My opinion of the better video sales for ID over IM3; more people saw IM3 in the theater and felt 'finished' with it while hordes who missed ID in theaters are now catching up. [/speculative theory]
State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly
- Thread starter HaplessCrewman
- Start date
Fair assessment.
I know I'm particular with what I see in the theater. STiD was an obvious pick for me to see in theaters, and I have yet to see any of the other summer blockbuster movies. I'm not a theater person. And eventually I'll catch up with them on TV or BluRay Disk.
The next movie I'll catch in theaters is The Hobbit's next installment.
I know I'm particular with what I see in the theater. STiD was an obvious pick for me to see in theaters, and I have yet to see any of the other summer blockbuster movies. I'm not a theater person. And eventually I'll catch up with them on TV or BluRay Disk.
The next movie I'll catch in theaters is The Hobbit's next installment.
Because last time Paramount and JJ were highly criticised that ST 2009 was somehow a failure - or, at least, a disappointment - at the international box office. So the marketing people created a (successful) strategy that saw the international box offices do extremely well.
And then you can't tour the actors around for all the free publicity at the red carpet openings.
Ditto "Nemesis". It created new sales records for the day of release on DVD, IIRC.
On a related note, because of the disappointing box office performance of STD, Paramount needs to lay off 110 positions.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/layoffs-hit-paramount-110-positions-639943
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/layoffs-hit-paramount-110-positions-639943
STiD is not mentioned in that article.
I didn't see any mention of Star Trek XII in that article either.
You guys are absolutely hilarious.
Better than posting something deceitful and misleading.
Warning for trolling. Comments to PM.
STID isn't even mentioned in the article.
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).
I'd not sure how much these papers actually know about the profitability of movies.
We already know Paramount wants a sequel to Into Darkness for 2016. I doubt that would be the case if it had been a financial disaster for them.
Agreed.
It's just odd that WWZ would be the example in the article when STID grossed less with the same reported budget.
Could be the margins on both were thinner than hoped and couldn't make up for the movies that were truly bombs. Or, while the profit margin on STID was expected, it was projected that WWZ would turn a bigger profit that it did, making it a relative disappointment.
True.
I'm sure they have a good flow of general information. But I doubt they're privy to many of the financial details.
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
I was wondering about this. I remember reading that there were rumors that the budget for World War Z was in the $220-230 million dollar range after delays and cost overruns. Filming a new final third of the movie couldn't have been cheap.
I can't remember where I read it though.
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.