The Ultimate Poll: JJ Vs. Bay

[BillJ]

Do you seriously not see the problem here? Even you should be able to pick up on this one, but let me lend a hand.

It's dumb because not only does he post numbers that completely contradict his final point (that Trek XI was only moderately profitable), but he seems to be completely redefining what a financially successful film is. Star Trek XI made back what it cost, then enough to make itself again, and some odd hundred million dollars change. I'm pretty sure that's what folks in Hollywood like to consider a huge fucking success of blockbuster proportions.

I'm NOT saying that quality relates to financial success or that Transformers 2 wasn't a bigger blockbuster. It was. But to deny that Trek XI was not a success is a case study in lunacy.

I think Star Trek 2009 did a little over four hundred million world wide. Assuming a 60/40 split between the studios and theaters... it would mean it 'made' about ninety million in profit (fifty million if its' a 50/50 split). Not counting other revenue streams and not counting what was spent on advertising.

I just dislike when people say its good because it made alot of money. Many, many poor films do good business and make studios money (Transformers 2 springs immediately to mind).

 

[Bishop76]

Again, I'd like to point out (as I just said in my previous post) that quality in no way relates to box office returns. But you would have to have some sort of brain damage to think that STXI, no matter what you think of the movie itself, was anything but very financially successful.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

So uh, Star Trek (2009) did better (even once adjusted for inflation) than any other film in its franchise and it performed poorly.

Hm.

 

[BillJ]

Again, I'd like to point out (as I just said in my previous post) that quality in no way relates to box office returns. But you would have to have some sort of brain damage to think that STXI, no matter what you think of the movie itself, was anything but very financially successful.

I honestly don't know what the Hollywood threshold for 'very financially successful' is.

It obviously did well enough for the previously 'green-lit' sequel to move forward. The budget for the sequel may show us exactly how successful Paramount thought it was.

 

[BillJ]

So uh, Star Trek (2009) did better (even once adjusted for inflation) than any other film in its franchise and it performed poorly.

Hm.

From a profitability standpoint, I would think The Wrath of Khan would be considered the most successful making back eight times its' budget (92 million on a production budget of 11 million) and know one will probably ever know exactly how profitable The Motion Picture actually was considering it was saddled with the costs of multiple aborted projects.

 

[Devon]

I wonder why everytime someone says he didn't like the movie, he gets to hear "But millions disagreed with you, box office proves that.",

Even if it's flawed, it's a far more honest attempt than a couple of people's implications that most people don't like the film. Oh well.

It's dumb because not only does he post numbers that completely contradict his final point (that Trek XI was only moderately profitable), but he seems to be completely redefining what a financially successful film is.

That was a small trend that more or less ended a couple of months ago to try to discredit Star Trek's financial success because of profit margins and what it cost to make the film and some other pooh-blah.

Star Trek XI made back what it cost, then enough to make itself again, and some odd hundred million dollars change. I'm pretty sure that's what folks in Hollywood like to consider a huge fucking success of blockbuster proportions.

Don't forget that it did very well in DVD sales too. I'm sure there's a break down as to how that wasn't that successful either.

I think Star Trek 2009 did a little over four hundred million world wide. Assuming a 60/40 split between the studios and theaters... it would mean it 'made' about ninety million in profit (fifty million if its' a 50/50 split). Not counting other revenue streams and not counting what was spent on advertising.

I'd rather hear from Paramount's accountants who actually have insight to costs, etc, instead of having to assume. For what it's worth, I seem to recall Anthony Pascale making a comment in TrekMovie.com's comment section in which he was told that the film had been "in the black" about two or three weeks after the film's release. I don't know if anymore was said about this though.

I just dislike when people say its good because it made alot of money.

How often does that happen honestly?

So uh, Star Trek (2009) did better (even once adjusted for inflation) than any other film in its franchise and it performed poorly.

Hm.

Yeah, how about that.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

BillJ, on pure profitability Wrath is still pretty ridiculously amazing, that's true.

 

[Bishop76]

Are you typing that without laughing? Is someone about to jump out and tell me I'm on TV's Bloopers and Practical Jokes (or God help me, Punked)? Let me help you out again here - it WAS extremely financially successful. I know you don't want it to be, but it was. Here's a guideline for the future too: $250 million is a blockbuster.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Are you typing that without laughing? Is someone about to jump out and tell me I'm on TV's Bloopers and Practical Jokes (or God help me, Punked)? Let me help you out again here - it WAS extremely financially successful. I know you don't want it to be, but it was. Here's a guideline for the future too: $250 million is a blockbuster.

In the Mirror Universe, films all cost a standardized billion to produce, regardless of anything. Maybe that's where some reside.

 

[BillJ]

Are you typing that without laughing? Is someone about to jump out and tell me I'm on TV's Bloopers and Practical Jokes (or God help me, Punked)? Let me help you out again here - it WAS extremely financially successful. I know you don't want it to be, but it was. Here's a guideline for the future too: $250 million is a blockbuster.

The numbers are all relative. Or are you trying to tell me a studio that spent $200 million on a film would be happy if it made $250 million... cause that makes it a 'blockbuster'?

I've never disputed the film made money... if you've read the previous posts you would know that. I, like everyone else, don't know what Paramount thought of the dollar take internally (which actually ended up being less than I originally thought).

 

[Bishop76]

Probably "holy shit, people do still like this Star Trek thing"

 

[BillJ]

Here's an article that pegs the profit of the film at $33.8 million (pre-DVD)... which I think is low.

http://www.theboxofficejunkie.com/2009/10/star-trek-or-paranormal-activity-which.html

 

[Bishop76]

-Advertising Budget - $75-140 million (There are conflicting reports on this.* I've seen everything from $75 million, which seems low, to $140 million, which seems a bit high.* Let's split the difference and use $107 million as our figure.)
-International Advertising And Distribution - $75 million?* (I really have no idea because I can't find figures for this anywhere! Still, to promote and release a film all over the world seems like it must take more than $50 million, so I'll make a guess, that is very much just a guess, of $75 million.)

THIS is what you're using as your credible source? I think the complete lack of knowledge of the blogger on these 2 points alone makes this information unusable.

 

[BillJ]

-Advertising Budget - $75-140 million (There are conflicting reports on this.* I've seen everything from $75 million, which seems low, to $140 million, which seems a bit high.* Let's split the difference and use $107 million as our figure.)
-International Advertising And Distribution - $75 million?* (I really have no idea because I can't find figures for this anywhere! Still, to promote and release a film all over the world seems like it must take more than $50 million, so I'll make a guess, that is very much just a guess, of $75 million.)

THIS is what you're using as your credible source? I think the complete lack of knowledge of the blogger on these 2 points alone makes this information unusable.

Never said anything about credible. I said 'here's an article that pegs the profit of the film at $33.8 million (pre-DVD)... which I think is low.', (this comment shows that I disagree with the numbers he's presenting).

I'm sure that there are tons of articles out there detailing others views on the breakdown of expenses and revenue for this film.

The Pro-XI crowd sure gets their knickers in a bunch when anyone questions the profitability/quality of this film.

 

[Bishop76]

I don't really give a shit what people think of the film itself - I just think it's willfully ignorant to deny that it was financially successful.

 

[BillJ]

I don't really give a shit what people think of the film itself - I just think it's willfully ignorant to deny that it was financially successful.

I have only read the last page... but I haven't seen anyone say it wasn't financially successful. I pegged it at making between $50 and $90 million after costs. The only ones who know what level of success this film attained is the bookkeepers and execs at Paramount. Which is what I have said all along.

 

[Alex1939]

What is this disagreement now?

That financial success determines the success of the film?

In that case Bay should be winning this poll in a landslide.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't really give a shit what people think of the film itself - I just think it's willfully ignorant to deny that it was financially successful.

Of course it is, but they grasp at any straws they can find.

 

[Devon]

The film's only downfall financially was internationally. However, amongst the hoopla of its profits and blah blah blah, there's no denying the fact that nearly $400 Million worth of tickets were sold. Again, that's nearly $400 Million worth of tickets being sold by fans and the public. Previous Trek has not had nearly $400 Million worth of anything spent on it in as short amount of time in an extremely long time. Let's not get into the DVD sales either. So, we're back to square one on that one.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Star Trek stands as the highest-grossing Trek yet, soaring past Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home ($109.7 million), and is a franchise best in terms of estimated total attendance, edging out the first Star Trek movie from 1979. This feat was made all the more impressive by its rise from the ashes of the failures of the last movie (Star Trek: Nemesis) and television series (Enterprise).

A great deal more successful than the versions that the naysayers apparently prefer.