No, but it's rarely factored in unless the marketing was insane. The marketing in foreign markets appears to be paying off at least.
STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
No, but it's rarely factored in unless the marketing was insane. The marketing in foreign markets appears to be paying off at least.
The business model has shifted. Most of a film's revenues come from ancillary revenue (PPV, DVD, Blu-ray, TV), so a film can make a profit with box office lower than 2X its budget. But for it to make enough of a profit to get a sequel it generally needs at least 2X its budget, and preferably around 2.4X or 2.5X its budget, although there are exceptions.
Yes, that is more accurate. However, movies these days generally need at least 2X its budget to get a sequel.
I've seen a lot of bitchy Trekkies whining about the movie, on social media. Before they've even seen it. It seems a lot of fans are biting the hand that feeds them. Also, unless you have a thick skin, I'd advise you to stay away from the IMDB board for STID. This place is very civil, compared to there.
It also seems Trek has a glass ceiling. No matter how much you reboot it, it seems impossible to shake that damned stigma.
It also seems Trek has a glass ceiling. No matter how much you reboot it, it seems impossible to shake that damned stigma.
Remember, you have not established if the 180-90 million includes promotional budget, and if it does not, then ST has a very long way to go. Also, you said its not a flop if it covers cost, but that's not even close to what the studio is interested in. Obviously, the first hurdle is that production budget, but it is only at that point when the profits come in, and again, with typical box office for any film shrinking with every week--and the ST opening week not being all that impressive (we're not talking Iron Man, here!), the final haul may not be a significant improvement over the 1st movie.
IF ST2 falls below the earnings of the 1st, this is not a case where it does not matter, as the sequel was so compelling that audiences were drooling for another entry before the credits rolled (ex. The Empire Strikes Back not earning as much as Star Wars, but created a frenzy for more). This film is not exactly sending off fireworks of excitement, or being that great sequel which makes bold moves forward for the principals (TWOK).
But the 1st threshold is the physical box office; the studio would not be satisfied to spend that much money, not get a bonafide hit, only to hope the home video market gives it the life it did not earn the first time around.
Honestly, with the marketing budget, I think you have to separate that from the film to a degree, because no matter the year, Paramount is going to spend a lot of money marketing its slate of films, which will always include a tentpole or intended blockbuster that they want everyone to know about.
But, of course, the apparent "glass ceiling" for nuTrek is hundreds of millions of dollars higher than for oldTrek.
The glass ceiling can and could be taken apart. It is far simpler than most people think.
Star trek needs to evolve to become somewhat more edgy and smart by trying to blur the gender difference it seems to permanently have.
There was one study that showed that the common star trek fan was a married woman who didnt go to conventions, get dressed up or did any of those stigmatizing things.
Also, star trek's focus requires a hook for teens, as most of us became trekkies then.
None of the trailers i've seen seem to be after them. They still can promote the movie this week with such focus and build up numbers.
Show more of the fun stuff and show kirk, spock and uhura a bit more!
Star trek needs to evolve to become somewhat more edgy and smart by trying to blur the gender difference it seems to permanently have.
There was one study that showed that the common star trek fan was a married woman who didnt go to conventions, get dressed up or did any of those stigmatizing things.
Also, star trek's focus requires a hook for teens, as most of us became trekkies then.
None of the trailers i've seen seem to be after them. They still can promote the movie this week with such focus and build up numbers.
Show more of the fun stuff and show kirk, spock and uhura a bit more!
But par for the course as far as the internet is concerned. I've already been to a few sites which a few have already declared it a flop and that this is the end of Trek forever.
Uh-huh...
But, of course, the apparent "glass ceiling" for nuTrek is hundreds of millions of dollars higher than for oldTrek.
...yeah, like inflated ticket prices have nothing to do with that.
nuTrek2 is not generating the kind of spirited, interested dialogue as TWOK in 1982. Not even close.
And show more Alice Eve in bra and panties, for the teen market
A
Amaris
Guest
But, of course, the apparent "glass ceiling" for nuTrek is hundreds of millions of dollars higher than for oldTrek.
...yeah, like inflated ticket prices have nothing to do with that.
nuTrek2 is not generating the kind of spirited, interested dialogue as TWOK in 1982. Not even close.
There's a 31 year difference between the two. Welcome to the 21st century.
But par for the course as far as the internet is concerned. I've already been to a few sites which a few have already declared it a flop and that this is the end of Trek forever.
Uh-huh...
ST fans are so neurotic, I find it highly amusing.
Trek 09 already made a few compromises. In one scene alone, we got Nokia product placement, a car chase, and Beastie Boys music. And yet it still didn't do Fast and Furious money. Trek 09 was a success for Trek standards, but only a modest success in terms of film in general
But, of course, the apparent "glass ceiling" for nuTrek is hundreds of millions of dollars higher than for oldTrek.
...yeah, like inflated ticket prices have nothing to do with that.
Nothing but a fractional difference, no. Check it out; exaggerating those kind of things doesn't win points.
TWOK may have engendered some "spirited discussion" in some Star Trek clubs or something in 1982, but it wasn't one of the biggest releases of that summer and there wasn't much buzz about it among the general public. The skiffy movies that got most of the attention that year were E.T. and Blade Runner.
I think Trekkies think Trek is more popular than it actually is, alas.
With four years worth of ticket inflation, 3-D prices and IMAX, the failure to match 2009 Star Trek is staggering.
Its funny so many people were all like, "don't rush into the sequel, let J.J take his time"
Now the 4 year gap and inability to ride off the momentum of the first movie seems to be agreed upon as a big part in the under performing opening box office.
Its funny so many people were all like, "don't rush into the sequel, let J.J take his time"
Now the 4 year gap and inability to ride off the momentum of the first movie seems to be agreed upon as a big part in the under performing opening box office.
Most franchises have a ceiling. Only a rarefied few franchises make more than $300 million domestic. If Trek's ceiling is $200-250 million domestic that puts it in good company. There's no shame in it. You just have to budget accordingly and continue to work on expanding Trek's international appeal and youth appeal.
To put things in perspective: over the last few summers only about half a dozen films per summer have opened to more than $60 million. Even in this especially super-charged summer STiD will likely be in the top half-dozen opening weekends.
To put things in perspective: over the last few summers only about half a dozen films per summer have opened to more than $60 million. Even in this especially super-charged summer STiD will likely be in the top half-dozen opening weekends.
Well, pre-Abrams anyway. There's a lot more interest in these two movies than there ever was before.
No.
A couple of Trekkies agreeing with one another doesn't constitute any kind of meaningful consensus on anything.
In a few weeks Paramount management is going to be too busy licking their wounds over World War Z to second-guess the success of Into Darkness.