How much $$$$
- Thread starter 2 of 10
- Start date
trevanian
Rear Admiral
They've said 150 mil a lot, so 400 mil would be a good number for a worldwide theatrical breakeven, unless they go absolutely bugshit on the ad campaign.
They're probably better off not doing the saturation thing, because there's enough of the 'familiarity breeds contempt' thinking with respect to TREK in the world ... best to keep it modest, and let the people who seem to be excited by the little bits I've hated get in line, which should be enough to give it a decent opening weekend or more (depending on WOLVERINE and other pics.)
They're probably better off not doing the saturation thing, because there's enough of the 'familiarity breeds contempt' thinking with respect to TREK in the world ... best to keep it modest, and let the people who seem to be excited by the little bits I've hated get in line, which should be enough to give it a decent opening weekend or more (depending on WOLVERINE and other pics.)
$150 mil IIRC.
At the very least, it'll have to do substantially better than the previous Trek installment (which was narrowly bet out by all-time classic Maid In Manhattan at the box office).
I'm interested to see what marketing campaign Paramount have in store for the film a month before it's debut.
At the very least, it'll have to do substantially better than the previous Trek installment (which was narrowly bet out by all-time classic Maid In Manhattan at the box office).
I'm interested to see what marketing campaign Paramount have in store for the film a month before it's debut.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
I hope the movie does well, but I'm not holding my breath.
If Paramount does a lot of advertising and there's a lot of word of mouth and if all that helps I'll be a tad surprised. I mean it's only been 4 years since the last TV show and 6 years since the last movie. They may have made it incredibly exciting and new and set at a different pace from any other previous Trek..but Average Joe may still say.." Nah...it's still Star Trek."
If Paramount does a lot of advertising and there's a lot of word of mouth and if all that helps I'll be a tad surprised. I mean it's only been 4 years since the last TV show and 6 years since the last movie. They may have made it incredibly exciting and new and set at a different pace from any other previous Trek..but Average Joe may still say.." Nah...it's still Star Trek."
I have no idea what sort of internal company policy Paramount uses, but I can look at a similar movie (production and cost wise):
Transformers, written by the STXI writers and distributed by Paramount in 2007:
Cost: 150 mil
Domestic gross: 319 mil
Foreign gross: 389 mil
Since Transformers is getting a sequel, if Trek makes that much it'll be certain to get a sequel. I'm going to round down and say if Trek can make 300 mil domestic it'll be in fine shape. Though I have no idea what the breaking point is. It could be 200 mil domestic for all I know.
Transformers, written by the STXI writers and distributed by Paramount in 2007:
Cost: 150 mil
Domestic gross: 319 mil
Foreign gross: 389 mil
Since Transformers is getting a sequel, if Trek makes that much it'll be certain to get a sequel. I'm going to round down and say if Trek can make 300 mil domestic it'll be in fine shape. Though I have no idea what the breaking point is. It could be 200 mil domestic for all I know.
Sci-Fi movies tend to make more overseas than domestically, so if if that held true for Trek and it did 200 mil in the U.S. it would have a shot a getting a sequel. Reviews and DVD sales and all that crap gets factored in too unless it does Iron Man or TF numbers in which case it's immediately green lighted. Batman Begins is a pretty good example of a movie earning it's sequel after hitting the home video market.
We can only hope it makes 200 mil
because if it dosen't it's as dead as a doornail.
I found out that apparently Transformers broke all kinds of records and was way, way more successful than the studio expected it to be, so I think its 300 mill domestic gross is actually pretty much overkill. According to BOM, it did 50% better than they hoped, which would mean they were aiming for 200 mil. Unless that was just opening day, I really have no idea how they calculate this crap.
Anyway, I think it should be a snap to make 200 mil unless it really blows chunks. I know there are people who trash Transformers - I didn't see it, I'm not a fan of that - but if STXI is as 'good' as Transformers I don't see why it can't make money.
Anyway, I think it should be a snap to make 200 mil unless it really blows chunks. I know there are people who trash Transformers - I didn't see it, I'm not a fan of that - but if STXI is as 'good' as Transformers I don't see why it can't make money.
We can only hope it makes 200 mil
if it makes 200 mil it will be dead as a doornail. it need's to make at least double it's production cost's to be viewed as profitable.look at superman returns . it cost 200 mil to make , grossed 400 mil and the studio considered it a failure!
if it makes 200 mil it will be dead as a doornail. it need's to make at least double it's production cost's to be viewed as profitable.look at superman returns . it cost 200 mil to make , grossed 400 mil and the studio considered it a failure!
Superman Returns is not really the best example for this kind of discussion, since besides what it cost to make it, it also was burdened with paying for past failed attempts at making a Superman movie and shit like Nicolas Cage's salary etc etc
Anyway, isn't there another thread around here where this budget discussion is already taking place ? Or do I remember wrong ?
if it makes 200 mil it will be dead as a doornail. it need's to make at least double it's production cost's to be viewed as profitable.look at superman returns . it cost 200 mil to make , grossed 400 mil and the studio considered it a failure!
Superman Returns is not really the best example for this kind of discussion, since besides what it cost to make it, it also was burdened with paying for past failed attempts at making a Superman movie and shit like Nicolas Cage's salary etc etc
Anyway, isn't there another thread around here where this budget discussion is already taking place ? Or do I remember wrong ?
Exactly. If SR had only cost 150 million to make, it would be more of a success than Batman Begins.
still the point im making is that star trek will have to make at least twice its cost to break even!if it makes 200 mil it will be dead as a doornail. it need's to make at least double it's production cost's to be viewed as profitable.look at superman returns . it cost 200 mil to make , grossed 400 mil and the studio considered it a failure!
Superman Returns is not really the best example for this kind of discussion, since besides what it cost to make it, it also was burdened with paying for past failed attempts at making a Superman movie and shit like Nicolas Cage's salary etc etc
Anyway, isn't there another thread around here where this budget discussion is already taking place ? Or do I remember wrong ?
Exactly. If SR had only cost 150 million to make, it would be more of a success than Batman Begins.
Given Star Trek's history with feature films, spending $150 million to make this is taking a huge gamble. IIRC there has only been one film out of the ten to make more than $100 million and that was TVH, and that only beat the $100 million mark by a tiny bit.
For this film to succeed, it's gonna have to do probably 3 times better than the most successful mainstream crossover Trek film. That's a pretty tall order.
For this film to succeed, it's gonna have to do probably 3 times better than the most successful mainstream crossover Trek film. That's a pretty tall order.
The odds are stacked up against this one, but I'm crossing my fingers it will be successful. At least there's no J-Lo rom-com coming out in competition against it this time...
A few people have said the budget is $140 not 150 but either way I thinks its a little too much, I would not of gone higher than $125. Some reports suggest Paramount want at least $300 million overall total and solid DVD sales or they will consider it a failure...I can't see the film making more than $250 million...Trek has never had wide appeal to make big bucks plus it will be heavy downloaded since well the fanbase who want to watch it, is very savvy in that stuff.
when i was at the movies recently they showed trailers for terminator, watchmen ,and trek .i could hear people clapping and a definate buzz in the audience when the other trailers were shown, but when the trek trailer was on it was dead silent except for a couple of snickers.the people in that theatre didn't seem too impressed by it! personally i think abrams and paramount are going to be disapointed with the box office totals for this movie.i really don't think mainstream fans are going to line up to see it. if he in turn alienates the hardcore fans with the whole timeline change thing he could be looking at a major flop.i hope i'm wrong, but somehow i don't think i am.
according to iesb.net after the marketing cost's are calculated in , the actual budget for this film is really going to be aroub 200 mil or over! http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3466&Itemid=99
Maybe with TV advertising but without, not a chance...Paramount knows Trek is not that mainstream.
Similar threads
