That "ballpark x2" is meaningless, referring to nothing in the current reality of producing, marketing or distributing movies.
It's been repeated authoritatively numerous times on the Internet, though, so it must be right.
STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
That "ballpark x2" is meaningless, referring to nothing in the current reality of producing, marketing or distributing movies.
It's been repeated authoritatively numerous times on the Internet, though, so it must be right.
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.
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....
Enough. Warning for trolling. Comments to PM.^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.
It seems Hollywood has been playing a shell game with production costs and revenue for years in order to short-change the various people who would see more money from higher profits...
http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00045706.html
So I'm not sure how anyone can really take anything associated with Hollywood numbers as gospel.
Steven Soderbergh applied the rule of thumb of needing to gross 2X your costs to reach theatrical beakeven in his interviews this year when he was talking about the current financial state of the industry, so it's not an outdated rule of thumb, nor something that only box office sites talk about.
That's not to say you can't achieve overall profitability while falling short of grossing 2X your costs. You might make up the difference and go into profit from other revenue streams. Many films do so. And there are other potential complicating factors, like how many participation points are being given away, equity splits, etc. Plus one would have to know what the real costs are and not just the ballpark public figures to have a really accurate view of the theatrical breakeven point. An outsider observer can usually get a decent sense of whether a film is a success or not on a macro level, but not in a detailed, granular way.
That's not to say you can't achieve overall profitability while falling short of grossing 2X your costs. You might make up the difference and go into profit from other revenue streams. Many films do so. And there are other potential complicating factors, like how many participation points are being given away, equity splits, etc. Plus one would have to know what the real costs are and not just the ballpark public figures to have a really accurate view of the theatrical breakeven point. An outsider observer can usually get a decent sense of whether a film is a success or not on a macro level, but not in a detailed, granular way.
But I've seen other film makers talk about needing 2.5 times the production budget to break even. So which is it? It doesn't seem like even those in the know really agree on how much a film needs to make to be successful.
It seems the only thing we know is that we really don't know much.
Soderbergh was talking about 2X total costs, i.e. production budget and distribution and marketing costs. Other filmmakers will sometimes talk about 2.5X production budget alone.
Posting numbers is fact. Interpreting those numbers and drawing conclusions while not privy to the whole deal is not.
Soderbergh probably got that number from a studio executive.
I'm sure he knows better than to take their word for anything.Soderbergh probably got that number from a studio executive.
Well, I guess it's time to check my PMs.
Inflating the budget for tax purposes is an industrywide practice. It's also useful for playing games with profit participants. Forbes had pegged the true and correct budget for ST09 at 120.5 million. I haven't seen anything on STID, but my personal, uneducated guess would be 145-165 million.
Note that World War Z, from the same studio, has an identical reported (i.e. false) budget of 190 million. It's global run is projected to conclude about 20 million below STID. I believe its sequel has also been greenlit.
Our canon enthusiast had neglected to mention that.
Note that World War Z, from the same studio, has an identical reported (i.e. false) budget of 190 million. It's global run is projected to conclude about 20 million below STID. I believe its sequel has also been greenlit.
Our canon enthusiast had neglected to mention that.
Can you provide a link for that?
What projections are you referring to? That seems on the low side. World War Z looks likely to have a worldwide gross a little higher than STID.
It's all about expectations.
WWZ was went way over budget due to bad planning, and everyone expected it to flop, but it looks like it is going to be a small hit now. They've learned what not to do, and the next movie should have a much more reasonable budget. That is the reason why it looks like WWZ will be getting a sequel.
STID was expected to blow the roof off and make way more than the original move, of course that didn't happen. I blame the moronic choice of keeping Khan a secret in all the trailers. I still expect a sequel, but Paramount will be thinking twice before giving the next movie a very large budget.
World War Z is on track for a good return, the kind of return that usually leads to a sequel, even against its inflated budget, though they can hedge against any potential drop-off for a sequel by bringing it in on a lower 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.
Given your facts are always something like:
"If you take away X mount of money that STID made because of <insert ridiculous arbitrary reason here> then STID is a failure..."
I wouldn't put much stock in your analysis.
As for ST:ID - It's brought in the most money of any Star trek feature film to date; and that is a fact. Further, no one is saying it's the best movie ever; but they are saying it's a good and very successful Star Trek film.
^Untrue. But I'm not putting any stock in your posts, either.
And I’m not sure that anyone can take what’s said in a complaint as gospel, either. There are 2 sides to the story, and no one on the sidelines really knows.
Rather than just going off of the complaint, I wanted to see what the result was. I expected some sort of out-of-court settlement, and that’s what happened. To be fair, I think it’s only right to see what Paramount had to say about it:
We don’t know what the financing agreement was or what happened with it, but no one here can know enough to say that it’s all Paramount. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m personally not a fan of the studio, but that’s neither here nor there. I also don’t know anything about Melrose 2, and so I can’t say if they’re on the up-and-up or not with their claims.
One thing I did find interesting is that they got their case against Paramount in California thrown out (essentially, because they were told they had to "amend" it), seemingly because they were trying to sue the studio at the same time for the exact same thing in New York, or at least that’s what I got from this:
Take from it what you will…
Yeah, it might get there. We'll see...
It seems Hollywood has been playing a shell game with production costs and revenue for years in order to short-change the various people who would see more money from higher profits...
http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00045706.html
So I'm not sure how anyone can really take anything associated with Hollywood numbers as gospel.
And I’m not sure that anyone can take what’s said in a complaint as gospel, either. There are 2 sides to the story, and no one on the sidelines really knows.
Rather than just going off of the complaint, I wanted to see what the result was. I expected some sort of out-of-court settlement, and that’s what happened. To be fair, I think it’s only right to see what Paramount had to say about it:
http://www.deadline.com/2013/01/paramount-settles-melrose-2-lawsuit-mission-impossible-transformers/Paramount via Deadline said:
We don’t know what the financing agreement was or what happened with it, but no one here can know enough to say that it’s all Paramount. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m personally not a fan of the studio, but that’s neither here nor there. I also don’t know anything about Melrose 2, and so I can’t say if they’re on the up-and-up or not with their claims.
One thing I did find interesting is that they got their case against Paramount in California thrown out (essentially, because they were told they had to "amend" it), seemingly because they were trying to sue the studio at the same time for the exact same thing in New York, or at least that’s what I got from this:
http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/melrose-2-suit-vs-paramount-trimmed/Deadline said:
Take from it what you will…
^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
Yeah, it might get there. We'll see...
Kind of like Nielsen ratings, but definitely not exactly, if all of Hollywood is doing their "accounting" in the same way, then at least they have the same baseline, so to speak.
Anyway, I'm happy to say that we don't know if the film is a success/failure or somewhere in between, but it seems like that's not the case with everyone.
Anyway, I'm happy to say that we don't know if the film is a success/failure or somewhere in between, but it seems like that's not the case with everyone.