How Much Does Trek Have to Gross to be Success?

[CaptainHawk1]

I'm vey curious about this. They've spent $150 million and it's going up a gainst a bunch of blockbusters this summer.

What does it have to gross to be considered a success? They way I see it, they have do a lot better than just break even, don't they?

 

[SalvorHardin]

I don't think anyone here can say for sure.Opinions vary and as I've noticed also depend on if one likes the new movie or not. Those who like it give lower numbers, those that hate it give higher numbers.

Over the course of the several box office threads people have said that 200 million is good, others say 250, others say it needs to make 3 or 3.5 times the budget...

Only Paramount can say for sure and they are not talking yet...

 

[btflash]

I'm vey curious about this. They've spent $150 million and it's going up a gainst a bunch of blockbusters this summer.

What does it have to gross to be considered a success? They way I see it, they have do a lot better than just break even, don't they?

yes. by hollywood standards the film will have to gross at least double its production cost to be considered a success. so i figure it will have to do at least 300 million domestically to accomplish that.if you recall back in 2006 superman returns cost 200 million to produce and grossed around 400 million worldwide and was considered a flop.a lot depends on how the powers that be over at paramount view the final figure.lets keep our fingers crossed!

 

[SalvorHardin]

I'm vey curious about this. They've spent $150 million and it's going up a gainst a bunch of blockbusters this summer.

What does it have to gross to be considered a success? They way I see it, they have do a lot better than just break even, don't they?

yes. by hollywood standards the film will have to gross at least double its production cost to be considered a success. so i figure it will have to do at least 300 million domestically to accomplish that.if you recall back in 2006 superman returns cost 200 million to produce and grossed around 400 million worldwide and was considered a flop.a lot depends on how the powers that be over at paramount view the final figure.lets keep our fingers crossed!

Plus when it comes to this movie I don't think money alone will determine its success.
If even after the world wide premiere the good reviews keep on coming from people and critics, that will probably play a big part in possible sequels even if the money is not huge.

If the Trek cow shows promise for even more growth in the future under the new guys, then it will probably be milked again. And maybe next time it will require a smaller budget now that new sets and cgi models have been constructed.

 

[btflash]

I'm vey curious about this. They've spent $150 million and it's going up a gainst a bunch of blockbusters this summer.

What does it have to gross to be considered a success? They way I see it, they have do a lot better than just break even, don't they?

yes. by hollywood standards the film will have to gross at least double its production cost to be considered a success. so i figure it will have to do at least 300 million domestically to accomplish that.if you recall back in 2006 superman returns cost 200 million to produce and grossed around 400 million worldwide and was considered a flop.a lot depends on how the powers that be over at paramount view the final figure.lets keep our fingers crossed!

Plus when it comes to this movie I don't think money alone will determine its success.
If even after the world wide premiere the good reviews keep on coming from people and critics, that will probably play a big part in possible sequels even if the money is not huge.

If the Trek cow shows promise for even more growth in the future under the new guys, then it will probably be milked again. And maybe next time it will require a smaller budget now that new sets and cgi models have been constructed.

agreed!

 

[jamesmc]

The film came in at over its 150 million I believe, and don't forget that is before you factor in all the marketing money they are spending!
It will have to do big bucks to Please Mr. Redstone and Co. I am sure.

 

[Eddie Roth]

It really depends on what the studio expects, I'd say, and what their long-term plans are for a given property. The numbers for Batman Begins, for example, were solid, but not overwhelming ($205m US on a $150m budget), yet it was an improvement over the last entry in the franchise, Batman and Robin, and so it proved that Nolan's reboot had worked. They were apparently going for a bigger sequel, which they did, and which, as we all know, paid off big time. So if Paramount is looking towards a trilogy or so of films (and it seems that they do considering they already placed a script order for a sequel), a number for STXI they would be satisfied with might be somewhat lower than what one would expect. Maybe they would be satisfied with the film breaking even domestically, banking on overseas as well as DVD and merchandising sales to bring in the profit, if it means that this film reestablishes the franchise and paves the way for more profitable ventures in the future.

Or not.

But then again, I doubt they expect mega-blockbuster numbers. People in film studios are notoriously cautious when it comes to spending money. They want safe (or should we say likely to be profitable) investments. Since the franchise has been in obviously bad shape the last ten years, they must have some security somewhere. Otherwise, I doubt they would spend $150m on a property that hasn't done so well in the past. Maybe some of the licensing deals related to Star Trek were very lucrative for Paramount so that a good part of the investment has already been made back before a single ticket has been sold?

Also, let's remember Nemesis. A box-office bomb by all accounts. And still, they didn't let Star Trek die. So obviously, the entire industry behind it, the merchandising, the DVDs etc, saved it enough to warrant another attempt. Star Trek may be one of the safer bets in the movie business because of that...

 

[CaptainHawk1]

The film came in at over its 150 million I believe, and don't forget that is before you factor in all the marketing money they are spending!

I don't know if the marketing money isn't included in the budget. Does anyone have any insight on that?

 

[M'Sharak]

The film came in at over its 150 million I believe, and don't forget that is before you factor in all the marketing money they are spending!

I don't know if the marketing money isn't included in the budget. Does anyone have any insight on that?

The marketing budget is separate. The $150 million figure we see cited a lot is the production budget only.

 

[Stag]

Do DVD sales factor into the 'success' decision in addition to box office? I mean they may almost make a $30-40 million in DVD sales worldwide.

 

[LLAP]

Generally speaking, any movie which makes more than it cost is a success. Movies are a tough business. But for long term success I would say a world wide gross of 300 million.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The answer is that no one knows except the people running Paramount - because only they know what they actually spent, where the money came from and what went into the partnership deals, what they expect the movie to bring in, and eventually what the returns on merchandise licensing, DVD sales and so forth turn out to be.

Remember, every product or company you see tying into this movie promotion right now paid Paramount for the privilege.

 

[Kelso]

As far as I'm concerned, this movie needs to gross exactly $6.00. Anything beyond that will be a bonus.

I'm rarely disappointed.

 

[npsf3000]

Considering that out of the 10 previous movies every single one made a profit, and that we have had 2 major flops [Edit: Recently] (Nemesis and Enterprise) anything over 200m will make people happy. That's 50m Profit and a strong show of interest.

Of course, i'm optimistic for a lot more than that.

 

[Captain Craig]

It needs to do at least $200m to be a modest hit.
Anything more than that is padded success.
However, should it make $200m that is not $50m profit. There is a profit sharing system in place. The studio makes something like 2/3 profit off the first weeks sales, then something like 1/2 off the following week. Difference goes to theaters. I'm sure for various movies the deals are reworked but this is a typical formula.

As for the double its production budget to be a hit that is erroneous cause not all movies do and yet are fully deemed hits. That is used most often by those hell bent against a movie.

Also, the marketing budget is separate and not a factor in its success/failure otherwise many more movies would be considered disasters instead of hits or modest hits.

 

[chrisspringob]

The answer is that no one knows except the people running Paramount - because only they know what they actually spent, where the money came from and what went into the partnership deals, what they expect the movie to bring in, and eventually what the returns on merchandise licensing, DVD sales and so forth turn out to be.

^^
This.

There is no formula that we can use to figure out if it made a profit or not. Most movies nowadays don't even make any profit off of the theatrical release. They start making profits when the DVD comes out, and I don't believe the $ numbers on DVDs are publicly released, are they?

Also, "success" is also a function of whether the movie generates good enough word of mouth for a sequel. "Batman Begins" is a good example of this. It grossed "only" $205 million domestic, which isn't spectacular by bat-movie standards or superhero movie standards, but the WOM was exceptionally good, and helped to build anticipation for the sequel.

 

[Jax]

Generally speaking, any movie which makes more than it cost is a success. Movies are a tough business. But for long term success I would say a world wide gross of 300 million.

I would agree though I will add that Paramount will want the movie to make at least $150 million domestically but then I think the only way the movie will get near breaking a $300 million worldwide total is by a 175 domestic total...

What I think we can agree on is that STAR TREK will sell well on DVD and bring in big bucks for any and all merchandise.

 

[ROBE]

With a $150m budget it needs to make three times this worldwide just to break even. Anything over $600m worldwide at the cinema should be viewed as a success with DVD sales the icing on the cake.

 

[datas_cat_spot]

It could do 200 million domestic and 200 international and get a sequel. People always mention Superman Returns as some cautionary tale, but it was a successful movie by typical standards. The problem is that is a not a big enough gross for one of the most popular and well known fictional characters of all time. It failed by Superman standards and that's why WB was hesitant. Not to mention the poor DVD sales. If you want to bring up SR, you may as well bring up Batman Begins too. A movie that couldn't even make 400 million worldwide but got a sequel because the studio knew they had something special.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

Advertising Age article on new 'Star Trek' film

"Are Box-Office Fates of 'Star Trek,' 'Wolverine' Already Written?"
Fox's 'X-Men' Marketing Strategy May Give It Twice the Numbers of Rival Paramount Film

Advertising Age magazine article published April 16. This is from a very marketing and advertising perspective.

But 43 years of Trekkies alone won't be enough to recoup on a $160 million CGI extravaganza, even as Paramount partners with Burger King, Lenovo, Kellogg, Nokia and Esurance to help it market the film.