Do you believe this movie will be a financial success?

[Franklin]

I think the ramped-up marketing, good buzz from the trailer, general plot secrecy, and fanboy reaction to the opening will all add up to a blockbuster first weekend for the movie. After that, if it indeed did catch on beyond the fanboy bounce, it could make a good profit for what was invested in it.

Especially with the outside the U.S. revenue, it will make enough money to merit a second movie. Let's just hope to God Paramount doesn't revert to it's old behavior and slash the budget for the next one.

 

[Jax]

I think a slight budget cut will be fine because am sure salarys for sequels were already penned into original contracts and sets like for the ENT are built so no need for new ones but I would expect a huge budget still for plot & SFX if this one succeeds by at least getting to the $300 mark for worldwide...Also if 1st one brings in more non trek fans there will be less need to promote a sequel quite as heavily but still strongly.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

This movie seems to be getting the right "early buzz" and Paramount doesn't seem shy about promoting it, so I think it very well could be financially successful.

I don't subscribe to the "Star Trek Stigma" idea that average movie-goers think Trek is only for geeks. People may claim that Star Trek has a "geeks only" stigma, but that doesn't make it true. Average movie-goers (like me) are bandwagon jumpers, so if this film gets some good early word-of-mouth, then those average movie-goers will be there in the theater regardless of an alledged "stigma".

If you read the postings in the "trailer reaction" thread, what the media is saying and what the audiences in the theater are saying isn't matching up...

Hey, thanks for being so cryptic!

What thread are you talking about? Why don't you just post a link? Or better yet... just say what you're getting at.

 

[ManOnTheWave]

People I know who think Star Trek is stupid want to see this. Unless Word of mouth kills this thing the first weekend, it's going to do well.

 

[miraclefan]

People I know who think Star Trek is stupid want to see this. Unless Word of mouth kills this thing the first weekend, it's going to do well.

The same thing is happining to me, people not normaly intrested are now taking a interest and asking me questions about what came ''before'' this. So I'm hopeing this is a good sign.

 

[M'Sharak]

This movie seems to be getting the right "early buzz" and Paramount doesn't seem shy about promoting it, so I think it very well could be financially successful.

I don't subscribe to the "Star Trek Stigma" idea that average movie-goers think Trek is only for geeks. People may claim that Star Trek has a "geeks only" stigma, but that doesn't make it true. Average movie-goers (like me) are bandwagon jumpers, so if this film gets some good early word-of-mouth, then those average movie-goers will be there in the theater regardless of an alledged "stigma".

If you read the postings in the "trailer reaction" thread, what the media is saying and what the audiences in the theater are saying isn't matching up...

Hey, thanks for being so cryptic!

What thread are you talking about? Why don't you just post a link? Or better yet... just say what you're getting at.

Here's the thread:

Trailer 3: Audience Reaction

You'll have to draw your own conclusions, though; I don't really see a clear-cut answer.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Here's the thread:

Trailer 3: Audience Reaction

You'll have to draw your own conclusions, though; I don't really see a clear-cut answer.

Which is the point. On the one hand, you have the media reviewers almost universally drooling over the trailer, but the "butts in seats" audience reaction is far less universal in it's approbation.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Here's the thread:

Trailer 3: Audience Reaction

You'll have to draw your own conclusions, though; I don't really see a clear-cut answer.

Which is the point. On the one hand, you have the media reviewers almost universally drooling over the trailer, but the "butts in seats" audience reaction is far less universal in it's approbation.

I fail to see how one can draw any valid conclusions from second hand accounts about reactions to a trailer.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Here's the thread:

Trailer 3: Audience Reaction

You'll have to draw your own conclusions, though; I don't really see a clear-cut answer.

Which is the point. On the one hand, you have the media reviewers almost universally drooling over the trailer, but the "butts in seats" audience reaction is far less universal in it's approbation.

I saw the trailer with Watchmen and loved it, although I showed no visible reaction (except perhaps for a slight self-satisfied smile, and I did say to my wife "here's Star Trek" when it started). If you were sitting in the theater next to me, you could have reported that "the guy next to me seemed indifferent about the trailer".

I think most average movie-goers (like myself) don't show a lot of outward emotion toward a trailer. The "mostly no reaction" that most people have reported seems about what I expected.

 

[chrisspringob]

Regular cinema goers make their future movie decisions based on trailers, reviews, advertising and word of mouth?

It's 90% word of mouth anymore. Reviews and advertising count for nothing. Trailers just get their attention - which is a crucial factor to jump starting the word of mouth but can't carry financial success past the first weekend. That's when word of mouth takes over.

I would actually argue that it's the opposite.....that word of mouth probably counts for *less* than it used to, since movies are now so frontloaded and make such a large fraction of their $ early in their run, before word of mouth has a chance to kick in. Every single one of the top 10 grossing movies of 2008 made at least 25% of their total box office just in their opening weekends (that is, in just their first three days of release)......some of them a fair amount more than 25%.

Movies like, say, "The Sixth Sense" and "There's Something About Mary" (both of which are only about 10 years old), which have modest opening weekends but earn big bucks in the long run because of great word of mouth, are *way* less common than they used to be.

EDIT: By the way, "success" in the eyes of the studio does actually involve word of mouth in a way that's somewhat separate from the total box office numbers. If a movie earns $200 million by having a gigantic opening weekend of, say, $90 million or something, but then drops fast, as bad word of mouth spreads, then that's seen as being a much worse outcome than if the movie opened to only $40 million, but finally made its way to $200 million because of good word of mouth. In the latter case, the studio might conclude that the audience was still building, and people who saw the movie liked it, and so there would be a big audience available for a sequel. While in the former case, they'd be thinking that no one's really interested in seeing another movie in this franchise.

That's pretty much what happened with the Eric Bana Hulk movie. It had a huge opening, but then dropped fast because of bad wom. Even though the final box office tally was a big number, the bad wom convinced the studio that there wasn't the audience there for a straight sequel, so the only thing to do was to reboot the franchise completely.

 

[RAMA]

Yes, I don't see it being in the top 10 of the year but it should make its money.

 

[Mr Pointy Ears]

no i not think it will be.

 

[the quickening]

This is one of the more perplexing movies to gauge in terms of boxoffice. The challenge of this film is to convince the audience this TREK film is a good one (hopefully) that you should want to see it, and, it's not like other recent TREK films, or any movie in the series.

Can a monumental ad campaign and a good film (again, hopefully) erase the negative perception that TREK has because of nine rather cheesy films? We shall see. My thinking is, this bad perception went on way too long--from 1982 'til 2009. That's 27 years! And, whose fault is that? I don't understand why now Paramount is finally getting around to investing this kind of care in a TREK movie? The real question to ask is, is it too late? A deep part of me thinks it is, but I do hope I am wrong. I'm looking for something along the lines of a $200 million domestic, $100 million international box office take.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

Here's the thread:

Trailer 3: Audience Reaction

You'll have to draw your own conclusions, though; I don't really see a clear-cut answer.

Which is the point. On the one hand, you have the media reviewers almost universally drooling over the trailer, but the "butts in seats" audience reaction is far less universal in it's approbation.

I fail to see how one can draw any valid conclusions from second hand accounts about reactions to a trailer.

No shit...

I mean seriously... are you people fucking kidding?

When have the observations of the members of this board ever amounted to scientific data collecting especially when it comes to something as subjective as audience reaction in a dark theater to a trailer. Come on! Who the fuck starts cheering a trailer?

Here's my observations of the trailer from going to the 3:10 showing of Watchmen on Sunday.

!.) Fuck me it's taking a long time for a movie that's already 2 hours and 43 minutes long to start. I mean shit, it's 3:25 already. I'm not going to be out of here until after 6:00.

2.) Goddamn, that's a hell of lot granier then when I watched it on my computer on Saturday.

3.) Holy Shit that's LOUD!!! It's pounding in my head. Turn it down already!!!

So you see, I loved the trailer but I was freakin' overwhlmed by all of the other crap and I was too busy having my senses overloaded to notice if other people were lightng fireworks, doing cartwheels or starting a wave.

Here's the thing about trailers: They focus group those things before they release them and they only release the ones with the most positive reactions... reactions that are actually measurable with other means besides looking at the fat guy to the left of you and the one-eyed midget to the right of you and trying to guage their emotions.

 

[indranee]

Regular cinema goers make their future movie decisions based on trailers, reviews, advertising and word of mouth?

It's 90% word of mouth anymore. Reviews and advertising count for nothing. Trailers just get their attention - which is a crucial factor to jump starting the word of mouth but can't carry financial success past the first weekend. That's when word of mouth takes over.

I would actually argue that it's the opposite.....that word of mouth probably counts for *less* than it used to, since movies are now so frontloaded and make such a large fraction of their $ early in their run, before word of mouth has a chance to kick in. Every single one of the top 10 grossing movies of 2008 made at least 25% of their total box office just in their opening weekends (that is, in just their first three days of release)......some of them a fair amount more than 25%.

Movies like, say, "The Sixth Sense" and "There's Something About Mary" (both of which are only about 10 years old), which have modest opening weekends but earn big bucks in the long run because of great word of mouth, are *way* less common than they used to be.

EDIT: By the way, "success" in the eyes of the studio does actually involve word of mouth in a way that's somewhat separate from the total box office numbers. If a movie earns $200 million by having a gigantic opening weekend of, say, $90 million or something, but then drops fast, as bad word of mouth spreads, then that's seen as being a much worse outcome than if the movie opened to only $40 million, but finally made its way to $200 million because of good word of mouth. In the latter case, the studio might conclude that the audience was still building, and people who saw the movie liked it, and so there would be a big audience available for a sequel. While in the former case, they'd be thinking that no one's really interested in seeing another movie in this franchise.

That's pretty much what happened with the Eric Bana Hulk movie. It had a huge opening, but then dropped fast because of bad wom. Even though the final box office tally was a big number, the bad wom convinced the studio that there wasn't the audience there for a straight sequel, so the only thing to do was to reboot the franchise completely.

well, that, and the fact that it was awful

 

[Jbarney]

What was the budget for this film. I heard it was around 150 million dollars. The 70-90 million dollar figure posted here would seem to be a bit low.

Jason

 

[Dr_Daystrom]

It better be financially successful or that will be the last "new" Star Trek we see for a long time. Paramount was going to mothball Star Trek after Nemesis and Enterprise but rolled the dice one more time on Abrams. If this doesn't work out we'll be watching nothing but reruns for the next 20 years.

Also, it needs to do well here in the U.S. The last several Star Trek films have had international box office receipts amounting to only about half of the domestic receipts.

It's up to us.

 

[Basil]

Trailers generally make a film look better than it really is -- the only exception I can think of in recent years was "Casino Royale," which got snickers, mostly at the sight of Daniel Craig, from the audience when I saw the trailer shown. The movie was significantly better. "Quantum of Solace" had a better trailer but the film wasn't as good as "Caino Royale." I remember the first "Batman" film trailer making it look a lot darker and less campy than the film actually was. This last trailer is very good -- and the music on the film's Website, presumably from the film, is also well done if reminiscent of '20,000 Leagues under the Sea' and a few early Trek film scores. Will "Star Trek" make money? Undoubtedly. Will it be a megahit? I think it will do good box office, better than past Trek films, but the stigma of being Trek will still keep some audiences away, keeping it out of the realm of "Star Wars" and like.

 

[M'Sharak]

What was the budget for this film. I heard it was around 150 million dollars. The 70-90 million dollar figure posted here would seem to be a bit low.

Jason

I don't remember a $70-90 million figure, but that would indeed be low. $150 million was the number being tossed around for quite a while. More recently, since production was completed, I've seen that number adjusted downward slightly to between $130 and 140 million.

 

[RealTime]

Without knowing what the actual stakeholders in this movie would consider a "financial success", it's impossible to guess. However, if it makes enough money to bring on another movie, then it's a success to me!

RT.