Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoilers

[BillJ]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

As I said in the other thread, I think a good zombie alien invaders movie has a $600-700m potential.

The Borg.

I'm on the fence. Either I want a good Borg movie or a time-travel flick that plunges us into the heart of the Eugenics War with Cumberbatch reprising his role as Khan.

 

[Belz...]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

No its not true.

Actually, it is. Anecdotes aren't as valuable as statistics.

Your myopic definition of which movie is "better" is simply not valid. All you can show is which movie made more money at the box office.

And all anybody else can show is whether they liked it or not, which is not an objective measure of a film. I suppose if you take IMDB's total votes it's a bit better, or at least an indicator of how much people liked it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Your myopic definition of which movie is "better" is simply not valid. All you can show is which movie made more money at the box office.

Which means I'm working with one more objectively measurable quality than you are.

 

[Yminale]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

I don't think there's a stigma at all. And there's 400 million+ reasons why I think so.

It cost $190 million to make ST:ID so it basically broke even. It will probably make a profit after DVD/Blu-ray sales. Let's remember that the last Superman movie did the same thing and there was a 7 year hiatus and a complete reboot.

 

[Yminale]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

I don't think Trek will ever do a billion.

If Star Trek wants to do a billion it has to do better in foreign markets. ST even the lame Abrams version is too dialogue heavy.

 

[Belz...]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

I don't think there's a stigma at all. And there's 400 million+ reasons why I think so.

It cost $190 million to make ST:ID so it basically broke even. It will probably make a profit after DVD/Blu-ray sales. Let's remember that the last Superman movie did the same thing and there was a 7 year hiatus and a complete reboot.

I'm not talking about profit, but attendance.

 

[Yminale]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

I don't think there's a stigma at all. And there's 400 million+ reasons why I think so.

It cost $190 million to make ST:ID so it basically broke even. It will probably make a profit after DVD/Blu-ray sales. Let's remember that the last Superman movie did the same thing and there was a 7 year hiatus and a complete reboot.

I'm not talking about profit, but attendance.

I seriousely doubt there are 400 million ST fans

 

[Therin of Andor]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

But seriously, if Paramount wants to increase the visibility of the Star Trek franchise the only way to do it is though other types of media. The most obvious would be a television series.

That didn't help DS9, VOY or ENT. Their ratings were on a downward plunge, and the shows screened at later and later times. Here down under, DS9, VOY and Season 1 of ENT were first released on sell-thru home video, but they aired on free-to-air TV at about 10.30pm, 11.30pm and then midnight. Not family viewing by a looooong stretch. (Ironically, they did win their timeslots.)

In the US, the screenings that were wildly successful were the decade that TOS reruns were in early-evening prime time syndication, and TNG when it was the highest-rating one-hour drama in first-run prime time syndication. But US TV doesn't really work that way anymore, so a new model would need to be found.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

It cost $190 million to make ST:ID so it basically broke even.

I'm no so sure I agree with your arithmetic.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

It cost $190 million to make ST:ID so it basically broke even.

I'm no so sure I agree with your arithmetic.

Even if you double that $190 million, Star Trek Into Darkness is already into pure profit. It's at about $420 million worldwide, meaning its cleared $40 million in profit before the end of its theatrical run and before they've made a penny on either TV rights or home-video.

Sounds like a winner to me.

 

[Yminale]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

It cost $190 million to make ST:ID so it basically broke even.

I'm no so sure I agree with your arithmetic.

$400+ million dollars is the GROSS box office take. Depending on the studio, distributor and theater chain, the studio usually takes 1/3 to 1/2 of the gross. Plus you have to factor in that distribution and marketing are not covered in the production costs. .

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

It cost $190 million to make ST:ID so it basically broke even.

I'm no so sure I agree with your arithmetic.

It's not arithmetic - it's a conclusion based on a supposition for which there's no supporting evidence.

The movie's done a lot better than "breaking even," and the next sequel will be released in 2016.

 

[Yminale]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

It cost $190 million to make ST:ID so it basically broke even.

I'm no so sure I agree with your arithmetic.

It's not arithmetic - it's a conclusion based on a supposition for which there's no supporting evidence.

The movie's done a lot better than "breaking even," and the next sequel will be released in 2016.

Good Grief do we have to go over this again. A movies has to make double (actually its closer to triple now) it's production cost because what it is usually reported is the Gross Box office. As for a sequel, since Abrams is making Star Wars, isn't 2016 too early.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Good Grief do we have to go over this again. A movies has to make double (actually its closer to triple now) it's production cost because what it is usually reported is the Gross Box office. As for a sequel, since Abrams is making Star Wars, isn't 2016 too early.

Hollywood has been in the business of adding a good amount of padding to the public budget numbers for many years now. Star Trek Into Darkness likely cost nowhere near that $190 million dollar total that's been made public.

As far as Abrams goes, he will likely produce the third feature not direct. So it should still be on for a 2016 premiere.

Besides, Oz, the Great and Powerful is suppose to be getting a sequel and it made $491 million worldwide on a $234 million dollar budget.

 

[Yminale]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Hollywood has been in the business of adding a good amount of padding to the public budget numbers for many years now. Star Trek Into Darkness likely cost nowhere near that $190 million dollar total that's been made public.

Actually Hollywood has the opposite problem. Ballooning costs due to special effects and conversions to 3D.

As far as Abrams goes, he will likely produce the third feature not direct. So it should still be on for a 2016 premiere.

Being a producer doesn't mean anything. Ask Gene Roddenberry.

Besides, Oz, the Great and Powerful is suppose to be getting a sequel and it made $491 million worldwide on a $234 million dollar budget.

All I can say is that a sequel isn't "official" until they start filming.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

Being a producer doesn't mean anything. Ask Gene Roddenberry.

It does when you own the company (Bad Robot) that makes the movie.

 

[LobsterAfternoon]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

It's extremely difficult to guess at how profitable these movies are, even if the budgets we hear about are accurate. Off the top of my head, I know Esurance had some sort of promotional deal with Into Darkness. Who the hell knows how much that was worth?

 

[BillJ]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

It's extremely difficult to guess at how profitable these movies are, even if the budgets we hear about are accurate. Off the top of my head, I know Esurance had some sort of promotional deal with Into Darkness. Who the hell knows how much that was worth?

Don't forget Acer as well.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

I'm still not sure what excuse a movie that has made over $400 million dollars needs to make?

None at all, obviously. Some of the TOS-Onlies just won't let go of the hope that at some point Abrams will fail, on the ridiculous premise that if this happens Paramount will return to making entertainment of the kind they enjoyed decades ago.

Nonsense, and quite defensive of a film which has a tendency to generate legitimate questions--like that driving this thread.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Why would someone avoid STID but see Iron Man & Man Of Steel? spoi

A movies[sic] has to make double (actually its[sic] closer to triple now) it's[sic] production cost because what it[sic] is usually reported is the Gross Box office.

No. This simply isn't true, although people seem to think that if it's repeated often enough on the Internet it must be.