Star Trek Crosses $350 Million Worldwide

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You can't find anyone of substance in the film buisness[sic] who doesn't agree about Trek's success or Trek's future prospects so what's your point?

Well, that's a confused post. They all agree that it's a great success, yeah.

And most films don't have a production budget of 150 million dollars. For 150 million you need to get more than just 231 million dollars worth of butts in the seats.

And now, not surprisingly, you're talking through your hat.

Why don't you explain to us how a movie has to make two to three times its (guesstimated) production budget in first run in order to break even? That's always good for a laugh.

 

[Jax]

And most films don't have a production budget of 150 million dollars. For 150 million you need to get more than just 231 million dollars worth of butts in the seats.

Actually the total is $350 million+ but I can understand why the rest of the world doesn't apply to you and could end up past $375 million. Star Trek is the type of movie that will make huge bucks on merchindise and DVD's. Also like Batman Begins a succesful start should = a great sequel in terms of $$$.

As for SW that was a monster hit, no one is saying that but STAR TREK is a success simple as or Paramount would not be making a sequel.

 

[FemurBone]

While I will admit to the fact that I in fact DID underestimate the final domestic earnings of Iron Man, the fact still remains that this film was a hit, no matter whether you like it or not. Look at Batman Begins, which in total drew less then Star Trek has already made, and what did that do, it only spawned one of the most successful movies of all time in TDK.

and how did TDK become succussful? It had IDEAS, it had a PLOT, it had INTELLIGENCE. And it was filmed with a tripod.

Star Trek had none of those things. It was a step above Starship Troopers. If the next film is going to successful the writers are going to have to actually WORK.

I don't know why I'm even arguing with you.

Because you know that i'm right. I'm scratching your rose colored lenses.

You are a poster who has repeatedly shown that you come here just to incite and rile, and your opinios are usually totally baseless, as it is here. You have repeatedly shown you have no clue how the film industry works, and all you can do is constantly spew out the little mantras that exist only in your head.

I've been here a whole lot longer than you...Commodore

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Because you know that i'm right.

No, I know that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The fact that this movie's success embitters you doesn't lend any credbility to your empty assertions.

 

[FemurBone]

You can't find anyone of substance in the film buisness[sic] who doesn't agree about Trek's success or Trek's future prospects so what's your point?

Well, that's a confused post. They all agree that it's a great success, yeah.

Being you don't know everyone of substance in the film buisness you can't make the claim they all agree its a success.

 

[FemurBone]

double post

 

[SalvorHardin]

This thread is fantastic.
Just the laughs I needed before I go to bed !!

 

[Jax]

You can't find anyone of substance in the film buisness[sic] who doesn't agree about Trek's success or Trek's future prospects so what's your point?

Well, that's a confused post. They all agree that it's a great success, yeah.

Being you don't know everyone of substance in the film buisness you can't make the claim they all agree its a success.

If Paramount says its a success then guess what its a success since there paying for the dam thing. You see we have this thing called a brain which gives us the ability to do basic maths.

Production Budget - 150 million

AD Budget - 100 million-120 million (possibly)

= 250-275 million

Cinema Box Office alone = over $350 million with more to come

DVD Sales, Selling Rights and other revenue = MILLIONS as in the kind that is not single digit aka 5 and not double digit aka 50 but triple digit aka 100, 150 etc etc.

Welcome to world of numbers, I will gladly draw you a diagram later.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Being you don't know everyone of substance in the film buisness you can't make the claim they all agree its a success.

Oh, that's even lame as junior high lunchroom debating technique.

You're surrounded - if you stop playing ostrich - by reports and analyses from people who make, finance and distribute films for a living attesting to the success of this film. All of this is easily accessible on something called the Internet (you're soaking in it).

You can't produce a single credible source in the business to support your position.

That's because you're flat-out, unambiguously wrong. Period, full stop.

So please, if you can't step up your game significantly stop pretending to be upholding your position - we might actually run out of smileys.

 

[FemurBone]

but STAR TREK is a success simple as or Paramount would not be making a sequel.

Bring It On got a sequel too

 

[Jax]

but STAR TREK is a success simple as or Paramount would not be making a sequel.

Bring It On got a sequel too

I see you ignored the rest of my post the bit with numbers...hurts your head does it awww don't worry.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I see you ignored the rest of my post the bit with numbers...hurts your head does it awww don't worry.

He has no choice but to ignore facts, if he wants to maintain his position.

 

[Jax]

I see you ignored the rest of my post the bit with numbers...hurts your head does it awww don't worry.

He has no choice but to ignore facts, if he wants to maintain his position.

I didn't know one could stand on ground that had already given away...Didn't he see the scene with Amanda ?

 

[FemurBone]

You can't produce a single credible source in the business to support your position.

You can't produce a single credible source in the business to support your position either!

What your doing is called a cop out. Your trying to associate your opinions and views with people in the "buisness" in a lame attempt create an illusion of them being credible. Even your use of the word buisness is vague. Nothin but smoke and mirrors.

You can't introduce the opinions and views of people who aren't even here!

 

[SalvorHardin]

I see you ignored the rest of my post the bit with numbers...hurts your head does it awww don't worry.

He has no choice but to ignore facts, if he wants to maintain his position.

I didn't know one could stand on ground that had already given away...Didn't he see the scene with Amanda ?

It's his fantasy land he can make whatever rules he wants for it.

 

[Tom Servo]

While I will admit to the fact that I in fact DID underestimate the final domestic earnings of Iron Man, the fact still remains that this film was a hit, no matter whether you like it or not. Look at Batman Begins, which in total drew less then Star Trek has already made, and what did that do, it only spawned one of the most successful movies of all time in TDK.

and how did TDK become succussful? It had IDEAS, it had a PLOT, it had INTELLIGENCE. And it was filmed with a tripod.

Star Trek had none of those things. It was a step above Starship Troopers. If the next film is going to successful the writers are going to have to actually WORK.

I don't know why I'm even arguing with you.

Because you know that i'm right. I'm scratching your rose colored lenses.

You are a poster who has repeatedly shown that you come here just to incite and rile, and your opinios are usually totally baseless, as it is here. You have repeatedly shown you have no clue how the film industry works, and all you can do is constantly spew out the little mantras that exist only in your head.

I've been here a whole lot longer than you...Commodore

Did you really just try to pull rank on an internet Star Trek message board? Just because you have been here longer doesn't mean shit. Your whole premise in this matter is still flawed.

You keep spewing how Star Trek is not that big of a hit because of the needless explosions and your ranting on shakey cam. Well I would say that Batman Begins had less of either....and yet...and yet....it made less.

Guess what...shaky cam is a VIABLE AND USED TECHNIQUE IN FILM. Just cause you don't like it doesn't mean jack fucking shit. And it certainly didn't cost the film any potential money.

The sad part is I'm sure you actually believe what you are saying, and the fact that the only reason you came into this thread in order to be an asshole to people doesn't make it too much better.

I love you fucking people. I just love the fact that it makes you sick to see this film become a critical and financial success. It makes it that much sweeter.

And hell, I would rather listen to Dennis's opinion, since you know he has kinda worked in the entertainment industry, rather then yours.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

What your[sic] doing is called a cop out....

Enjoy your fail.

The rest of us will enjoy this movie and its sequels, and there's nothing you can do about it.

I've been here a whole lot longer than you...Commodore

Did you really just try to pull rank on an internet Star Trek message board?

Yes, yes he did. Amazing.

 

[Squiggy]

No doubt the annoying shakey camera technique cost the film at least 100 million in ticket sales.

I really think you're overestimating Ex Astra's influence on the American population.

I've been here a whole lot longer than you...Commodore

And I'm a Fleet Admiral. Simmer.

HA HA I PULLED IMAGINARY RANK YOU YOU!!! lulz

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

but STAR TREK is a success simple as or Paramount would not be making a sequel.

Bring It On got a sequel too

Yes, Bring It On got a low budget direct-to-DVD sequel because it had a successful enough return on its budget to warrant one. Star Trek will have a big budget theatrical sequel because - say it with me - it's had a successful enough return on its budget to warrant one.

 

[Cyrus]

Interesting that the success of this movie is a thorn in the eyes of some Trek fans. I find the lame attempts at making a negative spin very entertaining, keep it up.