A
Amaris
Guest
Well, if we go by Hollywood accounting, no film has made money ever, so I take it with a grain of salt. 
STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
Fair point! Accountants are deeply creative individuals!!!Well, if we go by Hollywood accounting, no film has made money ever, so I take it with a grain of salt.
I can't see how you can "factor out" marketing costs? Where would you divert that investment in the accounts? Unless Paramomt have an overall annual marketing budget for all releases, which could be accounted for separately.You factor in a $100 million dollar advertising campaign and the theater share and it may not even break even at $400 million.
When talking about a 'what a film has cost', advertising campaigns are not factored in, just like dvd/bluray sales are not factored in the film's 'total gross'... I am right about that..
It's just when I look up a film's budget, I always find the production budget (not including the marketing budget); just like when I look up a film's total gross, I always find the box office gross (not including dvd sales). Does anyone know what ST (2009) has cost including marketing, and what it made including dvd sales, merchandising, etc..?
This hurts...
Analysts are projecting at best an 83 million 4 day gross, at lowest not even 75 million.
Considering that HANGOVER III opens mid-week and FAST 6 follows on Friday, it is save to say, that INTO DARKNESS will not come close to the domestic gross of its predecessor. Not even counting in the overprized 3D ticket sales, I wonder how Paramount will comment on this.
On the other hand: The film outperforms the 2009 film overseas by 50%.
Analysts are projecting at best an 83 million 4 day gross, at lowest not even 75 million.
Considering that HANGOVER III opens mid-week and FAST 6 follows on Friday, it is save to say, that INTO DARKNESS will not come close to the domestic gross of its predecessor. Not even counting in the overprized 3D ticket sales, I wonder how Paramount will comment on this.
On the other hand: The film outperforms the 2009 film overseas by 50%.
You have a popular villain like Kahn and you choose not to market him and you cast a pretty much unknown British actor to play him. That hurt the marketing and box office. If they had cast the more popular Benicio del Toro and marketed the movie around him as Kahn things would've been different.
Apparently according to deadline.com, rival studios are predicting that the weekend will be as low as $56.2m 3-day and $69.7m 4-day. If it turns out to be the low number then its a disaster.
Closer to 75-80 the better. Even that is a disappointment.
Move next one to March/April or December! As far away from a Star Wars or Comic book movie as possible.
Closer to 75-80 the better. Even that is a disappointment.
Move next one to March/April or December! As far away from a Star Wars or Comic book movie as possible.
It's disappointing because it cost 180-190m to make and had a big marketing campaign (albeit a lot more focused on overseas) but domestically it's likely going to do worse than the last. This would be easier to stomach for everyone if there was a logical reason for it, but there isn't - everything says this film should be a 100m+ OW including early tracking and projections.
I'm now hoping for 200m and if the OS % is higher than domestic then all is not lost.
I don't want to put a further dampener on things, but Fast 6 is breaking opening box office records here in the UK. I really think Trek is going to be crushed in the US next week. The pessimist in me is now revising my guesstimate down to sub $400m worldwide.
http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/fast-furious-6-begins-overseas-in-uk/
http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/fast-furious-6-begins-overseas-in-uk/
I dont know much about the box office business but this makes for very grim reading
STID was better than IM3 and I wouldn't touch FF6 with a bargepole.
STID was better than IM3 and I wouldn't touch FF6 with a bargepole.
You really have to get some insights to understand why less than 400 million for a film like TREK is considered to be "meh" at best.
TREK cost 190 million to make.
Add the viral campaign and ads to it. Usually for a film of that calliber you can add another 40 to 50 million.
Add the profit the cinemas want to get out of the film (depending on the cinema).
Add the profit the studio(s) want to make.
Nowadays a film is considered a (modest) success if it makes double it's costs.
TREK cost 190 million to make.
Add the viral campaign and ads to it. Usually for a film of that calliber you can add another 40 to 50 million.
Add the profit the cinemas want to get out of the film (depending on the cinema).
Add the profit the studio(s) want to make.
Nowadays a film is considered a (modest) success if it makes double it's costs.
Star Trek has usually been solid domestically, the OS for the last film was disappointing but not disheartening as it did so well domestically which is where their money comes from. Now we're looking at it finishing 50m below 09. There will be a lot of head scratching at Paramount, but I think they'll point the blame at the marketing and secrecy.
Benicio del Toro is not a marketable actor, and most average filmgoers have no clue who he is. At best you might get a, "Saaaayyy... isn't that that guy from that film" kind of reaction.
Yancy
If you want positives, it MIGHT be the first Trek movie to do more OS than domestically. Paramount will be pleased with an improvement in OS.
If there is a sequel it'll probably only have a marginal budget increase though. There should be a sequel however, Trek is a huge franchise as far as merchandise, DVDs, rights etc go and even if it doesn't do 500m+ world wide it should limp beyond 400m+.
It just means they need to look at their marketing and get the next movie out quicker.
If there is a sequel it'll probably only have a marginal budget increase though. There should be a sequel however, Trek is a huge franchise as far as merchandise, DVDs, rights etc go and even if it doesn't do 500m+ world wide it should limp beyond 400m+.
It just means they need to look at their marketing and get the next movie out quicker.
Even "John Harrison" wasn't well known, even if he appeared on the posters. The marketing seemed a bit all over the place to me.
Alot of articles are appearing now that the movie is under performing and falling below domestic expectations.
If you wanted a name actor then they should have gone after someone like Javier Bardem. Frankly I loved Cumberpatch in the role.
Yancy
There should be a sequel, but there probably won't be a budget increase at all. It's more likely there'll be a budget decrease.
I disagree completely. Cumberbatch is not a marketable actor because no one knows who he is. People know who Benicio del Toro is.
Last edited:
I doubt the budget will decrease, this movie will disappoint as far as box office and we'll have to see how the foreign box office is first before saying that. I think limping across to 400m-450m worldwide will be very disappointing for the studio, but be enough with the bluray/dvd sales.