State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

[Sindatur]

Not to start profit and loss wars again on these boards, but World War Z is mentioned in the article as having barely made a profit. Wonder what the source for that is. Its reported budget of $190 million is identical to the one reported for STID, but WWZ made $70 million more that STID in worldwide gross ($467 million for STID to $540 million for WWZ).

WWZ made more box office over all, however, they only made $202M Domestically, compared to their budget of $190M. STiD made $228M Domestically.

The International Box Office share for Paramount is much, much smaller than Domestic.

Also, you have to wonder about Productizing, did STiD sell more Product Placement or TV Rights? Was $190M WWZ's true Budget after all was said and done? There were lots of delays, and rewrites and budget overruns, etc.

STiD definitely seems to be making up for any less than desired Box Office by it's stellar Disc sales

When a budget say 190 million, does it already include the 5 millions they got from Nokia and the 5 millions they got from Budweiser, etc...? A third of the film is already paid for by product placement.

Hollywood accounting is a mystery in itself. Don't trust anyone when they say it didn't make a profit. As far as I know, David Prowse has still not seen a penny for his performance in Return of the Jedi, because it didn't make a profit.

1. Yea, absolutely, the published numbers don't give a true Profit/Loss picture. When they say a movie made a profit or a loss, they mean it achieved or didn't achieve a certain profit margin, which isn't the same as making back expenses plus more.
2. No, Product Placements, Selling Toys, TV/streaming Rights, Disc sales, none of that is included in Box Office, that's all gravy, they expect to reach the "required" numbers on Box Office alone

 

[Opus]

I see we're back to "The Best (or 'Worst' depending on your viewpoint I suppose) of the ST XI+ Message Board" repeats:

Episode 47:

"The Big Box Office Bruhaha!"

 

[plynch]

I move to call the question.

 

[Maurice]

Yep. I almost mentioned "Planet of the Titans", a proposal for TMP, in which we were to learn that, at the end of the 5YM, the Enterprise saucer had separated and softlanded on a planet, and was considered lost for a decade. IIRC.

Yep. The relates images are in this post (link),

But it was for a version of PotT.

ie. "The first visualization of a saucer separation was conceptualized by Ralph McQuarrie, as he worked on the pre-production of the abandoned 1976-1977 Star Trek: Planet of the Titans project. He stated, 'I had devised a concept for the end of the film...'."

My point was that there's no PotT script summary I know of which describes that the saucer soft landed and was "lost". McQuarrie had a concept which had the saucer separating and being trapped inside the "shroud", which isn't the same thing. I think Gene was enamored of the separation and it cropped up in different places in different guises.

 

[M'Sharak]

...

I think maybe that was intended as a response to this post?

 

[SeerSGB]

...

I think maybe that was intended as a response to this post?

Thanks, and fixed. Don't know how I did that. Bad Seer, bad!

 

[M'Sharak]

...

I think maybe that was intended as a response to this post?

Thanks, and fixed. Don't know how I did that. Bad Seer, bad!

Too many tabs open, perhaps. I've now moved the post to that thread.

 

[SeerSGB]

I think maybe that was intended as a response to this post?

Thanks, and fixed. Don't know how I did that. Bad Seer, bad!

Too many tabs open, perhaps. I've now moved the post to that thread.

Thank ya'