I couldn't read the article because it requires a subscription but here's a similar article.
http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/vi...onfidence-to-paramounts-brad-grey-1201845506/
So there's hope yet! ST4 could be an animated movie or a TV movie!
The Domestic Box Office run is ending, International is kicking in.
- Thread starter KGator
- Start date
- Status
I couldn't read the article because it requires a subscription but here's a similar article.
http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/vi...onfidence-to-paramounts-brad-grey-1201845506/
So there's hope yet! ST4 could be an animated movie or a TV movie!
Well, there is talk of Sony having an animated Ghostbusters film made. If that is possible, then an animated Star Trek is possible. It does fit the criteria of the next film being cheaper.
Suicide Squad is a failure because it need not meet the figure needed for success: $750 million ((production costs + marketing costs) times two, divided into two - with half to distributor).
Suicide Squad is a failure because it need not meet the figure needed for success: $750 million ((production costs + marketing costs) times two, divided into two - with half to distributor).
Last edited:
It'll be a feature film. And I'd hazard a guess at live-action because a Trek plot in animated form would be heavily kiddified.
ETA: I think you guys missed in your reading that Paramount intends to keep working on feature films and work on their presence elsewhere.
ETA: I think you guys missed in your reading that Paramount intends to keep working on feature films and work on their presence elsewhere.
Last edited:
So from what I've read, Beyond is a failure because it didn't make it's budget which isn't the posted budget we've been told. Just like Into Darkness which sucked (critically) but Beyond sucked too. So basically, we have a movie that failed because it didn't reach a secret number because the marketing/writing/catering was bad.
Just like Into Darkness.
Star Trek is dead folks. No more. The TruTrekkers won. Back to the Prime Timeline fanfilms with the meetings and ship porn. Ah, progress.
Just like Into Darkness.
Star Trek is dead folks. No more. The TruTrekkers won. Back to the Prime Timeline fanfilms with the meetings and ship porn. Ah, progress.
If Suicide Squad is a failure with a reported $175 million budget and it's about to cross $600 million globally, then it's one great example of just how flawed Hollywood finances truly are. They've really got to rangle in their spending, cut outrageous salaries, and come up with cheaper, more effective advertising. Then imagine what would happen if they had to spend less on over-the-top special effects? They'd have to make up for it by giving us better stories with cheaper, more engaging actors and not overpriced Movie Stars!
It underperformed, but it isn't dead.
ETA: Heck, from what I've read, the original Star Wars Trilogy apparently has yet to turn a profit... according to Hollywood bookkeeping.
It is a common misconception that animation translates to kiddie fare. There has been a strong lineup of animation films this year which prove this genre can have adult themes and concepts while appealing to both kids and adults.
Star Trek: Into Darkness broke even and earned money for a sequel. It exceeded the budget domestically with box office returns. ST:ID was not a failure.
Star Trek: Into Darkness broke even and earned money for a sequel. It exceeded the budget domestically with box office returns. ST:ID was not a failure.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was recorded as a $167 million loss on paper, having made $940 million worldwide on a $150 million budget.
I need those people to do my tax.
So let me get this straight. Suicide Watch is a failure with $175 million budget and $600 million worldwide box office. But Star Trek Beyond is NOT a failure with $185 million budget and $235 million worldwide box office. Riiiiight.
Neither one is a failure.
No, you don't understand. These aren't magic or secret numbers. The math is fairly simple.
Beyond has a budget of $185 million dollars. Studios take in 50% of the gross in domestic markets (Canada and US) and about 1/4 to 1/3 of the gross in foreign markets. So in order to recover it's production budget Beyond needs to make approximately $400 million. Add about $100 million for a marketing budget and Beyond needs to make about $220 million more to cover that. We're looking at $620 million to break even. Sure, there's other revenue sources like blu-ray sales, streaming services, and merchandise, but not even recovering your production budget at the box office is bad. A final gross of about $300-320 million worldwide is bad for a film that costs this much.
Except that there are most assuredly "secret numbers". No one outside the interested parties is privy to the breakdown of shared costs among the various production partners nor are we privy to the very complex financial arrangements designed, primarily, to reduce tax obligations and minimize payments to those who expect a cut of profits. There have been numerous examples of productions that "officially" lost money yet did not impede sequels.
We can be reasonably sure the studio is disappointed with the box office. We are not in a position to confidently assert, without any word from the studio, anything about future projects.
Yeah, of course. There's quite a few variables that we don't know, but as you said we can be reasonably sure that the studio is disappointed with the box office. The rough formula of (production budget * 2) > box office is good enough for that.
It might be if it was an entirely in house production. It's not. It has multiple partners across several countries and continents with a wide array of financial laws. Simplistic formulae don't apply in such cases.
That's also true. After all, Bambi 2 did happen.
That actually makes it worse. It makes it even harder for the studio to make profit.
Gotta remember with franchises, the more movies they make the more money they'll continue to make off of their back catalogue. I've often joked that the only reason they make new Trek films is to sell more of the previous ones.
If Star Trek 4 happens and manages to attract more of the casual audience, they'll buy more DVDs or Blurays or digital downloads of '09, ID and Beyond (along with ST1-10). All it takes is a mind-blowing trailer to get people to check out what came before.
If Star Trek 4 happens and manages to attract more of the casual audience, they'll buy more DVDs or Blurays or digital downloads of '09, ID and Beyond (along with ST1-10). All it takes is a mind-blowing trailer to get people to check out what came before.
Beyond should sell well on DVD/Blu ray. Maybe that will save Trek 4/ 14?
Not necessarily. It's not a one-way thing. Having partners to share costs means sharing risk and while the slice of the pie might be smaller than an all "in-house" production, its relative value vs cost could well be higher.
Another thing that is being overlooked: budgets do not automatically go down because of a previous disappointment. The money may be reapportioned differently. Or, it may be concluded that one aspect of the project, being underfunded or underdeveloped, adversely affected the production as a whole and perhaps more money, on that aspect, might turn things around. Almost everyone is focused on marketing missteps. Maybe spending a bit MORE on marketing next time (as long as it is wisely spent)--more ad buys in more creative outlets, etc.--will help push the next film to a higher profit status. After all, if the critical response and audience response are as good as they appear for this film, perhaps the solution would have been to spend a bit MORE on marketing to push awareness.
The point made above about franchise instalments encouraging back catalogue purchases should not be overlooked either.
- Status
