STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

[beamMe]

If you adjust all the older TNG & TOS movies for inflation, this is where STID stands domestically right now:

The Motion Picture...............260M
Star Trek 2009....................257M (140M Budget)
The Voyage Home................235M
The Wrath Of Khan..............216M
Into Darkness...................200M (190M Budget)
The Search For Spock..........180M
First Contact......................166M
Generations........................142M
The Undiscovered Country....141M
Insurrection.......................118M
The Final Frontier................104M
Nemesis.............................59M


Factoring in world wide numbers, and the film's budget, it doesn't look like STID is going to be any more profitable than ST2009 (maybe slightly less).

I think that's a bit of a disappointment for Paramount.

Hopefully they'll cut the budget for the next film which will force the writers to focus more on story and less on FX/action. Sometimes limitations are the best thing for creativity.

So, after four weeks STID is already only 9 million shy of ST's total worldwide lifetime gross.
It already made 50 million more in non US-markets after those four weeks than ST made in its entire run.

ST went on to make another 50 million after four weeks in distribution in the US.

Yeah, STID surely is a "disappointment".

 

[JarodRussell]

Reading this thread has made me realise just how American-centric some people are.

Usually Americans.

 

[Phily B]

Any series of only 79 shows that ran the gambit of quality from strong dramatic episodes like "Balance of Terror", "Journey to Babel", and "The Immunity Syndrome" to fun stories like "The Trouble with Tribbles", "A Piece of the Action", and "I Mudd", to pure schlock like "Spock's Brain", "For the World is Hollow, and I Have Touched the Sky", and "And the Children Shall Lead" is going to attract a variety of fans for a variety of reasons.

Does "The Squire of Gothos" feel more like "Star Trek" than "The Doomsday Machine"? How does one know?

What about "The Gamesters of Triskelion" compared to "Shore Leave"?

What about TMP compared to TVH?

Where the hell is the TOS archetype so many seem to use as the measure of something's "Trekness?" (Ususally to say why something isn't Trek.)

I feel like people saying "it's not Star Trek" have an idealised version, instead of an actual version that the rest of us watched.

 

[Flake]

Hopefully they'll cut the budget for the next film which will force the writers to focus more on story and less on FX/action. Sometimes limitations are the best thing for creativity.

The action and destruction in this movie helped it to do much better overseas. I think the action will be the same in the next one as it was in STID, perhaps more. I thought the action was fine in this movie as it was not gratuitous, it simply helped to move on the story.

 

[johnjm22]

So, after four weeks STID is already only 9 million shy of ST's total worldwide lifetime gross.
It already made 50 million more in non US-markets after those four weeks than ST made in its entire run.

ST went on to make another 50 million after four weeks in distribution in the US.

Yeah, STID surely is a "disappointment".

Yes, it's a financial disappointment for Paramount. You're looking at revenues, not profits.

It's not going to be anymore profitable then the last Trek film.

I think Paramount was hoping to turn Star Trek into one of those big time summer mega hits. That's why they spent nearly 200M on it's production.

That's the kind of budget that gets spent on movies like Iron Man, Transformers ect. But STID isn't going to be anywhere near as profitable as those types films.

 

[thumbtack]

Reading this thread has made me realise just how American-centric some people are.

It's not that so much as trying to keep your attention away from the foreign grosses.

 

[beamMe]

So, after four weeks STID is already only 9 million shy of ST's total worldwide lifetime gross.
It already made 50 million more in non US-markets after those four weeks than ST made in its entire run.

ST went on to make another 50 million after four weeks in distribution in the US.

Yeah, STID surely is a "disappointment".

Yes, it's a financial disappointment for Paramount.

No.

 

[johnjm22]

Reading this thread has made me realise just how American-centric some people are.

Usually Americans.

You know, it's quite funny. Some people are so intent on seeing this movie labelled as a 'dissapointment', so eager to kill the JJ-verse dead, that they will claim that lower than expected box-office figures in the domestic market are the big story here. But if you're standing on the other side of the Pacific or the Atlantic, it's pretty clear that this isn't the big story at all. For that, you have to look at the film's global baseline.

That's what I was getting at.

Are you referring to my post?

Did you read all of it? I was factoring in the world wide box office numbers.

It's not pulling in the type of money worldwide that you want from a film with a 200M budget and a summer time release. I think Paramount was hoping for more.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

There will be a third Bad Robot Trek - the haters will simply have to deal with it.

 

[beamMe]

There will be a third Bad Robot Trek - the haters will simply have to deal with it.

This.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yep. Paramount is disappointed with the domestic gross but happy that their strategy for building Trek up in the international market is working so well.

The bottom line is this: another Trek movie in three years, written and produced by Bad Robot in the successful style of their last two Trek movies. Will the budget come down a bit? Maybe so.

 

[MacLeod]

If you adjust all the older TNG & TOS movies for inflation, this is where STID stands domestically right now:

The Motion Picture...............260M
Star Trek 2009....................257M (140M Budget)
The Voyage Home................235M
The Wrath Of Khan..............216M
Into Darkness...................200M (190M Budget)
The Search For Spock..........180M
First Contact......................166M
Generations........................142M
The Undiscovered Country....141M
Insurrection.......................118M
The Final Frontier................104M
Nemesis.............................59M


Factoring in world wide numbers, and the film's budget, it doesn't look like STID is going to be any more profitable than ST2009 (maybe slightly less).

I think that's a bit of a disappointment for Paramount.

Hopefully they'll cut the budget for the next film which will force the writers to focus more on story and less on FX/action. Sometimes limitations are the best thing for creativity.

So what you are saying is that due to the increased budget for STID it'll end up about as profitable as ST(2009). Couldn't that indicate that they managed to grow the audiance in certain markets? How is that a bad thing?


Sure they might cut the budget back a bit for the next film but if they do I suspect it'll be to around US$170m.

 

[johnjm22]

This film has cracked the overseas market in a way that no previous Star Trek film, including ST09, ever has. What's more, it's shown strong legs in important markets like China.

46.8% of STID's current revenue has come from the foreign market, which is an improvement over ST2009's 33%.

However, most big budget summer movies have about 60-70% of their revenue come from overseas markets, so Star Trek is more dependent on the domestic market than most.

Paramount spent more to make this film, so it's going to be less profitable even if it does a little better overseas. How is that not a disappointment financially?

Other big budget summer movies are pulling in a lot more.

 

[RAMA]

If you adjust all the older TNG & TOS movies for inflation, this is where STID stands domestically right now:

The Motion Picture...............260M
Star Trek 2009....................257M (140M Budget)
The Voyage Home................235M
The Wrath Of Khan..............216M
Into Darkness...................200M (190M Budget)
The Search For Spock..........180M
First Contact......................166M
Generations........................142M
The Undiscovered Country....141M
Insurrection.......................118M
The Final Frontier................104M
Nemesis.............................59M


Factoring in world wide numbers, and the film's budget, it doesn't look like STID is going to be any more profitable than ST2009 (maybe slightly less).

I think that's a bit of a disappointment for Paramount.

Hopefully they'll cut the budget for the next film which will force the writers to focus more on story and less on FX/action. Sometimes limitations are the best thing for creativity.

Youre figures are incorrect, ST09 is first with an inflation adjusted number of $274 million.

When all is said and done, STID will make close to $500 million from BO alone. Roughly $110-115 million more than ST09. If it makes anywhere near ST09's $101 million for DVD, or another $50 million for bluray along with the rights for cable, the final tally minus merchandising will be upwards of $650-675 million. You're simply wishing it wasn't so, but the numbers don't back you. Fail

RAMA

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Paramount spent more to make this film, so it's going to be less profitable even if it does a little better overseas. How is that not a disappointment financially?

You don't actually know what Paramount spent to make this film. You've just read the public figure for the overall production budget.

It cannot have escaped your notice that Paramount has financing partners on the nuTrek films. Do you know what their investments are, what the structure of their deals are, and what they actually intend to accomplish with their investments?

(Credit will not be given for "to make as much money as possible, duh," or the equivalent. )

 

[johnjm22]

Youre figures are incorrect, ST09 is first with an inflation adjusted number of $274 million.

You apparently didn't read the first sentence of my post.

When all is said and done, STID will make close to $500 million from BO alone. Roughly $110-115 million more than ST09. If it makes anywhere near ST09's $101 million for DVD, or another $50 million for bluray along with the rights for cable, the final tally minus merchandising will be upwards of $650-675 million. You're simply wishing it wasn't so, but the numbers don't back you.

I never said it wasn't profitable; just not as profitable as paramount hoped. It's not going to make anywhere near as much as similarly expense summer time movies. I think Paramount was hoping to get it up into that echelon, and it just hasn't worked out.

 

[johnjm22]

You don't actually know what Paramount spent to make this film. You've just read the public figure for the overall production budget.

Do you doubt that the film cost a similar amount as other summer time special FX laden big budget movies?

The movie's budget has been reported by multiple reputable publications. Of course no one knows the exact amount, but I don't think anyone would dispute that it's in the ball park of 200M. That's just what it costs to make a film like that today.

It cannot have escaped your notice that Paramount has financing partners on the nuTrek films. Do you know what their investments are, what the structure of their deals are, and what they actually intend to accomplish with their investments?

Too much unknown to speculate here. But it seems likely to me that the ROI on STID, isn't as high as it contemporaries for most parties involved.

Again, Paramount goes out and gets Abrams, ramps up the budget, and makes "nuTrek" a summer time release for obvious reasons. Revenue wise, it's just not living up to films that get similar treatment from their backers.

 

[Franklin]

Yep. Paramount is disappointed with the domestic gross but happy that their strategy for building Trek up in the international market is working so well.

The bottom line is this: another Trek movie in three years, written and produced by Bad Robot in the successful style of their last two Trek movies. Will the budget come down a bit? Maybe so.

I think many, many folks were probably too optimistic about the domestic gross. In the Bond franchise, "Skyfall" rebounded off a not so good "Quantum of Solace" to make $300 million, domestically. Seeing that, I'd have easily bet STID could follow ST09's $257 million with $300 million. Maybe the four year gap in the movies was too long. Then again, it was four years between "Quantum of Solace" and "Skyfall", so who knows? The Bond movies were November movies, too. The movie world is fickle, I guess.

 

[Harvey]

You apparently didn't read the first sentence of my post.

The sentence where you acknowledge skewing the scales by adjusting all the box office grosses for inflation except for Star Trek (2009)? Admitting that you're doing something nonsensical doesn't mean it suddenly makes sense.

To your other point, the movie isn't going to be the biggest hit of the summer, but it will likely be among the top ten domestic grossing films of 2013. Worldwide, it's performing far better than any film in the franchise ever has. Speculating about Paramount's financial hopes for the film without a bit of evidence is a waste of time (i.e. "I think Paramount was hoping to get it up into that echelon, and it just hasn't worked out").

 

[Belz...]

Maybe the four year gap in the movies was too long. Then again, it was four years between "Quantum of Solace" and "Skyfall", so who knows?

Or maybe Bond > Trek.