Newbie
-
Posts
246 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Newbie
-
-
Wrong. Most movies don't make hundreds of millions post-theatrical just from home video/TV. We know how much money studios get for TV licensing rights, it depends on the box office grosses, and home video sales are collapsing every year.
You're honestly gonna tell me we don't know whether or not John Carter lost money because of "incomplete data" even though ABCDisney's stock plummeted after its domestic debut?
The home market in the US is not collapsing. It's down certainly, and has been declining over nearly a decade,, but the typical year to year declines are not huge. Certainly DV sales when just considered by themselves are down, and down sharply. But Blu_ray sales have softened the declines, as has (the still smaller) online purchases.
For example the last week with reported data has year to year sales down 6.7% for DVD and BLuRay sales. We have had often greater year to year declines with attendance, and certainly larger declines in broadcast tv viewership then what has hit the home market.
-
The first Trek lost money. Viacom was counting on this film increasing domestically and exploding overseas, that's the only reason it was greenlit.
You "twice the budget" people don't understand the percentages the studios get back domestically/internationally and completely ignore the *massive* global marketing and theatrical distribution costs film like STID have.
IF you truly believe that what will be your reason for why a third film will be produced?
As for most posters here as opposed to the general public, most here have far better then average knowledge about how theaters and studios split ticket prices, and that split internationally is even worse (though a lot of that depends on the individual market).
Lets look at the 2009 release. 150 million budget per several sources, 150 million in prints and and marketing, with some sources going even higher. Lets just start there.
First to judge if Paramount/ Viacom made a profit we need some data points that none of us have access to. That's how much money Viacom contributed to this endeavor, and what revenue streams does Paramount Viacom profit from and in what percentage.
For example another company was brought it to contribute a nice sum of the cash. What terms did that investor get. Was it geared to only certain revenue streams? Some for example are excluded from the Home Market, some are excluded from domestic, some are excluded from overseas?
But lets forget that, and just assume the full financial cost of the film was on Paramount/Viacom's feet, even if it wasn't.
Lets assume that the 300 million figure is even close to accurate.
There was a much higher rumored 300 million, but it included the value of corporate product tie-ins, which have value but actually generally don't incur expense. For example a tie with 7-11 for putting ads on cups, might cost the studio almost nothing, but be considered worth tens of millions in almost free advertising.
So US release generated sales of nearly 260 million. Lets just assume a mere 40% of that went to Paramount/Viacom. Thats 102 million.
Ok we know FX made a US broadcast deal for 1/10th of its domestic gross. This didn't include things like pay per views or VOD, which do generate some revenue but not anywhere near the level of the cable broadcasts. Thats 25 million, all profit.
Thats now 127 million of 300 million.
Then we had domestic sales. The film has generated slightly over 100 million is US sales for the DVD. At the time of its release Trek had one of the highest ratios of BLuRay adoption of any film (that rate has of course increased over the last few years), at the time is 55% dvd to 45% Blu_ray. Even though costs are higher lets just assume that it did that same ratioover the life of the title. And lets assume that the Blu-Rays sold at the same price point for its entire life as the DVD's have.
Home Market would then equal roughly 182 million in sales. Now of course that's not net that's gross. I have heard that studios get between 75-85% of its cost. Lets just use the lowest. Using just 50% of ticket sales for US, and then applying the overall increase growth ratio of blu-ray sales versus DVD, will end up with just in the US getting you to 300 million dollars.
Thats another 135 million to offset against the 300 million.
So just off the three largest US revenue streams, takes 263 million off of the 300 million assume cost related to the film. And thats using low end numbers for all aspects. Low end on % from ticket sales, low end of Purchased copies in US homes.
Of course with Trek most of the revenue is going to be generated in the US, but not all.
It also doesn't take into consideration of other lesser revenue streams.
How far off do you believe my understanding of the nature of this business is?
-
2
-
-
This should have been released in August. It is not strong enough to be in the summer.
Frankly it all depends on the market. Clearly I don't think one can complain about its performance in China. Or is it underperforming against what local's expected the film to manage.
As for the idea of a different season wouldn't a change in season also bring about a lower level of general attendance at the movies? In some regions (many actually) were Trek historically does terrible to even worse, would a off summer or end of summer release get any attention? Really know little about various other markets outside of the US.
-
220M-230M OS seems likely. So around 430-460M WW.
It's where I see the film going.
-
Still not good. Won't be a profitable movie
Yeah by that same measurement the first one wasn't profitable, yet Viacom had no issue at all with getting a sequel and even increasing its budget.
Both of the films will make at the box office more then double its production budget. In cases where that happens it's been my experience that those films have been considered a success (and stated so in financially of the production company in quarterly reports. While some of that might be just studio pr, when said studios then do more then just talk, but actually file sec reports, and also commit to sequels its usually a good sign that said film did earn some level of profit.
Now clearly I am sure that the studio had hoped for larger domestic numbers, but there is a difference between not making money and not meeting expectations. A huge difference.
-
4
-
-
What's the general audience reaction to this movie?The marketing for this here focuses on Benedict Cumberbatch. Not surprisingly though, since he is the most known and popular actor here among all STID cast.
-
Good, bad, ok for the 2nd day with its original number? (also any ideas how much of the original number was previews?)Star Trek Into Darkness in China second day box office update : 18M yuan / 2.7M US dollar. It reached 43M yuan / 6.5M US dollar cume in 2 days.
-
I will be very, very pleased and surprised with 40 million US. I know I certainly didn't think China could end up being Treks largest overseas market.What did the posters here think it was going to end with? Myself 25. Which would have still been a sizable increase.
-
i keep forgetting this opened a week later then 2009.Today is a holiday in Canada. That helped inflate Sunday numbers for all movies.
-
So trek is starting In dollars slightly worse then 2009, but is actually holding better? Obviously attendance is down, but isn't the drops at least a small positive?
-
Seriously fought with my whole family and my local Trek group, about the date change when it was first announced. No one believed me. By the time they did (about Monday) they already booked there group for Friday.In fact at the midnight I didn't see one other member of my local trek/ comic/ scotia group. That's over 100 people who most should have been there. I know a few went out of town for the IMAX special but just a few.I knew soon as I got to the midnight that based just on the diehards in my town it wasn't going to hit until Friday.
-
Didn't that drop some with finals?
No matter in roughly a week in 7 markets Trek has earned nearly a third of the OS gross of Trek 09. Question where does it eventually land?
I would guess 200 to 250. Not huge leaps, but not bad either even with 3D and inflation.
If that does happen I wonder what type of growth could be expected for a third film? At that point I think Trek will be on its way to serious (though still lower the a huge number of major us blockbusters would get) money.
-
Really, really loved this film, but it does have some issues, that prevent it from being a great film.
Easily better then Trek 2009. One the villain is 100% better, and the plot holes of the plot is far more solid (the plot of the first film, absolutely makes no sense), and the lack of any Large puffy hands (seriously I can't tell you how much I hated that scene).
Acting for the most part was better (though not all), there was still some stupid Tech (and it wasn't the blood), but that damnable transporting between star systems. If you can beam between star systems, you really need very few ships, anymore. And again that technology makes literally no sense, as if Spock had the knowledge and the ability to do it on the fly (let alone with technology about 120 years earlier), then why the hell did he take his sweet ass time (remember he is in a hurry) to get to Romulus? The entire event that creates teh alternate reality would not occur.
Great action, great set pieces, great momentum...but the film suffers from the lack of showing the passage of time. Having the momentum stop, for events that would natural stop you, hit you in your tracks and make you dwell on the moments.
That does seriously hurt this film, especially if you are someone (like me) who wants to more then just a popcorn film (its a great popcorn film). I love Star Trek. I love it. And that absolutely includes the slow moments, the heavy character moments. It's one of the great strengths of the various tv shows (less so original Trek, which typically ended the episode with a nod in humor and warping away, regardless of how serious the mission was). But modern Trek has done wonders with moments. Heck even the Final Frontier managed a great small quite slow character moment (McCoy and his failure to save his father).
I had no real issue with the reverse of Kirk "dying" or Spock's reaction to it. While Spock's friendship with Kirk is new, he has also suffered terrible losses that his counter part never had to deal with at this point in his life. The death of his mother, the near annihilation of his enter race, the loss of his commander (and we know from our timeline how much Pike meant to Spock), then to have Kirk die, his newest "friend".
Character wise the only issue is still Scotty. Pegg just isn't playing any form of Scotty from the show or movies. I have no problem if he was an original character, but he isn't. And as someone older then Kirk, it would have been just his late teens or early adult hood that suffered changes. I wonder what change him into the over the top, hyper active character he is?
4.5 out of 5 stars. If the film would have slowed down in just a handful of spots and taking a little more time to do the same thing that was shown, it would have been a 5 star film for me.
-
1
-
-
Age wasn't the point exposure to the universe was. He's one of the few people I am around who has seen literally no Trek.
-
Trek has previously had ships under water. The ship is air tight, as force fields, and using propulsion systems that currently humans don't.They have also had starships in heavy gas giants(pressure greater then water) and in normal atmosphere.It's all been done before, just not as pretty.I want to see a prequel that shows exactly how they got the Enterprise underwater in the first place. I don't see how it is in any way possible.
-
You didn't understand Khan's motivation. Seriously? Star fleet found his ship discovered who they were, freed Khan to be used as a black Ops all the while Starfleet held his people's lives over him. Going so far to attached them to weapons. He wants the people in charge exposed then killed, and then he wants the rest of Starfleet to suffer. What's so difficult to understand. Took a kid who's never seen trek, and the only backstory I gave him is that Khan is genetically engineered superman who ruled millions, when he lost power him and 72 of his most loyal lLts. Went unto space. Really what more do you need.
-
they showed you a little of this in 2009 when Kirk provokes Spock and Spock kicks his ass.But yes Vulcans have far greater strength then humans.Also hinted again in 2009, when the Romulan is toosing Kirk around even comments how weak they are. Romulans are Vulcans who went off world before Vulcans embraced logic.See, I didn't know Spock had super strength too. Obviously I knew he was intellectually very advanced, but I don't remember it being explained he had advanced strength too.
-
3
-
-
And remember in 2009 all those extra showings were originally reported as 4 million in sales. Causing a bit of an uproar about pushing the numbers around after finals for the weekend came out.And of course it was a thursday not Wednesday.
-
Why is that surprising? What Trek has done better?Trek 2009 opened at 7pm, wide. With in my town shows at 7,8,9, 10 and then midnight.This time only midnight and one extra showing in IMAX.That's a hell of a lot of showings that 2009 had that this one didn't.
-
1
-
-
Going with my heart not my head.
1) Will Star Trek have more than a 7 mill midnight/sneak? YES
2) Will Star Trek open to more than 30 mill OD? NO
3) Will Star Trek have a drop of more than 10% on Friday? NO
4) Will ST increase by more than 10% on Saturday? YES
5) Will IM3 increase by more than 160% on Friday? no
6) Will IM3 and Gatsby's weekend gross be more than Star Trek's best two combined days total in its 4 day release? NO
7) Will Gatsby fall less than 50%? YES
8) Will Pain and Gain remain in the top 5? YES
9) Will Star Trek make more than 105 mill for the 4 day? YES
10) Will Star Trek have a world wide weekend gross of more than 200 million? YES
11) Will Star Trek make more than 90 mill in its first three days? YES
12) Will Peeples fall less than 50%? YES
13) Will Erased make more than $100,000? YES
14) Will Star Trek's 4 day make at least 104.9 Mill more than Erased's 3 day? YES
15) Will Star Trek make more than 4 mill opening weekend in Russia? YES
12/15 3000
13/15 4000
14/15 6000
15/15 9000
What finishes in spots:
7 Mud
9 Oblivion
10 Oz the Great and Powerful
11 The Big Wedding
12 The Place Beyond the Pines
15 Scary Movie 5
2000 each
5 correct bonus of 3000
6 correct bonus of 5000
Bonus 1: What will Star Trek gross for the 4 day 4000 118 million
Bonus 2: What will Star Trek gross for the 3 day 4000 85 million
Bonus 3: What will IM3 gross? 4000 32 million-
[*]Like This
-
So Taiwan saw an increase of 124% from 2009.
-
Oh on the Mexico font according to a Trek site, its a 300% increase from 2009. Estimates of HK, based on sneak peaks this week is for it to probably match the entire run of 2009 in its first full weekend (1.5 million), but still will be a large percentage increase from 2009. Now we just need to see some of those large increases in larger asian and larger latin nations. That would be extremely helpful. Not to mention very curious what China and Russia will do. Not expecting much at al from China, but. And Russia really hoping to see some serious growth.
-
1
-
-
What is this trend? Is it sales per day, or expectations for the full weekend?
-
I can't see a rebooted TNG doing that well, honestly. FC came out at the height of TNG popularity.
Actually it come out four years after the height of TNG popularity. But again, how well could they have done if there was no other Trek around? I know as a fan, I went more often to the Trek films that existed with no other new Trek. With Trek on TV, I didn't feel the same sense of event (no matter the film or its subject matter) as compared to when the only Trek you could watch was a new film every two or three years.
Now of course I have no idea how Trek tv played in various overseas markets (if they did at all), but in the US, with 52 new episodes for 6 years, or 26 episodes for 11 others really saturated the US. As a life time huge fan of Trek that diminished my desire to see new films.
First Contact is my 2nd favorite film, and I easily saw Motion Less Picture, Search for Spock, Voyage Home many, many times more then I watched First Contact. Khan of course I watched more, but I also think its the only Trek film that's better. Trek 2009 was the same.
Star Trek 2 OS thread
in International Box Office
Posted
obviously there are many films that don't earn profit, some that are huge bombs. And yes John Carter was a bomb (I liked the film), but it will absolutely be a loss for it's life. And yes most films don't generate hundreds of millions domestically on the home market. But this was about Trek, and the last one absolutely did, did so just on DVD. But many still do, typically the films that are larger and have managed to have serious level of attendance at the box office. Some will favor the DVD market (Twilight films have a terrible Ratio for Blu-Rays), others will excel on Blu-Ray with that being the bulk of its sales.
Based just off of the last film, and the overall average ratio back then I would assume this film will have over 50% of tis purchases being Blu-Ray when finally released. Considering the ratio for Trek 2009 has gone during its life from 45 to 58%, would also support this to some degree.