Profitability of Star Trek Movies

[Kelthaz]

It still comes back to why does it matter? Obviously, disappointed or not, Paramount saw enough in the performance of Star Trek Into Darkness to decide to make another one. Going so far as to hire Orci as a writer/director before having a falling out.

Because if Paramount was disappointed in the film's box office it means they'll try to fix the problems of Into Darkness in the sequel.

And I do believe that Into Darkness was a disappointment. Sure, it was no bomb, but the film made less money domestically than the original even without taking into account inflation. That's not a good sign. I'm sure Paramount has looked into why that is and have plans to improve numbers for the sequel.

 

[Mudd]

That's a beautiful theory.

 

[Kelthaz]

That's a beautiful theory.

Yes, I thought so too.

Adjusted for inflation, Into Darkness made $50 million less domestically than the original film and the people who went to see the film skewed older which means less new blood for the reboot. I have no idea how you can spin that to mean everything is awesome.

 

[MacLeod]

It still comes back to why does it matter? Obviously, disappointed or not, Paramount saw enough in the performance of Star Trek Into Darkness to decide to make another one. Going so far as to hire Orci as a writer/director before having a falling out.

Because if Paramount was disappointed in the film's box office it means they'll try to fix the problems of Into Darkness in the sequel.

And I do believe that Into Darkness was a disappointment. Sure, it was no bomb, but the film made less money domestically than the original even without taking into account inflation. That's not a good sign. I'm sure Paramount has looked into why that is and have plans to improve numbers for the sequel.

But don't they have to be careful about making changes to increase the US box office that might risk the International box office?

 

[Mudd]

I have no idea how you can spin that to mean everything is awesome.

I don't have to, despite the fact that your recitation is very selective. The movie's international numbers, though also not what Paramount might have hoped, were up considerably from ST09. That matters tremendously and the studio will double down on any aspects of the movies that seem to be driving that improvement - doubtless a big reason for wanting Justin Lin. Nobody has a problem with making a lot more internationally than domestically at this point.

The notion that the studio has some well-considered plan beyond that for "fixing" whatever they may see as the problems of the previous movie is a little naive. In any event, what they think might improve box office doesn't have to have much to do with producing a better movie from the POV of fans.

 

[bbailey861]

I saw it in 3D on opening day at 00:01, many factors can impact on the box office revenue. At the end of the day whilst Paramount might be dissapointed at the final take it did show an increase in boxoffice over the previous film, sure 3D might have played a part in that but out of interest what is the price difference between the two tickets 2D and 3D in various parts of the world?

It's 3 bucks here, in Kingston, and I think that's a fair markup. I don't see too many films in 3D, mainly because (as J. Allen also previously mentioned) I wear glasses and having another pair of glasses sitting over top of my regular ones is somewhat annoying, though I did see STiD the first time in 3D, (and two more in 2D).

 

[Lance]

I don't see too many films in 3D, mainly because (as J. Allen also previously mentioned) I wear glasses and having another pair of glasses sitting over top of my regular ones is somewhat annoying.

My brother has the same issue. You'd think they would have found a way to solve that problem by now (like redesign the 3D glasses).

 

[CorporalClegg]

I think 3D is going to turn out to be a fad (again)--at least until there's some radical change in technology. There's been a drop in both number of film's released in 3D and attendance each year since 2011. There were only 28 3D films in 2014. I couldn't find anything about total attendance, but an article from September about poor summer movie attendance.

Note the chart for 2013 showing that total 3D sales were less than 20% of all ticket sales that year. It's safe to assume STiD was lower than the average. Someone else can do the math, but suffice it to say, that only supports my claim that 3D sales didn't boost STiD's profit as much as some would suggest.

 

[MacLeod]

^I suspect some still think the US domestic take is more important than the International take. The question is do the studios think one is more important than the other? Sure any take at the International Box office is subject to exchange rates.

But if you look at the box office percentage difference between ST09 and STID

US was ~ -11%
International ~ +86%

Now perhaps part of the reason for the uptake Internationally was the casting of Bendeict Cumberbatch.

 

[Smellmet]

I think you're correct. People have realised that 3D ain't all that, even at the cinema. Like I said earlier there's only a handful of titles that have been worth watching in the format, and I'm sure they're equally thin on the ground moving forward too.

Even my beloved Trek - if ST3 isn't filmed in 3D then I'm simply not interested in seeing it in that format, and even then I'm more than happy to watch it in 2D.

 

[drt]

^I suspect some still think the US domestic take is more important than the International take. The question is do the studios think one is more important than the other? Sure any take at the International Box office is subject to exchange rates.

The last few years have shown that these sorts of "blockbusters" are definitely trying harder to appeal to international audiences, which would indicate that international box office is pretty important these days. That's why I doubt the aforementioned "15%" number is still that applicable for big-budget extraveganzas, and assume that more favorable to the studio agreements have been made for territories where high revenue numbers are expected (it may still apply for something like a low-budget comedy where the international is still somewhat of an afterthought, and obtaining the best deal isn't worth much effort).

Exchange rates have to be considered for shareholder reporting purposes, but most likely a lot of that cash is never repatriated to avoid paying US taxes on it.

 

[Lance]

Even my beloved Trek - if ST3 isn't filmed in 3D then I'm simply not interested in seeing it in that format, and even then I'm more than happy to watch it in 2D.

See, this is the thing that has killed 3D more than anything else -- the studios doing this lame ass shit where they film a movie in 2D and post-process a 3D 'version'. It's like they can't understand that what made Avatar such a hit was it was fricken filmed in 3D, using specialist equipment, and that the audience aren't stupid enough to buy this crappy cheapo attempt to wring money out of the fad without paying for the special cameras. If anything, it creates a self-defeating philosophy, as the studios themselves create the enviroment in which audiences grow tired of the 3D and stop buying tickets to it (because 99% of so-called 3D movies are nothing of the sort). Not to mention the total gimmick of taking old movies and spuriously re-releasing them in '3D'...

It's the same thinking that killed Cinerama.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

Even my beloved Trek - if ST3 isn't filmed in 3D then I'm simply not interested in seeing it in that format, and even then I'm more than happy to watch it in 2D.

See, this is the thing that has killed 3D more than anything else -- the studios doing this lame ass shit where they film a movie in 2D and post-process a 3D 'version'. It's like they can't understand that what made Avatar such a hit was it was fricken filmed in 3D, using specialist equipment

Exactly why I went to see the Hobbit films in HFR 3D and haven't bothered with any other 3D flick.

 

[Smellmet]

I wonder what the costs involved are in converting a 2D movie into 3D post production. It's starting to sound like it's not worth it, it can't be a cheap process.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

Overinflated, just like all the other Hollywood costs.

 

[anotherdemon]

I'm sure they'll always be profitable due to the rarity of spaceship adventures each year.

I'm also sure they spend more money than they have to on making them.

 

[M'Sharak]

I wonder what the costs involved are in converting a 2D movie into 3D post production. It's starting to sound like it's not worth it, it can't be a cheap process.

I don't know any numbers, but I suspect the 3D conversion is not nearly so expensive as shooting in 3D in the first place, which probably makes shooting in 2D and converting an easier sell to the studios authorizing the funding.

From what I recall reading, camera passes for some scenes in STID were filmed additional times without the actors present, so that there were complete digital maps of the sets to facilitate the later conversion of the scenes into 3D. More costly, no doubt, than just trying to get one good take in 2D, but still far less so than a full-on 3D shoot would be.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Isn't it up to the directors' desecration anyway? A lot of them prefer shooting in 2D because they feel it better captures their vision for the film.

 

[BillJ]

Isn't it up to the directors' desecration anyway? A lot of them prefer shooting in 2D because they feel it better captures their vision for the film.

I guess it would depend on how much weight they carry with the studio.

 

[Sindatur]

Isn't it up to the directors' desecration anyway? A lot of them prefer shooting in 2D because they feel it better captures their vision for the film.

LOL, Desecration?

JJ Abrams was actually told by Paramount they wanted STiD to be 3D, he wouldn't have done it on his own (Though after doing it, he is now more open to making a 3D movie)