Agreed, I think the 15% is too low esp. for the tent pole releases, sure as you say it might apply for some releases. But surely the studios are in the stronger negotiating position when it comes to these tent pole releases. After all if they went to a cinema chain and said we want 40% of the box office take it or leave it, If they leave it they don't earn any revenue from it. After all the punter will go to which ever chain is showing it.
Profitability of Star Trek Movies
- Thread starter Giarc1982
- Start date
- Status
Agreed, I think the 15% is too low esp. for the tent pole releases, sure as you say it might apply for some releases. But surely the studios are in the stronger negotiating position when it comes to these tent pole releases. After all if they went to a cinema chain and said we want 40% of the box office take it or leave it, If they leave it they don't earn any revenue from it. After all the punter will go to which ever chain is showing it.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/...-to-co-write-star-trek-3.html#~p26OCHeUu7gbuh
Seems to be some, very drastic changes happening to the creative team, personally I think it's very indicative of the studio's disappointment with Into Darkness's performance
Seems to be some, very drastic changes happening to the creative team, personally I think it's very indicative of the studio's disappointment with Into Darkness's performance
Hey, it score high on rottentomatoes.com. 
Why would they hire Orci to write it in the first place if they were unhappy? This came down to creative differences to be happening so late in the game.
I don't know if I'd say he's connecting dots which aren't there, but he certainly isn't making a case for anything with this post:
It's more like he's telling us that there are dots connected without showing any of the dots or connecting lines. (Unless those misplaced commas are the lines, in which case we're still missing the pertinent dots.)
If this thread is going to continue, Giarc, you're going to have to do better than that. Come up with some credible support for your assertions, or this is just a waste of everyone's time.
It's more like he's telling us that there are dots connected without showing any of the dots or connecting lines. (Unless those misplaced commas are the lines, in which case we're still missing the pertinent dots.)
If this thread is going to continue, Giarc, you're going to have to do better than that. Come up with some credible support for your assertions, or this is just a waste of everyone's time.
What makes you think your numbers and formulae have any basis in reality at all ?
Nobody meets the standards of the extremists. That's why we call them that.
And I think it's true of all fandoms. Those who tend to bitch and moan the most, and convince the moviemakers or showrunners that they represent the majority have done terrible service to their beloved franchises.
Correction: they waited for many years, rebooted the franchise and made a colossal number of changes to the movies in order to appeal to a totally new audience. I'd say that's a good indication that the previous movie did poorly. In addition, of course, to poor returns and reviews.
No, you haven't. You have used partial numbers and dubious math to come to the conclusions you already had reached. That is the antithesis of reason.
Then please read the following carefully: I would like you to consider the possibility that your calculations are a means you are using to vindicate that hatred, and that you are not analysing this rationally.
Then you admit that the numbers you have were not, actually, facts. Do you concede that now ?
Of course you do. Don't you see that every single fact is interpreted in the worst possible way by you because you don't like the movies ?
Profitability is a very tricky thing, I mean just look at Trek 2009 and trek 2013.
Paramount were happy with the box office intake of trek 2009 but they were disappointed with the intake of trek 2013.
It may be as the first film grossed nearly 400m, they expected the second film to gross about 500m- 700m for it to be deemed profitable
Paramount were happy with the box office intake of trek 2009 but they were disappointed with the intake of trek 2013.
It may be as the first film grossed nearly 400m, they expected the second film to gross about 500m- 700m for it to be deemed profitable
Nah, wel maybe 500m, but not much more...
Star Trek is niche SF, though ST09 made some new fans, it didn't double the amount...
According to the CEO, STID made a profit.
What was "disappointing" was that it didn't make as much domestically as they hoped. And considering the reviews and and average audience opinion were esentially equivalent to '09 (not to mention box office), that may just speaks more to there possibly being a limit on Trek's overall appeal.
So I can also see where the attractiveness of a more GotG-styled romp comes from the execs remembering how the comedic TVH was also more popular with general audiences than what had come before.
What was "disappointing" was that it didn't make as much domestically as they hoped. And considering the reviews and and average audience opinion were esentially equivalent to '09 (not to mention box office), that may just speaks more to there possibly being a limit on Trek's overall appeal.
So I can also see where the attractiveness of a more GotG-styled romp comes from the execs remembering how the comedic TVH was also more popular with general audiences than what had come before.
I thought it did. many people said watching the 09 film made them go and rewatch TOS. the 09 film clearly attracted a whole group of fans many of then young. which is why it made no sense for the writers to say 2013 was a love letter to tos fans or even to make trek 2013 a carbon copy of TOS Wrath of khan.
09 film had already succeeded because of the new fans. a trek film earning more than a 100 million in the foreign market and 250 million in USA. That was huge.
what killed trek in 2005 with the cancellation of enterprise , the old fans could not save the series. So in the end it is of no surprise why trek 2013 failed.
*facepalm*
Not only did it profit, but it also got a sequel. Studios don't just throw good money after bad if a movie doesn't make a profit. It may not have met projections, but that doesn't mean it didn't make a profit.
And this is true for every product...
Not always. Profitability in a film means that you have to overcome the production costs, which many films have failed to do. Not just failing to make projections, but failing to make its money back.
Ah, one of those people...
Can you expand on the logic behind this statement ?
ETA: And carbon copy of TWOK ? What's that about ? There's like one scene.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
