The Reason Why Voyage Home was most profitable Star Trek movie.
- Thread starter Captain Zog
- Start date
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Even with 2003 dollars, Star Trek V STILL beats Nemesis....that is far impressive to me than the drop of from the 4th to 5th movie in a franchise (which usually happens anyway)...
Star Trek 5 came out in, what, 1989? And still beats Nemesis's take...
TREK 5 is the better film...It has some good 'character' stuff, what does Nemesis have? Patrick Stewart phoning in his role...Shinzon a blatant rip off of Khan..hell, the whole movie is a rip off of kahn..and it will go down as the movie that drove a stake in TNG's heart...Star Trek V didn't kill TOS movies, they got one more...TNG will be lucky to live on in comic books..
Rob
People own houses and don't have hundreds of thousands sitting in savings, do they? Businesses operate on credit for just about everything these days, which is why the current financial pinch on lending is hitting just about everything.
Related to film profitability...click me!
So what? That's got nothing to do with studios and how much money they have.
Yes, I understand that 60 million is more than 8 million. I also know that Nemesis is a poor movie, but Star Trek V is worse in my opinion.
Just to note, Nemesis didn't really rip off Khan, they wanted to make an enemy that could match what Khan was. Shinzon didn't rip off Khan completely, he had simular traits sure, but it wasn't a rip off.
The time of year of release and demeanor of the film helped TVH alot. I remember going out to see it again with friends on Thanksgiving evening (it had been out for a couple of weeks already) and the theater was PACKED (more than 1 screen, too) I was surprised at how many non-Trekkies were there (I hadn't had that experience in a Trek film at that time). Many of the non-Trekers told me that they just wanted some escapist entertainment and there wasn't any other big sci-fi movie out at the time. Also, word-of-mouth said that TVH was a nice, relatively light adventure movie and, being the holiday season, people had a lot of time to go see it. This doesn't even take into account the repeat viewers. Non-Trekkers who saw it, were surprised at how good it was, and brought their friends to see it. It was a 'perfect storm' for success. This all convinced me that Trek movies simply can't compete with big budget summer films. History since then has proved that one out.
N
NCC1968
Guest
Maybe you assumed my "V" was the movie number, but it was my short version of "V"oyage
......I'll do better...more "colorful metaphors"
It's called an analogy. Look it up.
I know what an analogy is. I'm not 12-years old or something (no offense meant to the intelligent 12-year olds in the room). How a person manages their own finances does not reflect the way studios handle theirs. Yours was a poor analogy.
My fav V line:
"Double dumbass on you!"
Or, indeed, "The Visitors are our friends."
It wasn't a poor analogy just because you say so.
It's all about credit and how businesses don't just keep loads of cash in bank accounts. My point is most studios have credit, and they typically borrow money on that to cover some or all of a production, either from lending institutions (like Lloyds, here) or from a parent corporation.
Here's three recent articles about film finanacing, and yet another mentioning studios, banks and credit, and how the current credit crunch affects their ability to finance films. Here's one about Paramount specifically.
Sure there are exceptions to the rules, but, in general, these things are financed, not paid for by writing a check from a savings account.
No, it's a poor analogy because it is. The article you linked about Paramount puts it beautifully (emphasis mine):
My only point was that studios have plenty of money.
We can argue the specifics of which studio funds what films which way until we're "green in the face" (as Kirk said), but the original question was why studios would have to pay interest on the film's budget. I've demonstrated that even big studios get outside financing, hence the interest to be paid.
My fav V line:
"Double dumbass on you!"
Or, indeed, "The Visitors are our friends."
"They're not the hell your whales"
There are a ton of quotes from that movie i absolutely love. I might have to watch that today (its been awhile)
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Without going into a long detailed "tale of the tape" arguement, I think that IV is perceived as the most profitable, because it was the most popular with the mainstream audience. IV was the "Trek film that was 'cool' to go see."
The specifics of which studio funds what films which way is kind of the point. They don't make financing deals film-by-film. The studio is getting money in general for all its operations. Regardless of where they get their money (financing, profit, found in a cave with the Shroud of Turin), the budget is the budget. If the film is budgeted for $20,000,000, the studio wants $20,000,000 back to break even. Interest isn't paid there, because it's the money the studio has and is giving to the producers to make the film. Whatever interest is paid from the studio to the finance companies is unrelated to the film's budget. In the example of Paramount, they say they don't even need the Deutsche Bank financing, but that it would be good, because it's not tied to any film's budget, but would help with mitigating risk for all their projects.
Last edited:
And if you do, I think you'll find that "The Visitors are our friends" is nowhere to be found there. I believe Therin was making a joke.
I personally believe the answer to this question is because it was a fun movie.
Similar threads
