$35.5 Million more from overseas
- Thread starter Flake
- Start date
Even if the $160 million is the budget though majorty of wites say otherwise and I agree the ad budget is never more than $100 million, that ad budget is not all lumped onto the production budget.
BOX OFFICE
DVD/BLU RAY
AND EVERY LITTLE BIT OF MERCHINDISE
brings it hundreds of millions cme the end, HUNDREDS.
BOX OFFICE
DVD/BLU RAY
AND EVERY LITTLE BIT OF MERCHINDISE
brings it hundreds of millions cme the end, HUNDREDS.
Thing is, after this one, there will be a built-in anticipation for the next one, which will not have to introduce the characters' back stories.
So you've posted projected numbers. That's nice. That's no guarantee. It's just a hopeful projection.
Funny how you claim I'm wrong because I made assumptions, but that you are right because you've made assumptions too.
Those numbers aren't real. They aren't facts. Like I said, they're hopeful projections that may never be reached.
Post all the projected numbers you want, it doesn't mean they're real.
All are estimations anyway only the studio knows exactly, and what makes you think they count the advertising in the movie's budget anyway?
Do you KNOW how much money they are making off the millions of packages of cereal??? Paramount is literally swimming in money and its only been a few weeks since the merchandising and movie came out.
RAMA
Advertising costs are never counted in "production cost."
My numbers are assumptions. I even say so. However, my assumptions are backed by history and performances of comparable films.
I actually took a closer look at these:
Link 1) It reports a RANGE of POSSIBLE budget totals. No Paramount numbers.
Link 2) An out of date entry from 2007. Attributed to insiders. No offcial Paramount numbers.
Link 3) Bascially the same site as #2. Also 2007 numbers.
Link 4) Out of date, no Paramount numbers.
Link 5) Reports another range from unquoted "insiders". In fact several other of the totals for other films are actually wrong. Not particularly reliable reporting.
Exactly. They also do not necessarily get attached to the project in question.
RAMA
Every newspaper, magazine, website, reviews and were talking dozens and dozens and dozens have all said this year $150 milliion..Including sites like Yahoo, Box office Mojo and plenty of other websites who are so accurate in matters like this
Thank you I've been trying to say this for ages, they aren't attached to the production budget and paid for differently or so many more movies would fail or make little profit.
It's not hopeful; it's educated and based on prior patterns.
We are claiming this movie will do what most other movies do.
You are claiming this will be some very special instance that, for no reason you have been able to articulate, will crash and burn unlike any movie with comparable opening numbers in recent history. Unless you care to prove me wrong, and find - again - so much as ONE example of a movie with this kind of opening that didn't make a profit.
Find me one example. ONE.
There have been plenty of films that had great opening weekends and then suddenly died down. The difference is they cost less to make. So when a movie that costs 45 mil to make and earns 60 mil or so (just for an example) on it's opening weekend, it's turned a profit. Even if it does die down after that opening weekend, it can't be considered a flop because it turned a profit.
Ok, so find me one.
One movie that had a $115 million opening weekend and grossed less than $260 million internationally.
Just one, and I'll leave you alone.
Advertising is listed as a separate thing from the "production budget", but it still has to be paid for, no? I mean, a movie hasn't actually made a profit unless it's paid for production costs, advertising, and all other associated costs, no?
[Please note, I'm not associating myself with Odo's Bucket's arguments, which I find silly. Obviously the movie is a hit. I just think people might be overstating the case if they're suggesting that the advertising costs don't matter.]
[Please note, I'm not associating myself with Odo's Bucket's arguments, which I find silly. Obviously the movie is a hit. I just think people might be overstating the case if they're suggesting that the advertising costs don't matter.]
Just for my edification, what would you have considered a successful opening weekend to be? What kind of numbers are you thinking of?
The general rule of thumb is that, to be a success, a movie has to make back its production budget in its domestic theatrical run. If that's true, you can pretty reliably count on the various related merchandise and DVD sales, international theatrical run, etc, to make up for the rest (advertising, movie execs, whatever).
You will notice that, by this standard, the vast majority of Hollywood movies are profitable. Entertainment is a rather lucrative business. And clearly a company would want to spend its resources on movies that are extremely profitable, rather than just profitable, so studios do aim for numbers a bit higher than that. So I can see someone saying that a movie isn't a tremendous, brilliant success unless it makes back its production AND advertising budget in its theatrical run, but yes, it is a pretty arbitrary threshold.
And honestly, by either measure, Trek is going to be a brilliant success.
You continue to reveal that you don't know how any of this works, and aren't learning despite the information knowledgeable folks on this board are providing. The film's take between Saturday and today are indicative of very strong legs and positive word of mouth. It would require a very unlikely break in the trend for its final domestic gross to be less than $170 million; it is now highly likely that its domestic gross will exceed $200 million. There are nuances to be observed beyond its "great opening weekend" and those observations allow us to remark that it is extremely unlikely the film will just "die down".
And the film business itself would be a waste of time for all concerned if making a profit on a film like this were as difficult as you suggest.
I never said the opening weekend wasn't good start. I said that, like every other Star Trek movie before it, after a week or so, people are going to stop spending money on it.
And all those Star Trek movies made about 1/3 of their total gross opening weekend; that is the mathematical reality of your vague "people are going to stop spending money on it." So if this one behaves exactly like the last few, it still makes $225 million domestically. In order to believe you, you have to explain why this movie would be different, not why it would be the same.
Titanic a flop? Huh? It only made $1,835,300,000 (Worldwide).
Well, one difference is that the other Star Trek films had quality acting and the scripts weren't laughable. That's one difference. Some of the other Trek films didn't look like they were going to be good. That's part of the reason they didn't do as well in the theater as they could have. They were all at least watchable though. So they stood the test of time.
This movie is garbage. The acting is bad, the script laughable, and the quick flashy, lens flare style directing was a horrible mistake. The special effects were straight out of George Lucas' little bag of Star Wars tricks. The two main concepts (time travel and tos) which were already overused caused the movie to be boring and dull and it did not peak my interest in the slightest. If I hadn't been so disappointed in wasting my money, I would have fallen asleep.
This is by far the worst two hours of Star Trek happenings that has ever made it's way to film. It will not stand the test of time. After all the people on this board go broke from seeing 167 times each, it will fade into the background.