The Domestic Box Office run is ending, International is kicking in.

[mswood]

Nope.

Sorry but it doesn't work that way. While they get the overall total from the studio on Sunday (for the estimate for the weekend), they don't update the individual countries at the same point in time.

Heck even when they get final (not estimated numbers) later in the week, they can still be a while before the change the numbers for the individual nation.

 

[RAMA]

RAMA

Actually the reported number for China does include Sunday's results (which were announced over 5 hours ago), now of course like the US box office these are still estimates (especially true for Sunday in which they are projections), so you can see some serious adjustments a little later in the week to correct when all countries actually have final numbers.

As far as I can tell the reported China results do (The $11.3 weekend I mentioned) but not box office mojo, which were updated before the China box office was updated. I know because I checked them both. Those numbers will be updated early in the week by Mojo most likely, which has been the pattern for weeks.

Yes, these are all estimates. :-) We'll probably know the exact amount after the Mojo update.

Brazil continues do do well for Beyond..$3.5 million, another $1 million this week, and it opened number 1 in Mexico with $1.5 million. For the second week in a row, Beyond led the international box office figures.

 

[timtonruben359]

The video celebrating the 50 years of Star Trek was done for CBS Consumer Products. So, it is not necessary a statement on there being another film. It could be a statement about their upcoming show.

Is it not interesting that there was no mention of DS9, VOY, or ENT in that video? Have they been relegated to the dust bins of history by CBS?

Nope the video was put out by Paramount and does hint that there will be another movie. You have to understand the Star Trek rights situation which is a bit complex but basically CBS owns Star Trek. Paramount has Star Trek films rights only but CBS owns the Trek license which means every time Paramount puts out a Star Trek film (past or present) they have to credit CBS and pay them a license fee. The clip was made by Paramount because CBS is legally barred from using footage from Trek films while Paramount is legally barred from using Trek TV show footage.

 

[Rahul]

Great news Trekkies(not you fakers rooting against it..boo)

Dude. Not cool

At this point I'm not rooting against it. I'm pretty much indifferent about it. We're just stating the obvious: Beyond will loose money during it's theatrical run. For the first time for a Trek movie since Nemesis. It's not a bomb, by any means. But not a success either. What I personally doubt is that it will actually do the 350 mio. I'm still predicting more of 340 mio. range. Whatever it is though, it's too little for a 185 mio. budget.

What is downright dangerous is this "those lying experts" with their "numbers" attitude. Only relying on gut feelings and pretending everyone else is either a lyer or against us. Like when you insulted literally everyone, from Forbes to Variety to the freakin New York Times as somehow being "anti-Trek" because they named Beyond as the disapointment it is.

Right now it's just about an inconsequential discussion on a message board, and weather or not we will get a fourth nuTrek movie. But this kind of thinking leads to a dangerous anti-facts and anti-science sentiments that have recently surfaced so much in the United States and parts of Europe, where everyone disagreeing or merely stating facts somehow is against oneself. And this downright vitrol and hate towards disagreeing opinions and towards experts, science and the media is downright scary. Seeing it in a Trek forum - one of the milestones of SCIENCE fiction, makes me just sad.

 

[Mudd]

....But this kind of thinking leads to a dangerous anti-facts and anti-science sentiments that have recently surfaced so much in the United States and parts of Europe...

No.

 

[Borgminister]

Bizarro extrapolation to be sure...

 

[Rahul]

Problem:
This thread has turned into a kind of bizarro world, where facts don't matter, Variety and The New York Times are "anti-Trek opinion pieces", everyone disagreeing or only using common sense and or math is "a fake Trekkie", and every post not on party-line is answered by personal aggression and a mix of whishful thinking and utter ignorance of facts and real numbers, leading to some people actually being proud of their anti-intellectualism.

Answer:
"No"


Yeah...

 

[Borgminister]

Paragraph 2 (a fanboy message board argument) has nothing to do with paragraph 3 (the US and parts of Europe). The shifting sands of time are not the back-and-forth between nerds on a message board. Come on.

 

[Mudd]

Problem:
This thread has turned into a kind of bizarro world, where facts don't matter, Variety and The New York Times are "anti-Trek opinion pieces", everyone disagreeing or only using common sense and or math is "a fake Trekkie", and every post not on party-line is answered by personal aggression and a mix of whishful thinking and utter ignorance of facts and real numbers, leading to some people actually being proud of their anti-intellectualism.

Answer:
"No"

Let me spell this out for you: since the quoted "bizarro" post is nothing but personal opinion wrapped up in solemn and self-important rhetoric, and since so many of your other posts thus far have been assertions of opinion masquerading as fact, a simple one-word dismissal is a completely sufficient response.

Now, I've wasted around fifty-odd additional and unnecessary words. It won't happen again.

 

[BillJ]

The people that determine whether or not Beyond is a success or failure, will be Paramount and their financing partners. If they decide to go ahead with a sequel, in their eyes it made enough money to warrant them spending another $150 million or more to make another film.

That's really all there is to it. Op-ed pieces and fan interpretations of the box office won't be a factor.

 

[M-Red]

Because others disagree with you about this doesn't make them anti-intellectuals.

It's not like you're defending the theory of gravity.

 

[donners22]

Problem:
This thread has turned into a kind of bizarro world, where facts don't matter, Variety and The New York Times are "anti-Trek opinion pieces", everyone disagreeing or only using common sense and or math is "a fake Trekkie", and every post not on party-line is answered by personal aggression and a mix of whishful thinking and utter ignorance of facts and real numbers, leading to some people actually being proud of their anti-intellectualism.

Answer:
"No"


Yeah...

Well, the problem with the thread is that it has degenerated into sniping between people in two camps, and neither strikes me as particularly compelling.

Major papers report on my area of work too, sometimes things I'm directly involved in, and often they get the facts, let alone the analysis of such facts, wrong. I've even had the indignity of having those incorrect details of a matter I was intimately familiar with thrown at me in an argument as supposed incontrovertable proof that my position was wrong (and worse, I couldn't reveal my knowledge of the true facts without compromising my job).

As such, I find the back-and-forth from both sides utterly unedifying. Those who have access to all the relevant data - ie. not us, nor the media - can assess it, and we will learn the outcome in due course in the form of details as to whether or not there is another film, and, if so, its budget.

 

[Disco]

Looks like $318m is the where Beyond is at:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Star-Trek-Beyond#tab=summary
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=startrek2016.htm

My optimism that it would take in twice it's reported budget seems misplaced.

I'm still not sure of the accuracy of the 2x multiplier however and still expect (hope for) Star Trek 4.

 

[Mudd]

There will be a Star Trek 4 with this cast.

 

[Rahul]

There will be a Star Trek 4 with this cast.

No.





(See how annoying that is ST4 is still likely, although not guaranteed. But be happy if even a majority of the cast returns.)

 

[Rahul]

...
and since so many of your other posts thus far have been assertions of opinion masquerading as fact
...

Jesus! This coming from the guy who's biggest contribution to most discussions here is that annoying Cumberbatch-"nope", that's downright satire!

 

[RAMA]

I'm not sure why everyone is saying this is a heated argument or something, because I never got that sense of it at all. Strange how people read your words online isn't it? Hmmm

I could answer this post of yours but nothing has changed since the original post I made about Beyond's box office profitability and I'd just be repeating myself. It's factually based and not anti-science, including discussion and citations of the 2x multiplier myth, which is at best just a gauge (which is why I still use it for conversation). Refer back to this post for all the related points you bring up. It also explains why Beyond will make money...and quite a bit too. The OP:

http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/the-...al-is-kicking-in.282956/page-19#post-11736821

You can dislike Beyond which is fine, but actively rooting against it makes you an anti-fan, not a fan. What if it spawns the next movie which would be your favorite if it was made? Rooting against it or Discovery makes no sense for a fan. So I stand by my somewhat jocular but accurate statement.

The opinion pieces in Forbes etc are badly researched and the NYT one is simply bad.

PS There are other articles that discuss why Paramount did not actually spend $185 million on the film. While I do NOT know the exact number, I'm willing to bet it's significantly less than that, so I'd also be willing to bet that in the absence of exact figures, that $320 million is already a break even point for Paramount. Until then I will keep using the $185 million figure but with that caveat.

RAMA

Dude. Not cool

At this point I'm not rooting against it. I'm pretty much indifferent about it. We're just stating the obvious: Beyond will loose money during it's theatrical run. For the first time for a Trek movie since Nemesis. It's not a bomb, by any means. But not a success either. What I personally doubt is that it will actually do the 350 mio. I'm still predicting more of 340 mio. range. Whatever it is though, it's too little for a 185 mio. budget.

What is downright dangerous is this "those lying experts" with their "numbers" attitude. Only relying on gut feelings and pretending everyone else is either a lyer or against us. Like when you insulted literally everyone, from Forbes to Variety to the freakin New York Times as somehow being "anti-Trek" because they named Beyond as the disapointment it is.

Right now it's just about an inconsequential discussion on a message board, and weather or not we will get a fourth nuTrek movie. But this kind of thinking leads to a dangerous anti-facts and anti-science sentiments that have recently surfaced so much in the United States and parts of Europe, where everyone disagreeing or merely stating facts somehow is against oneself. And this downright vitrol and hate towards disagreeing opinions and towards experts, science and the media is downright scary. Seeing it in a Trek forum - one of the milestones of SCIENCE fiction, makes me just sad.

 

[seigezunt]

Ugh. Stop making me do math.

 

[RAMA]

Not sure if the $321 mill figure is correct yet or the $318, but China made $1.9 million estimated today. A 44% drop from last Monday. That would put it at $320 million.

RAMA

 

[Mudd]

Forbes is actually a terrible site for entertainment industry analysis; it's not clear that most of their bloggers have any relevant credentials beyond the exaggerated bombast they cobble together for their online bios. The name "Forbes" has enough of a cachet for people to take them more seriously than they deserve, I guess.