.

Cheers

 

[Smellmet]

Ok simple question was This years Tom Cruise film Edge Of Tomorrow a success?

Personally I loved that film, just got it on 3D Blu Ray, here's its stats

Budget:$178m
US Gross:$100m
International Gross:$264m
Total WW Gross:$364m

It's interesting to compare it with, Into Darkness as it made about the same internationally(maybe a little $26m more) but a massive $128m less domestically which is a lot. The WW the Gross looks great it was $364m saying the budget was $178m... Do you think they made their money back? Profit or Loss? I'm intrigued, personally the equation puts them well into negative territory, what criteria do you judge it on?

I have just gone back to your original link from page 1 of this thread, and I've pulled out a couple of quotes:

'So does a movie just have to make back its production budget, or is there more involved?
There's a lot more, although studios are loath to give out numbers'

'The studios seldom release accurate production budgets — and they're even more leery of revealing how much they spend on other stuff, like promotion'

'The percentage of revenues that the exhibitor takes in depends on the individual contract for that film — which in turn depends on how much muscle the distributor has'

These are all unknown variables which means you cannot possibly tell the true figures as the studios don't tell you them!

 

[BillJ]

I'm going give you a bit of a mental puzzle, you bake me a cake that costs $6 to make (we think, we don't know really know because we don't know how much the ingredients cost nor the equipment nor the manpower), and give it to me to sell, I sell it for $10 (we think, you say that but could've sold it for any amount and are only reporting $10 to screw people on the back end) that's a great headline figure, it made $4 profit (whether it's actually four dollars or not, if I continue making cakes then it's obviously enough to be viable)... but if I give you $5.50 back, maybe with a slice of unsold cake (which no evidence exists, except inside your head)... would you be happy?

Fixed.

The Hollywood that exists in your head simply could never survive.

 

[Melakon]

Hollywood accounting sometimes will take profits or losses from one picture, and assign them to a completely different picture. This way, they can tell actors who took a percentage that their film didn't make enough money to show a net profit.

 

[Giarc1982]

I'm going give you a bit of a mental puzzle, you bake me a cake that costs $6 to make (we think, we don't know really know because we don't know how much the ingredients cost nor the equipment nor the manpower), and give it to me to sell, I sell it for $10 (we think, you say that but could've sold it for any amount and are only reporting $10 to screw people on the back end) that's a great headline figure, it made $4 profit (whether it's actually four dollars or not, if I continue making cakes then it's obviously enough to be viable)... but if I give you $5.50 back, maybe with a slice of unsold cake (which no evidence exists, except inside your head)... would you be happy?

Fixed.

The Hollywood that exists in your head simply could never survive.

A lot don't(see MGM), that's why a lot have merged in to bigger more powerful studios that can sustain a hit if a movie doesn't live up to it's projections, like others have said there are other considerations that come into play when green lighting a sequel
Additionally the studio doesn't operate in vacuum with only one movie, it's not a all or nothing proposition, money made on one movie will help the studio when another isn't as successful as hoped.

 

[MacLeod]

A film at the end of the day is just another product made by a company, and like any product if it wasn't making a return on investment the company producing it would cease production of it.