80 replies to this topic

[VulcanFanatic]

I read today on IMDB.com that Paramount is laying off 110 workers due to movies failing to perform as expected. IMDB linked to the "Hollywood reporter" which mentioned several films that didnt make the profits that Paramount needed, which led to the layoff. One film that had a budget of more than 190 million made a worldwide gross of around 600 million and was considered to be only barely making a profit. Star Trek into Darkness was not specifically mentioned, but the ratio of budget to profit was even smaller, so apparently even Paramount feels that the film wasnt successful. Even though Star Trek was not mentioned in the article, IMDB placed a Star Trek Into Darkness thumbnail picture along with the article. This news seems to validate some claims that the film wasnt as successful as some media tried to spin it as being.

[Gothneo]

I think, to be fair, you have to look STID by itself. Which is to say it did well. It did make money. BUT... when the studio takes the aggregate, they needed STID to make MORE money to cover all the crappy movies that actually lost money.

 

The way movies makes money is a bit messed up, but assuming that STID took home up to 75% of the Gross sales for the 1st two weeks. Then assume it only grossed 300M for those two weeks (world wide), then that means the studios made 225M which landed a net of 35M.

 

So yeah, making 35M on a 190M risk wasn't a good return, but it would have made money.

[VulcanFanatic]

I just saw another article on yahoo that did name Star Trek into Darkness as #1 on their list of disappointing Paramount movies this summer. The article says that the rule of thumb in modern moviemaking is to take the production budget, then double it to cover the advertising and after that is profit. With a $190 million dollar budget, doubled would be $380 million before it starts to profit. Worldwide gross for Star Trek Into Darkness was somewhere around $450 million or so? cant remember, but making only a 50 million or so profit is pretty bad considering what they put into it. Home media sales will also be factored in eventually which will help but the movie can hardly be considered a great success with such a meager return on the investment. People see the $450 million gross and think "success!" . Back when big budget movies were $20 million to produce, a $100 million gross would be a great success, but with insane production budgets today, you need to make more than a billion dollars to be a big success.

[Gothneo]

Right. 

 

Or.... you have to change the economics of how you make movies! I said it before, but I think they will scale the budget back on the next one tremendously. 

 

Part of the issue has to be  these large casts, many of whom are a draw in their own right, with Pine reportedly getting upwards of 2Mil a film, Quinto has to be close I think we can safely assume that major cast salaries are 20-30 Mil alone, and is probably significantly more. 

 

I read the forthcoming movie Gravity only had an 80Mil production budget, yet its getting raves for the effects and look of the movie, but I'm sure a Bullock / Clooney cast was much cheaper then an entire ensemble cast like Star Trek. 

 

If I recall its part of the reason star trek was so expensive on the small screen as well. 

[VulcanFanatic]

Zoe Saldana seems to be a bigger star than most of the rest of the STID cast, bet she raked in a sizable check too. 

[Prometheus]

:-)

[Prometheus]

Oops.... sorry...should have posted this in the totally random thread...

[VulcanFanatic]

I think Abrams would have taken Star Wars regardless, its probably his dream job. Abrams with full control over Star Trek would have put it in the grave. Star Trek into darkness made money, yes thats true, but making 15 cents profit on every dollar spent is not what hollywood calls success.

[VulcanFanatic]

This has already been said but i guess i will have to say it again, TWOK made 8 times its budget at the box office, Into darkness made its money back and maybe 60 million in profit. Which movie was more successful? Ive been watching TNG on bluray for sometime now, just got into season 4. Its like watching it for the first time again its looks so good! This is great Star Trek! Lets get Star Trek back on TV where it belongs.

 

I dont know of any statistics to support this, but i am going to say that i doubt many people who have been introduced to Star Trek through the two Abrams movies will become diehard fans, the kind that go to conventions, buy Bluray or DVD sets at the store or even think about Star Trek at all when there isnt a new movie out. I have heard so many genuine Star Trek fans express disappointment with the new movie. The second time i watched it, i enjoyed it more than the first time, but it doesnt hold a candle to the worst TNG episode IMO. I was there when the first episode of TNG ran in 1987, and i have loved it ever since so im not a guy that hates everything new, i just dislike when someone tries to take the Star Trek out of Star Trek and make it a shootem up big budget Michael Bay type of movie with plenty of action and no substance.

[Gothneo]

I think what you mean to say 1701, is that ST:ITD is the biggest grossing star trek movie ever. That would be accurate. 

 

I would think performance would be measured on ROI, and as VF has pointed out, just by the raw numbers, ST:ITD only earned 2.45 times its investment and that based on Gross Receipts, which we know isn't ROI. I don't know that I agree with VF's "double the budget and subtract that from the Gross receipts". From what I've read you should take the gross receipts, divide by 2 to cover advertising, and theaters take, and then subtract the budget. VF comes up with 50 Mil in profit, and I say 43.5 mil. so not too far different.  If  I run the same formula on the 2009 Star Trek, I get a 52.8 Mil profit! Which tells me that the 2009 Trek actually made more money, and since they spent less to make more, the ROI for 2009 Trek was better! Thus 2009 Trek performed better. If you run the numbers, TWOK is still one of the best performing star trek movie of all time. But its not the biggest grossing trek movie.

[VulcanFanatic]

1701, You continue to forget that you have to subtract the production budget, and then about the same amount for advertising and prints before you see the profit margin. Star Trek with a $150 million budget, doubled is $300 million before they see a profit, gives them a $85 millionj dollar profit, which is pathetic when you look at the percentage of investment and return. Into Darkness with a $190 million budget doubled for advertising is $380 million before profit. $86 million profit on that one. International gross was higher than domestic, which is bad because nondomestic ticket sales dont make the studios as much money. Star Trek IV The Voyage Home had a estimated 25 million dollar production budget and made $109 million worldwide, subtracting the budget leaves $84 million, and back in 1986 advertising rates undoubtedly were lower so even $10 million for advertising would still leave $74 million, which is a lot better profit margin than Abrams Trek.

 

I also disagree with you about another thing. I believe Star Trek bluray season sets would have come out even if Abrams Trek never saw the light of day. 

 

You must not pay very good attention to my posts because i have to repeat things so often. I answered your Take the Star Trek out of Star Trek question at the end of my last post.

 

I also disagree with you about Star Trek meaning something different to everybody. If that was the case, i doubt people would assemble for huge conventions to celebrate their common interest in Star Trek.

 

I also dont see any reason why CBS couldnt do another Star Trek series right now. It would be more profitable in the long run i believe.

[Gothneo]

Since this discussion seems to be going back and forth and also seems to have a wide berth... I'd like to throw out something to think about with respect to TV in the U.S. today.

 

Just like Star Trek TNG capitalized on a fundamental shift in how TV was being viewed and shows consumed i.e. producing a show that was syndicated and sold to networks rather then partnering outright with a network, there is another fundamental shift in the way TV in the U.S. is being viewed / consumed etc.

 

THIS Article talks a bit about it... but basically, because of DVR and streaming technology, when and how people watch shows is changing. This is evident with great shows that are paid for and produced by limited networks. Breaking Bad and Game Of thrones are examples of this. Consumers may not watch them live, or even wait until the entire series is produced and on netflix or streaming to watch them.

 

This is why netflix, HBO, and even smaller networks are footing the bill to produce good content. Essentially, this is a sort of direct to viewer syndication model, where the networks make money from the streaming services as consumers view on demand.

 

With such a model, if CBS produced content to steam direct to viewer, I think it absolutely would be successful... if it was good! that's the caveat people want good content, and many people have said that after shows like "Lost" where they felt it was just a waste of their time, they wait now until a show runs its course and then they watch it streaming.

 

I think Star Trek is missing a golden opportunity in that respect, especially since  they have so much supporting content that people who like new shows, would go back and explore.

[VulcanFanatic]

I agree with you Goth. Had it not been for netflix, i would have missed out on many great shows that i watched entirely on Netflix. Ive even watched some of the made for Netflix shows, and found them good and entertaining and every bit as good as any network show, maybe better.

 

There is something about todays series that is different from series made in years past. Most of the good shows on tv, or maybe i should say "interesting" shows, are "Arc" shows. Breaking Bad, Dexter, True blood, Game of Thrones are examples of this. I have to say that i enjoy watching these shows once, but i have no interest in ever seeing them again. Stand alone episodes, like the Star Trek series and many other series that i like, i would buy on bluray and rewatch them. Arc shows keep viewers hooked each week, perform well on streaming services, but i am not sure how much rerun value they have. I imagine that most people watching them on streaming services didnt see them first run.

 

I dont agree that Star Trek was a dead franchise before Abrams got involved. Conventions were still held, DVD sets of all the series were put out in the years after the Nemesis disappointment, and continued even after Enterprise fizzled. Star Trek was going strong before anyone ever heard of JJ Abrams, and it will keep going despite what CBS or Paramount do. Money talks, and Into Darkness did'nt come up with nearly enough money to justify the investment. Maybe after this disappointment they will actually try to come up with a Real Star Trek story next time. There doesnt have to be epic space battles and the Enterprise does'nt have to be nearly destroyed to have a great story. The strength of Star Trek has been in its TV series, the movies were made to give fans a treat by seeing the characters together again. If CBS wants to put all of its eggs in the movie basket, they will never realize what a new TV series could. A TV series set about 10 years or so after Nemesis would be a great place to be. Riker and Troi on the Titan would be a great idea, because you have a ton of TNG, DS9 and Voy crossovers that could be done as well as new adventures. That would keep the interest for the movie every few years.

[Gothneo]

You hit a good point VF about the way shows are produced in "Arcs"... and I think maybe is was Jules who was explaining how TV worked in the U.K. to us... that effectively a show would get funded for a short, limited run, that producers would fund and maybe its only 10 or 15 shows and thats the end of it.  Smaller networks are thinking this way. They just need good content to attract consumers, so shows like breaking bad, get 10 or 15 shows and are done after 3 seasons. 

 

Star Trek could def be tooled to meet this model. Make essentially Trek "shorts" 5 or 6 episodes in an arc that tell a story. Heck you don't even need a recurring cast, and you could do them from any age of Trek.