Lakenheath 72's chart comes from articles in Bloomberg and The Independent. Where's Dennis' "chart" from? SpongeBob SquarePants?
Was Beyond considered a financial success?
- Thread starter Gojira
- Start date
Lakenheath 72's chart comes from articles in Bloomberg and The Independent. Where's Dennis' "chart" from? SpongeBob SquarePants?
I've been thinking about the question of Beyond being a disappointment a lot recently. Beyond just cost too much to make, and it's not all up there on the screen. Here are some examples (I've multiplied the budget by 2 to account for marketing):
Jurassic World cost $300 million. Worldwide take=1.6 billion
Jungle Book cost $350 million. Worldwide take = 966 million
X men Apocalypse $340 million. Worldwide take = $544 million.
Independence Day resurgence $320 million. Worldwide take= $387 million.
Star Trek Beyond $370 million. Worldwide take = $338 million
Ghostbusters $288 million. Worldwide take = $229 million.
All figures are approx rounding so from box office mojo. How is Beyond the most expensive film to make on that list?
Imagine you've got the reigns of a company and get to choose to make a sequel of one of these pictures. You're not gonna choose Ghostbusters, that's for sure, and looking at this list, you'd choose another Independence Day sequel over Star Trek (though that film made its money overseas and the studios get less profit from those takings).
The point I'm trying to make is that how in the hell did it cost more to make the OK looking Star Trek beyond, yet the incredible looking Jurassic World cost so much less? Both Jungle Book and X-men Apocalypse put the money on screen as well.
Beyond may turn a small profit, but in a world where Batman vs Superman, X-Men Apocalypse, Warcraft and Resurgence are all considered disappointing, Star Trek Beyond was a huge disappointment. I just can't spin this any other way.
Jurassic World cost $300 million. Worldwide take=1.6 billion
Jungle Book cost $350 million. Worldwide take = 966 million
X men Apocalypse $340 million. Worldwide take = $544 million.
Independence Day resurgence $320 million. Worldwide take= $387 million.
Star Trek Beyond $370 million. Worldwide take = $338 million
Ghostbusters $288 million. Worldwide take = $229 million.
All figures are approx rounding so from box office mojo. How is Beyond the most expensive film to make on that list?
Imagine you've got the reigns of a company and get to choose to make a sequel of one of these pictures. You're not gonna choose Ghostbusters, that's for sure, and looking at this list, you'd choose another Independence Day sequel over Star Trek (though that film made its money overseas and the studios get less profit from those takings).
The point I'm trying to make is that how in the hell did it cost more to make the OK looking Star Trek beyond, yet the incredible looking Jurassic World cost so much less? Both Jungle Book and X-men Apocalypse put the money on screen as well.
Beyond may turn a small profit, but in a world where Batman vs Superman, X-Men Apocalypse, Warcraft and Resurgence are all considered disappointing, Star Trek Beyond was a huge disappointment. I just can't spin this any other way.
Here is the article the chart came from:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ime-bombs-got-a-lot-more-disastrous-this-year
Pete's Dragon made $75 million in the United States. Divide by half, to account for theater profits, and the film made approximately $34 million. This was on a budget of $65 million. Then add in the other figures from overseas, and the film falls short of the breakeven point. In the article above, it is stated that Disney won't eat the whole loss.
There is no information on the budget for War Dogs.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ime-bombs-got-a-lot-more-disastrous-this-year
Pete's Dragon made $75 million in the United States. Divide by half, to account for theater profits, and the film made approximately $34 million. This was on a budget of $65 million. Then add in the other figures from overseas, and the film falls short of the breakeven point. In the article above, it is stated that Disney won't eat the whole loss.
There is no information on the budget for War Dogs.
Star Trek Beyond $300 million. Worldwide take = $438 million
(if theyd stuck with Orcis 3)
While we're in the realm of pure fantasy....
Peter Weir's Star Trek 3, $200 million cost $750 million world wide take.
Star Trek Beyond $300 million. Worldwide take = $438 million
(if theyd stuck with Orcis 3
There is absolutely no factual proof to back that up. Orci being a first time director could have gone way over budget, and just made a complete mess of things or it could have been a great movie too, but we don't know because that's not what happened. Given how the North American box office declined for Into Darkness, I think it's safe to assume an Orci Trek 3 may have gone the same route.
Star Trek Beyond $300 million. Worldwide take = $438 million
(if theyd stuck with Orcis 3
Aye. And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon.
The best part is $440 mil box office on $300 total costs (Marketing and production) is still a net loss for the studio and it's investors. You'd want $650 mil min worldwide to be breakeven, $700 to beat the return if you had dumped that money in a mutual fund. And nobody is making films to match the returns from mutual funds.
So even in the wildest fantasies that Orci made his movie Trek 3 is still a financial disappointment.
Y'all need to dream bigger
I dream of Star Trek 4.
I dream of Star Trek XIV… 
Similar threads
