Weekend Actuals (Page 62): Suicide Squad 20.9M | Sausage Party 15.5M | War Dogs 14.7M | Kubo 12.6M | Pete's Dragon 11.3M | Ben Hur 11.2M

[Haley Ross]

3 minutes ago, cannastop said:

Come to think of it, do people expect to know movie budgets? Do they know the budget of any other corporate project?

 

Depends on whom you ask apparently.

[KGator]

1 hour ago, a2knet said:

 

 

Thanks.

Looking at ~350 WW probably. Meh on a 185 budget (SS is getting doubters on it's success after projections of 650 WW )

but hopefully Paramount gets it together for the 4th one.

Always sad to see a quality franchise/movie under-perform.

 

It doesn't look too promising until you look at the rest of what Paramount put out this year . . . Then it starts to seem successful in comparison.  If it gets to $350m WW I think Paramount has to try and figure out what went wrong and right the ship.  Unless they are sitting back already pre-planning the rest of their "Monster Trucks" trilogy.  They literally have next to nothing when it comes to franchises.  Transformers, Mission Impossible and Star Trek . . . That's it.

[Daxtreme]

There certainly wouldn't be that many movies being made if every movie required 2.5x its budget in WW gross just to not lose money.

 

I remember some articles twisting Transformers: Age of Extinction's 1.1B gross as a possible failure, somehow, 2 years ago. 

 

I'm sorry but if a movie grosses $1.1B and isn't in the green, 95% of movies made are failures and don't make money.

 

Of course that's wrong. There is something we don't know about movie budgets and their real profitability, and people should stop trusting random articles, even those deemed "professional", because the truth is -- we don't know shit about the profitability of movies, and this 2x or 2.5x number getting thrown around since forever, it might just be wrong too for all we know.

[Walt Disney]

32 minutes ago, Kathemy said:

I hope you are right. I don't want to wait another 7 years for a new Trek movie. Also with CBS's bizarre pay-service for Star Trek I can see that show bombing hard, and I don't want that to happen either.

 

They are making a new Star Trek TV show, so it is possible that the next Star Trek movie will be later rather than sooner (not that they both can't occur simultaneously). However, I am sure that there will be another Star Trek movie. There are a lot of Trekkies, so Star Trek has an excellent built-in fanbase.

 

 

[Jonwo]

35 minutes ago, Tele the Jet Baller said:

 

Well, it's gonna be hard to specifically say what's considered "bombing" there. CBS is putting a lot into their new service, so they want to drive eyeballs and subscribers to it. I don't think them cancelling a tentpole, headline show after one season, because they need it (and others) to get enough people interested to subscribe. A merry-go-round of shows getting cancelled isn't gonna do that.

 

What's old is new again too -- the 1970s series "Star Trek: Phase II" (which later was repurposed into THE MOTION PICTURE) was gonna be the flagship show for a new, fourth Paramount network.

 

CBS has already sold the overseas rights to Netflix so it's already in profit before they've even begun to shoot a single episode. I doubt we'd be getting Star Trek Discovery if it wasn't for the success of the new films. Having STD on CBS All Access means everything is inhouse which means more money in the long run. 

 

52 minutes ago, Tele the Jet Baller said:

 

STB is gonna lose money theatrically, but I wouldn't call it a box-office disaster either. These franchise series made profitable on the backend and breath life into library titles -- they're valuable to studios in the long run, even if they lose money up front.

 

Compared to Nemesis and The Final Frontier, Beyond won't lose much theatrically as I imagine the TV rights and other revenues will be pretty healthy. 

[trifle]

10 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

 

They are making a new Star Trek TV show, so it is possible that the next Star Trek movie will be later rather than sooner (not that they both can't occur simultaneously). However, I am sure that there will be another Star Trek movie. There are a lot of Trekkies, so Star Trek has an excellent built-in fanbase.

 

 

 

They've already announced one with Chris Hemsworth coming back as Jim's father.

[vc2002]

So, SS got better legs than BvS?

[Chewy]

17 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

They've already announced one with Chris Hemsworth coming back as Jim's father.

 

Just like when they announced two sequels to Terminator Genitals 

[Haley Ross]

31 minutes ago, Daxtreme said:

There is something we don't know about movie budgets and their real profitability, and people should stop trusting random articles, even those deemed "professional", because the truth is -- we don't know shit about the profitability of movies, and this 2x or 2.5x number getting thrown around since forever, it might just be wrong too for all we know.

 

Or it just might be right.

[Chewy]

Btw CBS trying to launch their own paid subscription service with an exclusive Star Trek TV show is going to backfire tremendously

[Kathemy]

I don't see Star Trek Beyond get to $160m unless they are very, very lucky, but let's assume that anyway. (It would need identical legs to Star Trek Into Darkness and we already know it doesn't have that.)

 

Star Trek Into Darkness made the most relative overseas profit of any Trek movie with Foreign 51.1%. If we're assuming Beyond can match that and do $160m domestic, it'll end up with $327m, so even if we're choosing "happy pill" predictions it won't reach $350m worldwide.

 

I think STB will end up with $155m domestically.

 

As for the international gross we now have some key data for countries where the movie was released early. Matching them against Into Darkness numbers with a small multiplier...

 

Country (click to view weekend breakdown)	Dist.	Release Date	Opening Wknd	% of Total	Total Gross / As Of
STAR TREK: BEYOND	-	7/19/16	$30,004,289	41.7%	$71,970,277	8/14/16
Australia	PPI	7/21/16	$3,092,604	45.4%	$6,812,713	8/14/16
Germany	PPI	7/21/16	$4,331,742	31.8%	$13,640,528	8/14/16
Italy	PPI	7/21/16	$959,882	37.4%	$2,563,197	8/14/16
Russia - CIS	PPI	7/21/16	$3,375,673	54.3%	$6,211,603	8/14/16
United Kingdom	PPI	7/22/16	$6,219,929	33.1%	$18,782,430	8/14/16

 

Country (click to view weekend breakdown)	Dist.	Release Date	Opening Wknd	% of Total	Total Gross / As Of
STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS	-	5/8/13	$31,700,000	13.3%	$238,602,808	N/A
Australia	PPI	5/9/13	$5,273,397	33%	$15,972,623	7/19/16
Germany	PPI	5/9/13	$6,330,463	30.7%	$20,606,804	7/28/13
Italy	UIP	6/12/13	$1,149,320	38.3%	$2,996,987	7/14/13
Russia - CIS	Cent. Part.	5/16/13	$6,148,463	58.5%	$10,518,964	10/6/13
United Kingdom	-	5/9/13	$12,949,211	32.9%	$39,356,029	8/18/13

The total gross of these five markets for Star Trek: Beyond is $48,010,471. With a slight adjustment for final score (*155/144, I believe that to be roughly fair) we have $51,677,938.

The total gross of these five markets for Star Trek: Into Darkness is $89,451,407. 

 

(51,677,938 / 89,451,407) * 238,602,808 = $137,845,804

 

So that's my prediction. Domestic $155m + $138m overseas for World Wide $293m.

[Brainiac5]

56 minutes ago, KGator said:

 

Oh good counter argument.

 

So exactly how am I wrong?   If it eeks over $300 million you are going to stand there and say that if something like Dr. Strange or Fantastic Beasts had come out in its 4th or 5th weekend that it wouldn't have negatively impacted SS's box office total?  I mean this is like intuitively obvious, we see movies all the time hit by big competition that cuts its legs out.  SS has a great release date in terms of smaller, less hyped competition.  The months before it were much more brutal.

 

Do you even think about the posts you read before you make a comment or would that slow you down too much?

Get over it.All movies benefits from thier release dates.

[Brainiac5]

16 minutes ago, vc2002 said:

So, SS got better legs than BvS?

Yeah also it has better legs than a lot of other movies we all thought was gonna have better multipliers.I think WB is very happy right now.

[Haley Ross]

18 minutes ago, vc2002 said:

So, SS got better legs than BvS?

 

Yes it does.

[Haley Ross]

9 minutes ago, Brainiac5 said:

Yeah also it has better legs than a lot of other movies we all thought was gonna have better multipliers.I think WB is very happy right now.

 

Hopefully they don't churn out more shit.

[Kathemy]

6 minutes ago, Haley Ross said:

 

Hopefully they don't churn out more shit.

...

[Dementeleus]

Moderation: 

 

Okay, the dead horse has been beaten further, and the thread's likewise been derailed. Further comments about SS's budget and profitability will result in a forum suspension for the rest of the weekend. Let's move on.

 

I'm addressing this to everyone, but particularly @Haley Ross

[Porthos]

41 minutes ago, Chewy said:

Btw CBS trying to launch their own paid subscription service with an exclusive Star Trek TV show is going to backfire tremendously

 

As long as it makes it to DVD/BR in a reasonable timefreame  it can backfire as much as it likes.

[Jonwo]

6 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

As long as it makes it to DVD/BR in a reasonable timefreame  it can backfire as much as it likes.

 

CBS's model for their summer shows like Braindead, Zoo and in the past Under the Dome where that they sold the streaming rights to Amazon or Netflix making them profitable before they had begun production and no doubt CBS will sell second run rights of STD to international cable networks after Netflix's intial run making them more money. 

Edited August 21, 2016 by Jonwo

[Brainiac5]

13 minutes ago, Tele the Jet Baller said:

Moderation: 

 

Okay, the dead horse has been beaten further, and the thread's likewise been derailed. Further comments about SS's budget and profitability will result in a forum suspension for the rest of the weekend. Let's move on.

 

I'm addressing this to everyone, but particularly @Haley Ross