Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Jul 21, 2025 3:48 am



Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 A more realistic Star Trek club ($125+ million total) 
Author Message
Forum General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:14 am
Posts: 9966
Post Re: A more realistic Star Trek club ($125+ million total)
In, of course.

Wolverine should open with $70-85 million (if they do it right) then drop to around $35-40 million second weekend.

Star Trek should open with $50-65 million if they build it up right. And should finish in the $160-185 million range.

I think Star Trek has potential to grow bigger than that but I think my prediction should be close to the ceiling for Wolverine. By the way, who else is starring in Wolverine?

_________________
Top Movies of 2009
1. Hurt Locker / 2. (500) Days of Summer / 3. Sunshine Cleaning / 4. Up / 5. I Love You, Man

Top Anticipated 2009
1. Nine


Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:29 pm
Profile
The Thirteenth Floor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:26 am
Posts: 15573
Location: Everywhere
Post Re: A more realistic Star Trek club ($125+ million total)
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Okay, I think we can warrant another club for this considering the other one is kinda empty, heh.

Anyway, reading that thread I realized that there's a lot of underpredicting going on for Star Trek. While a $100 million opening weekend is insane, I think a $125+ million total gross is manageable for it.

In fact, I never believed in this project, not after Star Trek: Nemesis' debacle which didn't even break $50 million. However, the new trailer convinced me otherwise. I think the sour taste that the recent Star Trek movies left is gone (next year will be 7 years after Nemesis).


More than a sour taste, what this has been is a decline in the franchise. The movies have depended on the fanbase, as shown by the Sat drops and frontloading despite the fact that the audience is a bit older (which should backload it). So it has a very intense fanbase. That fanbase has shrunk over the years, but especially recently. The TV ratings declined a lot. So, I can't see how it will increase suddenly.

Quote:
- I think the marketing has been done very well so far. The teaser trailer with Cloverfield announcing the project more or less. And now the first big teaser with Quantum of Solace, meaning that it will get A LOT of exposure. Hell the marketing for it started earlier than for most blockbusters of the next summer.


Marketing started early for many blockbusters that didn't end up doing well. Godzilla, Will Wild West, I mean it's a long list if we want to go through it.

The Golden Compass had good marketing (or so people thought; I agreed). There are other movies Plus, everything in the past has shown that what makes a difference for franchise films is the trends and history of the franchise. So, to argue that this will break the trends of the franchise, it would need to be shown what will make this so extremely different. ;)

Quote:
- Paramount invested $150 million into this movie. I'm sure they'll invest a lot into its marketing as well over the next year. With its big budget it will definitely offer a lot of eye candy.


We both know the list of big budget movies that didn't do well. ;) And the list of eye candy movies that didn't do well. ;) Eye candy obviously helps, but fanbase has been shown many times to me more important (such as this weekend).

Quote:
- I think it will be THE movie for hardcore sci-fi fans next year (well until Avatar comes out at the end of the year).


That doesn't promise success. All genres compete with each other. Riddick 2 could have been said to have been the sci-fi movie for its summer. I would say everything has shown that it depends on the movie itself. That makes sense since people usually talk about whether a movie looks good to them when deciding to see it.

Quote:
- JJ Abrams managed to deliver a well-received movie with M:I-3, so there's hope Star Trek will be good too and will spark some solid WoM


But WOM didn't help all sorts of action movies with their legs. Star Trek has shown extreme cases of frontloading. So it should be extremely unlikely that it breaks that trend unless it has something like the best WOM ever.

Quote:
So, yeah, I see this going the route of recent successful revivals. It should open to $45-50 million and have somewhat frontloaded legs (though set off a bit by the WoM) - bringing its total to $125+ million.


Who's in?


I would say that goes against everything that's known, and I think you have to expect that. ;)

My point is that there are patterns, because there must be causes. In other words, with any movie in the past, it must have been that if factors were different, they would have had different grosses. To argue otherwise would mean that it's completely random. That there is no ability to predict what anything will gross or why anything happens. Plus, it would mean that the truth can change based on what's popular. In other words that SW earned what it did for one reason in 1980, and a different reason now. Now, it could be argued that we can learn more, but to say that the reasons for its grosses changed, would mean that its gross could change. Now, it might be possible for someone to sneak in and change the gross on every list everywhere, but that wouldn't change what everyone remembered. You would know that it said 460m at one point and something else after. If you have a list printed out you would still have that. The simple fact that there is any ability to know anything means that there is some form of truth and that one minute to the next something (or many things; forces) are holding things together. There is one truth in any area (as complicated as it might be), and it makes no difference whether it's popular or socially accepted because denying must be wrong otherwise there is no basis for anything as right or wrong. The best and only way to establish what's true in a case like this is through debate like this as is form of debate is most likely to have the issue identified or addressed.

Ok :P


Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:59 pm
Profile ICQ
The Thirteenth Floor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:26 am
Posts: 15573
Location: Everywhere
Post Re: A more realistic Star Trek club ($125+ million total)
Dr. Lecter wrote:
mark66 wrote:
Hmmm, we'll find out in May which club is more realistic... ;)


Either way mine because the closer your club gets, mine will be even closer and more realistic then. Per default.


lol, don't try to complete with a 100m opening ST club. ;)


Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:33 am
Profile ICQ
The Thirteenth Floor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:26 am
Posts: 15573
Location: Everywhere
Post Re: A more realistic Star Trek club ($125+ million total)
roo wrote:
To me the arguments about this movie feel oddly similar to those that fueled the bad Transformers projections at about this time in Transformer's lifespan.

150m should be easy for this if it's considered a good movie (60-75% on RT or equiv. public perception). I think 200m is possible.


:wacko:

Transformers had many things going for it. The Star Trek movies have been in decline. How could even 150m be possible?


Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:59 am
Profile ICQ
The Thirteenth Floor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:26 am
Posts: 15573
Location: Everywhere
Post Re: A more realistic Star Trek club ($125+ million total)
roo wrote:
I'm completely unconvinced that the shifting of a release date from 5/2 (that of Iron Man last year) to 5/8 (that of Star Trek in 2009) is the be-all-end-all of the release schedule as it relates to May releases (other than of course Memorial Day). The films you mentioned are hardly anything to compare to Star Trek (Posiedon with bad buzz to begin with and Speed Racer's obvious problems that we knew going into it), aside from maybe Troy (which still made $130m despite it being considered rather crappy) but speaks to a completely different base than the action/sci-fi crowd in an unproven genre.


Troy had a B+ at Yahoo, and seemed to be generally liked. The legs were not bad for the type of film and release date.

Quote:
The only thing that a 5/8 release date states is that, in previous years, people wouldn't launch on this date because a huge tentpole of a film was being released on 5/1 (or whatever the previous week is). Are we prepared to say the Wolverine movie has a better pedigree going into this year simply on the basis that it is released on May Day? Or is the producers of Star Trek just saying this year that Wolverine and A&D is no threat to them?


Wolverine is from a much bigger franchise.

Quote:
Personally, I feel that Star Trek is in the power role here. Not that those other two films won't make money but so far Wolverine is a huge unknown while anticipation for Star Trek is really starting to build. Right now they have the mindshare.

Quote:
If the film is considered good, I'm not saying this film will do 300m, and it could easily do 150m (less than that seems rather unlikely to me) but I really have yet to run across a great argument which concludes that 200m can't happen. And yes, throw Nemesis at me and I'll show you Batman Begins, and yes, throw Mission:Impossible III at me and I'll tell you to go see Cloverfield (which did insanely well for what it was).

I'm just saying.


Nemesis was one of many films in the franchise as part of the downward trend. Besides the TV ratings and the the way it relies on a very core, aging fanbase, BB was different because it was following a film that did extremely poorly and had terrible WOM. In other words B&R was an outlier. Even so, BB didn't sell that many more tickets than it (35% more I think), and sold fewer than the two movies before it. ST would need to sell quite a bit more than the previous 2 before nemisis to reach 200m (at that time it was still doing pretty well on TV too).

I don't understand the connection between MI3 and Cloverfield. Cloverfield was a monster type movie and had the Statue of Liberty's head roll down the street in the commercial. Which might be a dumb reason, but that helps a lot.


Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:45 am
Profile ICQ
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:32 pm
Posts: 11289
Location: Germany
Post Re: A more realistic Star Trek club ($125+ million total)
So in other words, you (@DP07) think the downward trend will continue or at least not reverse coz you can't seem to see what's different now as opposed to previous installments, which is not gonna happen. I bet my left nut this will top at least $100m. Differences are aplenty, look again. A whole new (and hot, like director JJ Abrams, the screenwriting duo Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman) crew behind and in front of the cameras, a new approach for a new generation of viewers (if the filmmakers are to be believed), a truly substantial budget - a first since arguably the original movie, 25 minutes of footage that received great buzz, a studio that believes in it -> plenty and early marketing.

Seems this is gonna be another one of your missteps. ;)

_________________
Image


Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:17 am
Profile
The Thirteenth Floor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:26 am
Posts: 15573
Location: Everywhere
Post Re: A more realistic Star Trek club ($125+ million total)
Nazgul9 wrote:
So in other words, you (@DP07) think the downward trend will continue or at least not reverse coz you can't seem to see what's different now as opposed to previous installments, which is not gonna happen. I bet my left nut this will top at least $100m. Differences are aplenty, look again. A whole new (and hot, like director JJ Abrams, the screenwriting duo Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman) crew behind and in front of the cameras, a truly substantial budget - a first since arguably the original movie, 25 minutes of footage that received great buzz, a studio that believes in it -> plenty and early marketing.

Seems this is gonna be another one of your missteps. ;)


I'm not saying it will continue. That's possible. It's also quite possible it increases a bit. But 100m?

Why should the budget make the difference, and if so, by how much? I could list a long line of big budget bombs that looked long before release like they didn't have an obvious way to reach their budgets. Most big budget hits look like hits in every way based on what they are. So, how reliable is the budget news in indicating the gross?

Also, how reliable is it as to whether the early marketing will cause a breakout? Most movies marketed early that become blockbusters are like Spiderman, Pirates, TDK, Transformers etc. Movies that would be huge hits anyway. Then there are many that are not marketed that early, and break out. 300, 8 mile, The Grudge..I could think of more if I looked through. Early marketing usually just reflects budget (and the studio not dumping it (Meet Dave type)).

I don't think many directors can pull in much of an audience with their name. Even Spielberg have many movies that didn't do that well given what could be expected from anyone. M Night's ability to pull in an audience with his name has faded. Who else is there? Almost all movies seem to mostly earn their money based on the movies themselves.

Studios have believed in lots of movies that have not done well. Again, this looks is a lot weaker than most big budget franchise films with early marketing, so I don't see how expectations can be set based on that particular context.

Adams might help WOM, but then Cloverfield didn't seem that well received. And even MI3 might have had good WOM, but that helped the gross only a bit (as is the case with most action movies with good WOM). Even so, this is one movie where I would say WOM is likely to have a limited impact given the divide between fans and non-fans.

If I argue that a movie like Quantum of Solace will have an increase because of the good WOM for CR, then it can be based on all the other similar sequels like them to increase after good WOM. When I argue that the TV ratings are an indication of decreased popularity, I think it makes sense because that's usually a good measure. In the 80s this franchise had a season debut of like 27 million people. At the end it was pulling in hardly any audience. Between 1998 and 2002 the ratings dropped quite a bit I believe, and that was when the large theatrical drop happened. So, it could be argued that nemesis was not a fluke at all.

Basically I think most indications are that the fanbase has shrunk a lot. I don't think many non-fans will tend to be easily convinced to see it. So, I think 100m total looks like a challenge.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe the ideas are more important than being right on the predictions. I could play it safe more often, but how much does that contribute (or how interesting is it?) ;)

But I've made a lot of predictions over time, many wrong, many right. ;)


Mon Nov 24, 2008 9:09 am
Profile ICQ
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:32 pm
Posts: 11289
Location: Germany
Post Re: A more realistic Star Trek club ($125+ million total)
DP07 wrote:
Why should the budget make the difference, and if so, by how much?

It gives the filmmakers leeway, to really go out of their way and make it epic and look good. Previous few installments, especially the ones that came after First Contact, looked like a little beefed up TV episodes, they weren't even given a chance to do well. So it helps in that it at least doesn't hurt. And one reason why the studio stands so firmly behind this new one is the new filmmakers involved which brings me to my next point. It's not so much about the names Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman (like people will come coz they here their names) but what they bring to the table, a certain quality and prestige.

I don't think the fanbase has neccessarily shrunk, like given up completely, it's more a case of them being fed up with the mediocrity that was Star Trek in the last decade or so. They are waiting for something exciting to happen again and that could be Trek XI. And like i said, the filmmakers are not just trying to cater to the fans, which could potentially backfire with them alienating some fans but on the other hand could bring a lot of new peple in. Only time will tell.

DP07 wrote:
this looks is a lot weaker than most big budget franchise films with early marketing

I disagree. The reactions here as well, from non trekkies, too, have been predominantly positive.

_________________
Image


Mon Nov 24, 2008 9:59 am
Profile
The Thirteenth Floor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:26 am
Posts: 15573
Location: Everywhere
Post Re: A more realistic Star Trek club ($125+ million total)
Nazgul9 wrote:
DP07 wrote:
Why should the budget make the difference, and if so, by how much?

It gives the filmmakers leeway, to really go out of their way and make it epic and look good. Previous few installments, especially the ones that came after First Contact, looked like a little beefed up TV episodes, they weren't even given a chance to do well. So it helps in that it at least doesn't hurt. And one reason why the studio stands so firmly behind this new one is the new filmmakers involved which brings me to my next point. It's not so much about the names Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman (like people will come coz they here their names) but what they bring to the table, a certain quality and prestige.
Quote:

Didn't Twilight seem a bit TVish from the trailers? I mean if the first Harry Potter were made on a budget of 20m, I think it still would have opened with 80m (now it might have hurt the series).

But prestige... It might help with buzz, but I can think of Beowulf and Poseidon without looking. That's not to mention many non-mainstream prestige directors. Plus, it's a matter of perspective; I would consider Paul Greengrass to provide prestige, but I know many here could never agree with that.

Quote:
I don't think the fanbase has neccessarily shrunk, like given up completely, it's more a case of them being fed up with the mediocrity that was Star Trek in the last decade or so. They are waiting for something exciting to happen again and that could be Trek XI.


I don't think there's any way to say, it it can been looked at with a downside either way: If they feel they are fed up with mediocrity for over a decade, how likely are they to return?

Quote:
And like i said, the filmmakers are not just trying to cater to the fans, which could potentially backfire with them alienating some fans but on the other hand could bring a lot of new peple in. Only time will tell.


There are question marks, but not that much of a sure gross that I see.

Quote:
DP07 wrote:
this looks is a lot weaker than most big budget franchise films with early marketing

I disagree. The reactions here as well, from non trekkies, too, have been predominantly positive.


Sorry, I didn't mean the trailer; I meant the situation the film finds itself starting in.

Yeah, based on the trailer I'll go with 85m for now. Part of me thinks is could go higher because it looks effective, but then a bigger part thinks that the Star Trek name will have trouble expanding.

The most reliable indicators tend to point low on this, so I'm inclined to expect it could disappoint.

IDK, I mean it looks good and I hope its a good movie, but I know that can't be the basis for predictions. ;)

Still, I have to wonder if after 7 years many of the fans will just decide to wait to rent it. I mean people who went to these movies in the 80s probably are not in the habit of going to theaters that often anymore.

Next trailer will indicate a lot more.


Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:49 am
Profile ICQ
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:32 pm
Posts: 11289
Location: Germany
Post Re: A more realistic Star Trek club ($125+ million total)
DP07 wrote:
based on the trailer I'll go with 85m for now

Pffft! :thumbdown:

DP07 wrote:
Next trailer will indicate a lot more.

Yeah, let's hope it'll make you - and me as well - rise our predictions. :)

_________________
Image


Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:26 am
Profile
Superfreak
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 22214
Location: Places
Post Re: A more realistic Star Trek club ($120+ million total)
Excel wrote:
def in...this is too low. my upset of 09 will be this bitches 2nd weekend > a&d opening


More confident than ever :D :D

_________________
Ari Emmanuel wrote:
I'd rather marry lindsay Lohan than represent Mel Gibson.


Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:40 am
Profile
 

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:48 am
Posts: 6245
Post Re: A more realistic Star Trek club ($125+ million total)
This is a pussy club.
..........I'm in.

_________________
Mr. R wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
You seem to think threatening violence against people is perfectly okay because you feel offended by their words, so that's kind of telling in itself.

Exactly. If they don't know how to behave, and feel OK offending others, they get their ass kicked, so they'll think next time before opening their rotten mouths.


Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:15 am
Profile
Superman: The Movie
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:47 am
Posts: 21230
Location: Massachusetts
Post Re: A more realistic Star Trek club ($125+ million total)
After watching the trailer I'm definitely in now. I don't think it will hit $200 million but if it's good I can see it getting to $175m depending on how well it opens.

_________________
My DVD Collection
Marty McGee (1989-2005)

If I’m not here, I’m on Letterboxd.


Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:24 pm
Profile WWW
You must have big rats
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92093
Location: Bonn, Germany
Post Re: A more realistic Star Trek club ($125+ million total)
Rorschach wrote:
As said earlier, pansy club.



Didn't you say the same about the bar in my Watchmen Opening Weekend thread? That $60 million is a no-brainer?

_________________
The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!

Image


Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:50 pm
Profile WWW
You must have big rats
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92093
Location: Bonn, Germany
Post Re: A more realistic Star Trek club ($125+ million total)
Rorschach wrote:
As said earlier, pansy club.

I'm upping my prediction

OW: 60m
Total: 180m


It will never get such legs.

_________________
The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!

Image


Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:50 pm
Profile WWW
Begging Naked
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:07 pm
Posts: 14737
Location: The Present (Duh)
Post Re: A more realistic Star Trek club ($125+ million total)
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Rorschach wrote:
As said earlier, pansy club.

I'm upping my prediction

OW: 60m
Total: 180m


It will never get such legs.


Batman films were never known for strong legs prior to Batman Begins.

The initial fanbase will rush out, but more regular audiences will be vital to its long term gross. A 3 multiplier isn't completely impossible.

I'm still not sure how to predict this yet.


Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:56 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 69 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.