Star Trek 2 OS thread

[A Marvel Fanboy]

good

[Newbie]

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.  

[PDC1987]

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.

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.

[Tower]

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.

 

And people like you don't seem to understand that a films theatrical gross is only a small percent of its total gross. The reality is that we don't know about most films if they made or lost money because we have very incomplete data.

[PDC1987]

And people like you don't seem to understand that a films theatrical gross is only a small percent of its total gross. The reality is that we don't know about most films if they made or lost money because we have very incomplete data.

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?

[Newbie]

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?

[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.

[Newbie]

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.

[kayumanggi]

So 210 M from the current markets. Still has France, Japan, Brazil, Spain, Italy and a bunch of smaller markets.

[Alex Bennett]

It already did well in China.....I can guarantee that 95% of audience never even heard the name " star trek" before.  Most people went for Benedict Cumberbatch

[A Marvel Fanboy]

This is a not a flop, just as AE is not.

[snitch]

Taking in the franchise's popularity OS 250-260 m would be quite good.It's not a flop just because many of you have crazy expectations like the move making 500OS 

[POLYLOVE]

It already did well in China.....I can guarantee that 95% of audience never even heard the name " star trek" before.  Most people went for Benedict Cumberbatch

You must be joking...Most of ordinary Chinese have never heard the name of Benedict Cumberbatch, except a smalll group of fangirls.

[kayumanggi]

Taking in the franchise's popularity OS 250-260 m would be quite good.It's not a flop just because many of you have crazy expectations like the move making 500OS 

 

No one predicted 500 M os.

Edited June 10, 2013 by kayumanggi

[4815162342]

Most people predicted something like 275-300m OS.

[DeeCee]

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 good old Disney plummeted after the release of JC. Always cracks me up. 8 March 2012:Disney stock price $41.389 March 2012:John Carter opens. 13 March 2012:Disney stock price $43.34Disney stock price now: $64.82A devastating impact. I'm surprised they didn't get a bailout.

[A Marvel Fanboy]

Maybe Fake predicted 500M+ OS ...

[SentryTrans]

$300M OS is still not completely dead. $250M OS should happen.

 

ST3 in 2016 directed by JJ will have 1B WW potential, boosting by 50 anniversary, 400 dom/600m.

 

ST13 couldn't reach 1B WW.

 

ST15 or ST16 might reach 1B!

[jerem4502]

Opening day in France :

 

Star Trek Into Darkness : 88 477 admissions

 

 

Star Trek was 59 970 admissions. So +48%.

[Halba]

stid didnt have large expectation built. it has done par.