STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
This is my feeling as well. Even though STiD did better box office numbers all around it wasn't a run away blockbuster by current standards.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if they went back to the same ST09 budget for the next Trek film.
I may be in the minority here, but I cannot tell any difference FX-wise on a movie with a $150m budget (Star Trek), $190m (Into Darkness) budget or even a $225m (Man of Steel) budget.
Except that hasn't happened. All I've seen is people posting facts.
I think you have more people on this thread that seem to have a problem with the numbers not supporting "best movie evah!!1!" That's okay though. I think the last comment I read was about how someone doesn't think the $190 million budget was actually really spent on making the film, lol.
I may be in the minority here, but I cannot tell any difference FX-wise on a movie with a $150m budget (Star Trek), $190m (Into Darkness) budget or even a $225m (Man of Steel) budget.
Into Darkness was converted to 3D and shot in IMAX, so presumably that added some expense (in addition to some cost of inflation). Man of Steel also shot in IMAX and converted to 3D; on top of that it had actors like Russell Crowe and Kevin Costner who presumably demand more of a salary than the more unknown cast of the Abrams films.
Of course, Opus is right that these reported numbers don't tell the whole story.
Except that hasn't happened. All I've seen is people posting facts.
I think you have more people on this thread that seem to have a problem with the numbers not supporting "best movie evah!!1!" That's okay though. I think the last comment I read was about how someone doesn't think the $190 million budget was actually really spent on making the film, lol.
Unless you work for or know someone at one of the studios, how do you know what numbers are correct?
$450m+ added to what will no doubt be stellar home video sales equals another Bad Robot Trek with a similar budget, which, even if slightly reduced, will probably not be noticed on screen.
Honestly, this is all I'm concerned about. I don't need Avengers box office numbers to validate my opinion the movie is f**king awesome.
Honestly, this is all I'm concerned about. I don't need Avengers box office numbers to validate my opinion the movie is f**king awesome.
Except that hasn't happened. All I've seen is people posting facts.
I think you have more people on this thread that seem to have a problem with the numbers not supporting "best movie evah!!1!" That's okay though. I think the last comment I read was about how someone doesn't think the $190 million budget was actually really spent on making the film, lol.
Unless you work for or know someone at one of the studios, how do you know what numbers are correct?
Didn't say I did. However, even Paramount has said that the budget for the film was $190 million. But of course they spent the money on themselves.
Honestly, the argument is not necessary. You'll get another film out of this, and like someone else said, that's all that should matter to you.
Huh? How is posting "facts" not 'folks trying to prove Into Darkness was unsuccessful"?
Except that hasn't happened. All I've seen is people posting facts.
I think you have more people on this thread that seem to have a problem with the numbers not supporting "best movie evah!!1!" That's okay though. I think the last comment I read was about how someone doesn't think the $190 million budget was actually really spent on making the film, lol.
No ones really claiming "best movie evah!!1!" They've said the film was successful, but it did not pull the domestic numbers the studio hoped for. That's a bit more honest than the naysayers.
Really? Who said that? Opus? All he did was comment how studio's have some creative ways to pay themselves. Which is about Hollywood accounting in general. Perhaps King Daniel? Nope, he was comment on how he cant spot were the money goes because he sees little difference between the films he mention.
This.Huh? How is posting "facts" not 'folks trying to prove Into Darkness was unsuccessful"?
Except that hasn't happened. All I've seen is people posting facts.
I think you have more people on this thread that seem to have a problem with the numbers not supporting "best movie evah!!1!" That's okay though. I think the last comment I read was about how someone doesn't think the $190 million budget was actually really spent on making the film, lol.
No ones really claiming "best movie evah!!1!" They've said the film was successful, but it did not pull the domestic numbers the studio hoped for. That's a bit more honest than the naysayers.
Really? Who said that? Opus? All he did was comment how studio's have some creative ways to pay themselves. Which is about Hollywood accounting in general. Perhaps King Daniel? Nope, he was comment on how he cant spot were the money goes because he sees little difference between the films he mention.
^Just like no one said the movie was completely "unsuccessful," just disappointing. Now anyone posting what you might not agree with is a "naysayer," okay.
As to the rest of your comment, I'm just going to say the same thing I said to Bill. You'll get another movie, so there's no need...
As to the rest of your comment, I'm just going to say the same thing I said to Bill. You'll get another movie, so there's no need...
Except that hasn't happened. All I've seen is people posting facts.
I think you have more people on this thread that seem to have a problem with the numbers not supporting "best movie evah!!1!" That's okay though. I think the last comment I read was about how someone doesn't think the $190 million budget was actually really spent on making the film, lol.
Unless you work for or know someone at one of the studios, how do you know what numbers are correct?
Didn't say I did. However, even Paramount has said that the budget for the film was $190 million. But of course they spent the money on themselves.
Honestly, the argument is not necessary. You'll get another film out of this, and like someone else said, that's all that should matter to you.
Its not like they spent it on hookers, blow and cars. They spent it on studio space, equipment and personnel. Yeah the studios and equipment was theirs and the personnel were employees, but that's Hollywood.
Now its not necessary?
There's a late on arrival statement, if there was one. Look up naysayer in the dictionary. yes saying it was disappointing or unsuccessful is nay saying or trying to put a negative spin on the film. If you're making negative comments, you're a naysayer. You don't even have to be wrong to be one. It has nothing to do agreeing with my opinion of the film or yours. Yea=
Nay= 
Simple.
Didn't say I did. However, even Paramount has said that the budget for the film was $190 million. But of course they spent the money on themselves.
Honestly, the argument is not necessary. You'll get another film out of this, and like someone else said, that's all that should matter to you.
Its not like they spent it on hookers, blow and cars. They spent it on studio space, equipment and personnel. Yeah the studios and equipment was theirs and the personnel were employees, but that's Hollywood.
Now its not necessary?
As well as filming in new locations, new actors, etc., which all means that the money was spent on the making of the film. So, thank you for agreeing with me.
Yes, your childishness above is not necessary. It's just sad, really.
And since we're going for the laughing smilies...
.
Again, huh? I was commenting on your statement they spent it on themselves. Something common in Hollywood.Didn't say I did. However, even Paramount has said that the budget for the film was $190 million. But of course they spent the money on themselves.
Honestly, the argument is not necessary. You'll get another film out of this, and like someone else said, that's all that should matter to you.
Its not like they spent it on hookers, blow and cars. They spent it on studio space, equipment and personnel. Yeah the studios and equipment was theirs and the personnel were employees, but that's Hollywood.
Now its not necessary?
As well as filming in new locations, new actors, etc., which all means that the money was spent on the making of the film. So, thank you for agreeing with me.
Yes, your childishness above is not necessary. It's just sad, really.
And since we're going for the laughing smilies...
Childishness? What are you referring to? The smiley? You can use smilies, but I can't? Explain that one.
^Now that the discussion has moved to talking about who can and can't use smilies--Goodbye, Nerys. And just so you know, you can use as many smilies as you please to have the last word here.
I think the last comment I read was about how someone doesn't think the $190 million budget was actually really spent on making the film, lol.
Hey, I happen to be very cute...
Also, I was responding to someone else who said they don't notice any difference between a movie claiming $150m, $190m and $225m budget, not you. It's not much of a stretch to consider that studios inflate budget costs to offset profit margins. It happens in business all the time.
I think the last comment I read was about how someone doesn't think the $190 million budget was actually really spent on making the film, lol.
Hey, I happen to be very cute...
Also, I was responding to someone else who said they don't notice any difference between a movie claiming $150m, $190m and $225m budget, not you. It's not much of a stretch to consider that studios inflate budget costs to offset profit margins. It happens in business all the time.
I can accept that, Opus. Thank you. And yes, Penguins are cute.
^Just like no one said the movie was completely "unsuccessful," just disappointing. Now anyone posting what you might not agree with is a "naysayer," okay.
As to the rest of your comment, I'm just going to say the same thing I said to Bill. You'll get another movie, so there's no need...
ST (2009) did US$385 on a reported budget of US$150m if you use the ballpark x2 that means a profit of US$85
STID has thus far done US$444m on a reported budget of US$190 using the same x2 multipler would be a profit of US$65m.
So slightly down but as the film hasn't yet finished it's box offie run around the world the final figure might not be too dissimliar from ST (2009).
Perhaps the only place where Paramount might be dissapointed is at the US & Canada box office as many other countries showed growth in terms of takings