Abrams: Star Trek Into Darkness Problems
- Thread starter TrekToday
- Start date
- Status
Underperform does not mean failure.
But god forbid anyone say anything except it was a smashing success, amirite?
You probably shouldn't be saying anything unless you have something to back up your claim.
Doesn't seem to stop you...
For future reference...
Box Office
Critical and Popular Reviews
Into Darkness Award Nominations
(Not to mention the sequel had it's budget upped even more)
Box Office
Critical and Popular Reviews
Into Darkness Award Nominations
(Not to mention the sequel had it's budget upped even more)
Anyone who actually knows anything about Hollywood also knows that the people who crunch the numbers understand that there's a lot which can influence how a movie opens, from what's going on in the world to what else was released the week before. I'm sure they hoped STID would blow past ST09 in terms of opening weekend box office because that's a) good and b) free good press/buzz. But that's all short-term. What they ultimately look at is how much total profit did it make for the company's bottom-line, did it build potential future business, and is the brand something worth putting further investment into. Most of this armchair quarterbacking fans engage is just some desperate attempt to use the B.O. to prove or disprove their pet ideas as to if the films were good/successful or bad/flop, and neither has much connection to business reality.
Is the proof in the pudding then the fact that a new movie's on the way? Sure sounds like it to me.
It would still be better than Abrams' Trek.
I would suppose that would depend on both the nature of the fan and the fan fiction.
I would suppose that would depend on both the nature of the fan and the fan fiction.
Right. Good point. Abrams wrote Star Wars fan fiction and sold it as a Star Trek movie. Forgot that bit. He never liked Trek. It shows.
That the threequel had its budget upped even more ($200+ million, the same as The Force Awakens), there's a 4th movie pencilled in for 2019 and a spin-off TV series coming in 2017 has me asking, even if Into Darkness made a billion dollars, how could things have possibly gone any better?
I've heard this opinion a lot but I do not agree with it.
I would suppose that would depend on both the nature of the fan and the fan fiction.
Right. Good point. Abrams wrote Star Wars fan fiction and sold it as a Star Trek movie. Forgot that bit. He never liked Trek. It shows.
Trek 09 had what I enjoyed about Star Trek-it had action and adventure as well as social commentary. For me, who started with TOS, that works quite well.
Learn about the thing they're railing against? Egads man.
I would suppose that would depend on both the nature of the fan and the fan fiction.
Right. Good point. Abrams wrote Star Wars fan fiction and sold it as a Star Trek movie. Forgot that bit. He never liked Trek. It shows.
It's amazing the "facts" that we've suddenly learned about Star Trek in the last two weeks. J.J. wrote the Star Trek films now?
*Citation needed.
Since the subject of box office and profitability keeps coming up I thought I'd share the following, which discusses in part how much box office a film has to make in order to even recoup costs, let alone turn a profit.
As it reports, in 2009 a typical film had an average $47 million production cost with an average of $37 million P&A (Prints & Advertising) cost. Such a film would need to make $186 million in domestic box office just to break even. That's four times the movie's budget. Now, a movie with 4x that budget may not have 4x the P&A costs, but it still gives you an idea of how astronomical the box office needs to be to show a profit, and why most films are not profitable until the fees for international distribution and TV broadcast are factored in, plus home video.
Click HERE to jump to that part of the video. (link)
As it reports, in 2009 a typical film had an average $47 million production cost with an average of $37 million P&A (Prints & Advertising) cost. Such a film would need to make $186 million in domestic box office just to break even. That's four times the movie's budget. Now, a movie with 4x that budget may not have 4x the P&A costs, but it still gives you an idea of how astronomical the box office needs to be to show a profit, and why most films are not profitable until the fees for international distribution and TV broadcast are factored in, plus home video.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mlm0l9-n8Lk[/yt]
Click HERE to jump to that part of the video. (link)
Last edited:
Yes. A cost which has dropped since the switch to digital.
- Status
Similar threads
