Profitability of Star Trek Movies

[fireproof78]

If memory serves STID (for me anyway) did worse because they spent more to make it and market it and as a result made less relative to how much extra they spent. On top of that it also had really tough competition the week before and the week after its release.

I fully expected it wasn't going to live up to its new budget.

And I'm not the least bit worried in Trek's future. As long as people keep going in droves and the movies are getting praised then they will keep making them. And even if they don't Trek couldn't get any worse off than it was after ENT was canned in which case I still have the entire library of Trek to enjoy.

I do remember someone saying some bigwig type person at Paramount was a bit disappointed in the numbers, but that never made sense to me. I mean, a Star Trek film sequel made a half a billion dollars, following on the trail of a totally revamped Star Trek movie also making a half a billion dollars. To me that sounds like success! I guess I'll never understand some executives.

After all, how many times have we seen sequels crash and burn? To me, getting a billion dollars on the box offices of two movies is stellar and to be celebrated!

From what I have heard, it didn't meet projections, which pretty much means they were hoping to make more money. I have friends who work in Hollywood, and have a better idea of how the industry works. One of them said that while Paramount might have wanted to make more money (they always do, folks) it wasn't a "failure" by any definition of the word

Edit: in an odd twist, an add on another website I'm reading has a screen grab from ID with the title "10 biggest ever box office flops and bombs." I must define failure much differently...

 

[yenny]

You have to account in the promotion cost. Which is itself is separate from the production budgit. But can be as much or more then the production budgit.

Like example. Star Trek Into Darkness

190,000,000,000 production cost
+
190,000,000,000 promotion cost
total
380,000,000,000

movie tickets sales: 466,978,661 divided by 2 = 233,489,330.5

380,000,000-233,489,330.5= -146,510,669.5

 

[Sindatur]

You have to account in the promotion cost. Which is itself is separate from the production budgit. But can be as much or more then the production budgit.

Like example. Star Trek Into Darkness

190,000,000,000 production cost
+
190,000,000,000 promotion cost
total
380,000,000,000

movie tickets sales: 466,978,661 divided by 2 = 233,489,330.5

380,000,000-233,489,330.5= -146,510,669.5

Again, that's not really how it works.

The Studio budgets it's Marketing Budget (By Quarter, Half and Fiscal Year), and that's what they're going to spend, regardless. The Promotions, although you will see more commercials, or whatever for a specific movie, they are advertizing their Studio, at least as much as that specific Movie. If a movie only gets $50M Marketing spent on it, another movie will get $150M, they're going to use that Budget, one way or another. As the movies come out, they decide where those Dollars need to be spent, but, that's not where they are applied for profit/Loss. They are applied to the Highest profiting movies, to bring down their Profitability, so, deals based upon a percentage of Profit can be paid out lower.

In the grand scheme for Profit/Loss, all the numbers go across the board, and all wash together.

But, the decision internally on wether it's worthwhile to make another Movie in the Series, uses the actual Revenues to judge if it's worthwhile.

 

[Jedi_Master]

As Sindatur has pointed out, a movie studio budgets for all its various projects and their associated costs. So to use big round figures the studio will plan on spending say $2 billion in 2014 on marketing and that dollar figure will be alloted to the different films being released in 2014. The same goes for other costs including production and labor. Its just basic business. Trying to isolate one project and its costs ignores the basic principles of budgets.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I've think we've been over all this already.

Like two or three times.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I've think we've been over all this already.

Like two or three times.

Did we make enough profit to justify another page?

I guess we did

 

[Commishsleer]

You have to account in the promotion cost. Which is itself is separate from the production budgit. But can be as much or more then the production budgit.

Like example. Star Trek Into Darkness

190,000,000,000 production cost
+
190,000,000,000 promotion cost
total
380,000,000,000

movie tickets sales: 466,978,661 divided by 2 = 233,489,330.5

380,000,000-233,489,330.5= -146,510,669.5

According to this formula the "Pirates of the Carribean" franchise for 4 films just made a total of $50 million profit

Total Cost of 4 films = $900 million
Total Worldwide Box Office = $3700 million

Divide ticket sales $3700 million by 2 = $1850 million
Add $900 million to production cost for publicity costs = $1800 million
Total profit = $50 million dollars for an investment by Disney of allegedly $1800 million.

A return of $50/$1800 = %2.7. Yet I thought this franchise was supposed to be incredibly profitable...
Maybe my calculations are wrong.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

It's pretty clear that Trek won't likely continue as a high budget series unless they bring it down significantly or if this third film takes a leap at the box office. This is why Trek before the 2009 film has largely been a series of mid-budget films because they knew back then that they were not expected to make the kind of money other contemporary hits like STAR WARS and TERMINATOR 2 made. It was smart, and it kept the series afloat.

Also interesting is that after THE VOYAGE HOME became the most successful Trek, Paramount finally felt comfortable to give the fifth film a pretty big budget. It's too bad Shatner wasted that dough on Yosemite location shoots and hair glue.

The two latest films have done very well. ST09 broke the box office record for a Star Trek film. While STID didn't break any records, it's still the 4th highest grossing Star Trek film to date. They've each made half a billion dollars. That is a high box office.

Star Trek 2009 is #78 on the Top 100 Domestic Box Office sales chart. That's of all time.

Feel free to take a look for yourself: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm

While it didn't make as much domestically, Star Trek Into Darkness is #153 on the Top 200 Worldwide Box Office sales chart.

Feel free to check it out.

So where it lost out on domestic take, it improved significantly on international take. It can be spun around upside down and through a dozen different calculators, using magical formulas, and it still doesn't change the high level of success these films have enjoyed.

Oh, and here's something neat! A screenshot of Star Trek Into Darkness and it's various rankings on the charts.

You can see the whole thing here: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm

The argument, from some, that these movies were somehow barely profitable, or were a disappointment overall, is fervent wishing, nothing more.

All I'm saying is that it's not making the kind of money you typically want movies with that high budget to make. SUPERMAN RETURNS made nearly $400 million, and that wasn't good enough. TREK looks impressive when you narrow it down to just that series (look it passed all the other movies!), but in the grand scheme of thing it's not exactly as impressive as a lot of its competitors and especially when you consider that that a lot of the previous films were more profitable due to having more mid-budgets. The nuTrek films are not outright failures, but they're not screaming successes when you consider how much money was spent on them and what they got back.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Can you really make a profitability case without adjusting for inflation?

If the franchise continues as a disposable action franchise rather than staying true to its roots, what's the point of it surviving? If I want to watch good guys shooting bad guys I'll watch every other action movie ever made that isn't Star Trek. That's not what I watch Star Trek for.

 

[fireproof78]

Can you really make a profitability case without adjusting for inflation?

If the franchise continues as a disposable action franchise rather than staying true to its roots, what's the point of it surviving? If I want to watch good guys shooting bad guys I'll watch every other action movie ever made that isn't Star Trek. That's not what I watch Star Trek for.

Though, TOS was inspired by the Westerns of the time, just as a point of reference. I'm not saying it should be a mindless action franchise, but I also don't think that is what it has become either, or no worse than when Nemesis was the latest film out.

As for profitability, the arguement isn't that it was the greatest film of all time!!!! (trademark). The argument is that it was successful and made money, meaning that a sequel got green-lit because Paramount hoped to make more money. Guess what? GR hoped to make money too! Crazy, I know

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Can you really make a profitability case without adjusting for inflation?

If the franchise continues as a disposable action franchise rather than staying true to its roots, what's the point of it surviving? If I want to watch good guys shooting bad guys I'll watch every other action movie ever made that isn't Star Trek. That's not what I watch Star Trek for.

This is the part where someone comes in and says "Hey, every episode of Star Trek ended with the issue being resolved by having Spock repeatedly beat the shit out of someone! What show have you been watching???"

The argument is that it was successful and made money, meaning that a sequel got green-lit because Paramount hoped to make more money. Guess what? GR hoped to make money too! Crazy, I know

Even if STID flopped hard, a third film would still happen in the hopes that they do a better job next time and capitalize on the 50th anniversary hype. No studio ever gives up on a brand name unless it consecutively under-performs.

 

[BigJake]

Can you really make a profitability case without adjusting for inflation?

If the franchise continues as a disposable action franchise rather than staying true to its roots, what's the point of it surviving? If I want to watch good guys shooting bad guys I'll watch every other action movie ever made that isn't Star Trek. That's not what I watch Star Trek for.

This is the part where someone comes in and says "Hey, every episode of Star Trek ended with the issue being resolved by having Spock repeatedly beat the shit out of someone! What show have you been watching???"

Pretty much.

There should also be someone along to claim that it's no fair adjusting for inflation because of reasons.

 

[fireproof78]

Can you really make a profitability case without adjusting for inflation?

If the franchise continues as a disposable action franchise rather than staying true to its roots, what's the point of it surviving? If I want to watch good guys shooting bad guys I'll watch every other action movie ever made that isn't Star Trek. That's not what I watch Star Trek for.

This is the part where someone comes in and says "Hey, every episode of Star Trek ended with the issue being resolved by having Spock repeatedly beat the shit out of someone! What show have you been watching???"

The argument is that it was successful and made money, meaning that a sequel got green-lit because Paramount hoped to make more money. Guess what? GR hoped to make money too! Crazy, I know

Even if STID flopped hard, a third film would still happen in the hopes that they do a better job next time and capitalize on the 50th anniversary hype. No studio ever gives up on a brand name unless it consecutively under-performs.

True, but Paramount is also not going to keep pitching good money after bad.

There are many different ways to approach the 50th, and they don't have to be a feature film. Its their property to do with what they will.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Can you really make a profitability case without adjusting for inflation?

If the franchise continues as a disposable action franchise rather than staying true to its roots, what's the point of it surviving? If I want to watch good guys shooting bad guys I'll watch every other action movie ever made that isn't Star Trek. That's not what I watch Star Trek for.

This is the part where someone comes in and says "Hey, every episode of Star Trek ended with the issue being resolved by having Spock repeatedly beat the shit out of someone! What show have you been watching???"

Pretty much.

There should also be someone along to claim that it's no fair adjusting for inflation because of reasons.

I honestly don't mind Trek being action spectacles. I just wish they were written better.

"BUT THE TOMATOMETER AND BOX OFFICE!!!"

Yeah yeah.

 

[fireproof78]

How about, did you enjoy the film?

I'll give a quick example. I went and saw the last Hobbit film because I wanted to get that over with. All the critics and reviews that were read (quickly) on opening week were negative, that it was a terrible film and not worth while. Still leading the box office last I checked.

Personally, I do not care what RT, Box Office Mojo, SFDebris, or whatever other critics say. The question, to me, is, did I enjoy it? With 09 and ID, I did enjoy it, and am glad (for whatever reason) Paramount is making another one.

I think ID could have been written a little bit better, but only some minor tweaks and changes to really get Kirk's arc more introspective. But, I still find it as enjoyable as TUC, FC or TVH even. It's fun, and Trek has always been about fun for me.

YMMV

 

[BigJake]

In our galaxy we do not have this strange concept you humans call "enjoy." We measure all things by profit and aggregator scores. I think you will agree this is far more logical.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

True, but Paramount is also not going to keep pitching good money after bad.

There are many different ways to approach the 50th, and they don't have to be a feature film. Its their property to do with what they will.

I only assume Paramount wants to make use of the 50th anniversary by releasing a film because that's what they did with TUC on the 25th, despite TFF's major disappointing run. It helped (though the fact that it was promoted as the last TOS movie is a factor). Then there's the fact that Bond and Dr. Who really scored big when celebrating their 50th anniversary. Releasing Trek 3 on the franchises' 50th anniversary is beneficial, because it sends a message of its longevity and popularity. It would even attract those who never gave Trek a shot to finally see it "hey, if Trek has been around this long and this popular, maybe I should see what the fuss is all about", which hopefully leads to more Trek fans being made.

But hey, they already announced the date for 2016 so it should all work out, assuming Paramount really tries to go for the 50th anniversary buzz angle.

How about, did you enjoy the film?

As a whole? Not really. I'd put it above ST09 just for tackling things that I was actually pleased to see, even if they were not done in a way that satisfied me (like Kirk's sudden promotion being put into question).

Frankly, I'm less of a fan of the films as a whole, I mean a whole as in 12 films. I only really enjoy half of it (TWOK, TSFS, TVH, TUC, FC). Everything else ranges from wasted potential (GEN, STID) to depressing (TFF, NEMESIS).

I'll give a quick example. I went and saw the last Hobbit film because I wanted to get that over with. All the critics and reviews that were read (quickly) on opening week were negative, that it was a terrible film and not worth while. Still leading the box office last I checked.

Personally, I do not care what RT, Box Office Mojo, SFDebris, or whatever other critics say. The question, to me, is, did I enjoy it? With 09 and ID, I did enjoy it, and am glad (for whatever reason) Paramount is making another one.

I think ID could have been written a little bit better, but only some minor tweaks and changes to really get Kirk's arc more introspective. But, I still find it as enjoyable as TUC, FC or TVH even. It's fun, and Trek has always been about fun for me.

YMMV

I get a kick out of DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, and that's typically viewed by Bond fans as being among the worst of the series. What can I say, I enjoy the sleaze and humor of that flick. I may not enjoy the nuTrek films, but that doesn't mean I don't want to.

 

[fireproof78]

I find your lack of enjoyment disturbing...

Crap, wrong fandom again

 

[BigJake]

I find your lack of enjoyment disturbing...

Crap, wrong fandom again

That's a funny one.

 

[Amaris]

In our galaxy we do not have this strange concept you humans call "enjoy." We measure all things by profit and aggregator scores. I think you will agree this is far more logical.

We measure it with profit and critical reception when people insist the movie did poorly and no one liked it, because in our galaxy, denialism is still seen as something pitiable and correctable.