Slashdot Mirror

Actually they may be following your advice; the plans for Star Trek XI (the next movie) have halted indefinitely. See the CHUD.com news report for corroboration.

Frankly, I think this is a good idea, and not just because it could save the franchise, but rather it sounds like a good business decision. Check out the numbers on the franchise movies. The last one absolutely bombed when you look at the budget for it. I believe these numbers also don't include advertising which I imagine would be substantial.

The series definitely needs a respite.

TSage

...seems to be available in a reasonably wide distribution for anime.

This seems to be 47 theaters, still a disappointing low number.

It did make $25,266,129 source, which is better than Gigli (US Gross, $6,087,542, Production Budget $54,000,000). Sure it's not a Kevin Smith movie, but it's got the same goofy actors. source

It did make $25,266,129 source, which is better than Gigli (US Gross, $6,087,542, Production Budget $54,000,000). Sure it's not a Kevin Smith movie, but it's got the same goofy actors. source

I'll point out just a couple of figures for ya'll when considering the cinematic qualifications of people associated with "The Postman":

"The Postman" opened in over 2,000 theaters and got a per screen revenue of $2400. "People I Know", a film executive produced by Robert Redford, opened in 5 theaters and got a per screen revenue of $6800. "People I Know" was never distributed in more than 10 theaters.

What I think we can safely say is that Brin's message was given a lot better chance by the distribution channels and that the market just didn't care.

If you want to track how distribution channels sacrifice profits to distort culture, a good way of approximating it is to track the weekly box office divided by the number of screens squared. This is sort of like the "acceleration" a movie is placing on the distribution channels. Although the previously-linked site is updated only when the weekly numbers are available, the daily numbers as of today (June 27) show "Fahrenheit 9/11" with a metric of $8,200,000/(868 theaters)^2 or 10.9 whereas the next highest daily gross ("White Chicks") comes in at 0.9 -- a factor of ten lower.

If you want to track how distribution channels sacrifice profits to distort culture, a good way of approximating it is to track the weekly box office divided by the number of screens squared. This is sort of like the "acceleration" a movie is placing on the distribution channels. Although the previously-linked site is updated only when the weekly numbers are available, the daily numbers as of today (June 27) show "Fahrenheit 9/11" with a metric of $8,200,000/(868 theaters)^2 or 10.9 whereas the next highest daily gross ("White Chicks") comes in at 0.9 -- a factor of ten lower.

If you want to track how distribution channels sacrifice profits to distort culture, a good way of approximating it is to track the weekly box office divided by the number of screens squared. This is sort of like the "acceleration" a movie is placing on the distribution channels. Although the previously-linked site is updated only when the weekly numbers are available, the daily numbers as of today (June 27) show "Fahrenheit 9/11" with a metric of $8,200,000/(868 theaters)^2 or 10.9 whereas the next highest daily gross ("White Chicks") comes in at 0.9 -- a factor of ten lower.

Bloomberg! Bloomberg! Bloomberg! Bloomberg!

So, the thing that made the movies bad is the thing that made the series good? 2D characters, recycled schlock sci-fi plots, and thinly-veiled, weak one-sided political statements?

I loved TNG. I loved the movies. I didn't go into it expecting "The Ten Commandments" in space, or anything ... it is what it is.

I'm trying to think of the Trek analogue to "Strike me down, and I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine", but memory fails me ... so I will simply say, in the latest popular cliche fashion,

KAHHHHHNNNNN!

The truth is, hollywood will continue to make crappy movies. Considering that the nemesis budget was reportedly 99 million dollars (99 mega space bucks?), and it only brought in 43 (incidental googling: nemesis numbers ) , i wouldn't've bet on another one being made anytime soon.

However, I will go see it when/if it comes out, and any other star trek ever made, because truly, I am a fan boy.

1. A movie will have made money at the box office; DVD sales are just gravy on top of that. Music isn't sold to you twice this way, you buy it on CD and that's it.

Thank you. That is the only thing on this whole thread that is accurate. For example, the first LOR cost 90 million to produce and add another 50 mil for marketing. Worldwide box office gross was $867,683,093. Nobody would ever produce a movie with the hopes of paying for it after the fact with DVD sales. If they don't think they'll make a profit at the box office, they won't make the movie. Of course, some times they are wrong about what will be a success, but that is another story.

So the DVD you buy is incredibly subsidized. Same thing goes for concert DVDs. Guess who paid for that? The morons who paid $100 a ticket to see the latest one-hit-wonder. All this being said, DVDs ARE a great value to the consumer. But like you said people need to understand why.

Take Independence Day, for example. Enormous hype, mega opening weekend, and a fizzle after that,

Exactly so. As a perfect example, I submit Pulp Fiction, which cost $8m to make, and made $107m in the US, and $212m worldwide. That's what the studios look for, but oddly enough, they don't seem to realize it. Even movies like Go ($16m on a budget of $6.5m) are great for the companies, making a cool $10m just in US sales.

Just beacuse a movie has great sales doesn't mean it was worth it. Final Fantasy had $74m in sales, which is pretty good, except that it cost $137m to make. Ouch.

--Dan

I give you exibit A: Kangaroo Jack. Truely proof that even with a horrible premise, script and cast, marketing can rake in a lot of suckers. Although the production cost was $60 million. Total in the DVD sales and a sack of bees becomes marketing gold.

So, earning $131,164,155 in the United States alone and breaking sales records is considered poor sales? Incredible. =)

Please excuse us while we take the $313 million in box office revenues from "Finding Nemo,"

And use it to cover the losses on "Treasure Planet", which raked in only $38 million in the States.

As much as I agree that what you do with your copy of a DVD without redistributing the content without permission, this is the wrong attitude.

Money talks, simple as that. Take a look at this list of Top 20 Movies in the US of all time, theater-ticket-wise. Nearly all of them would need some sort of editing to meet with most Mormon standards. Yet, as that list shows, a little violence, vulgarity, nudity, sexual situations and drug use is perfectly acceptable by those who pay to make a movie profitable.

Don't forget that it's not just a production company like Time Warner or Sony Pictures who has all this PG+ rating material in the movies. Writers, directors, producers all have weight in deciding what the movie should have. And the movie studios generally don't keep making movies that will keep losing them money.

There is just a severe lack of G rated movies that aren't just sequels sent directly to videos anymore. The money to recupe from these ventures just isn't there unless the movie is critically acclaimed and done cheaply. Yet with movies like Matrix: Reloaded and Spider-Man, both with death and violence integrated into the story, they break box office records.

If you want to see a good movie, see a good movie. If you want to see a good movie without sex and language, you're not seeing the true scope of the original intent of the writer, director and/or producer, but that's your choice. But please don't think that Hollywood would reclaim customers just because a few dozen thousand moviegoers would like to see stripped movies, while millions would rather see what's already out there.

Movies are a business. Businesses are there to make money. If a small portion of their target consumer wants something restrictive and that ends up losing them money, why should they continue to throw money at it?

Just a thought next time you think that Hollywood is merely overlooking the Mormons.

I know The Numbers said they'd try to break down the earnings by day if they could, but it appears that they haven't yet.

So, basically, this opening figure could be exaggerated a little.

5/4/2002 Spider-Man $43,622,264

5/15/2003 The Matrix Reloaded $42,508,303

5/3/2002 Spider-Man $39,406,872

11/16/2002 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets $34,213,803

11/17/2001 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone $33,512,941

11/16/2001 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone $32,333,203

5/3/2003 X2: X-Men United $32,000,629

www.the-numbers.com

Errr, J&SBSB did not make a "fortune" at the box office. I think it brought in something like $30 million. Blockbusters do that just in their opening weekend.

Not to say I didn't enjoy J&SBSB. I'm a big Kevin Smith fan and I really enjoyed the movie (for what it was: dick&fart jokes). Most of the 30 million was probably due to the cult following Kevin Smith has, and not advertising.

(BTW, I also really enjoed Donnie Darko)

A curmudgeon's critique:

(1) Against those silly people who spend $$$ on silly movies;

(2) Against those silly people who pirate silly movies while insisting how silly they are.

At least group 1 is honest about what they like and how they acquire it.

And if the franchise is making "too much money," and deserves to be knocked down a notch by piracy, then let's not forget those productions that make "too little money," who deserve our subsidies. That seems symmetrical, and thus queerly moral, though few of us are going to send checks to money-losing moviemakers.

At least we could help people who can't afford these movies to see them. the folks complaining that the studios are making too much money or that the products are too exapensive are often those who can afford them. Either way, science fiction isn't really a nutritional need up there with the four food groups. If I was going to steal something, it would be food first. If you just have to have a Picard figurine and insist on stealing it, well you have issues..... most of use scrape by without a Picard figurine, or personal copies of the movies for that matter.

Outside of the US, esp. the developing world, the DVD prices must seem outrageous. (I have no ideas as to the foreign prices of figurines, lunchboxes, "fake" phasers, and so on.) Perhaps the industry will work out a multitier price scheme as do the drug companies. That was the whole point of regional DVD's?

Of course most of these arguments are just a bit silly, as are all of the rationalizations for Robin Hood piracy of this fluff. Sobriety first.

The Star Trek series would have ended earlier if its profits has been just a bit thinner. Ok, maybe it should have ended earlier, but I like many see value in some of the later work -- and we pay our way. True, the grosses are grosser than many realize! But are they out of proportion to the success and likability of the series? Hell, they hit the jackpot over and over (every other film maybe) and deserve it, it's not coming out of anyone else's pocket who didn't ask to see it.

On Trek -- I love the bald slant in MSNBC Nemesis review subtitle: "It's good enough for Trekkers but not for rest of us." What are Trekkers, a brainwashed subspecies? (well, maybe.) Should I trust a review by someone who confesses bias as "the rest of us"? (Just an editorial thing.)

I really really really want to see a bold successor to Trek that develops a whole 'nuther universe without cheats like transporters and phasers and Spock. I thought I was seeing that emerge in the bio-universe of Farscape, one of the first non-derivative space operas in a long time. Oh well, I may have to wait for Farscape: The Next Generation.

Actually -- I've evolved -- if anything I would buy the DS9 episodes. I like the series better, and with the relative popularity of TNG and VOY I've memorized them anyway.

I've seen TV episodes piling up on Netflix and will eventually try more. I rented one Farscape disk, which was cool without ads but also kind of unnerving because the shows still have these dramatic moments and fade-to-blacks obvious calculated for ad breaks ... and then the show just presses on!

Maybe TV shows really need ads, to be enjoyed as the creators intended. :)

P.S. I haven't seen Nemesis (Star Trek X) but am confident it will not lose money when all is said and done, as it's generic popcorn fare. For chrissakes, Waterworld earned money! (Cost: $175M; Gross:$255M!) 2/3 of the gross was foreign, where evidently they do not have access to American reviews, or dubbing somehow improves the film which seemed dubbed anyway. Once you factor in merchandising and broadcast fees and DVD/VHS sales they must come out OK, if money is one's only object (true for the studio). And in my HUMBLE opinion, Waterworld STANK! Nemesis (cost?) has already taken in about $8M.

BTW, LOL, FDIC, etc.

This a testable statement. Look at the history of per theater revenue vs gross revenue if you want to get a feel for how there might be more than market-driven consideration in distribution of memes.

A few years back I ran some numbers. Here are the 24 Week Average Hollywood Propaganda Ratings* as of Saturday October 02, 1999

Films Probably OVER Exposed by the Movie Industry

Market Distortion Movie Title

1586760 shakespeare in love (miramax)
1352850 election (par)
1327109 an ideal husband (miramax)
1259503 entrapment (20th)
1161624 analyze this (wb)
1021663 the love letter (dreamworks)
1003912 a midsummer night's dream (fox searchlight)
841683 never been kissed (20th)
830672 the out-of-towners (par)

Films Probably UNDER Exposed by the Movie Industry

Market Distortion Movie Title

-181497 the blair witch project (artisan)
-191001 mysteries of egypt (destination)
-234300 the thirteenth floor (sony)
-268947 encounter in the third dimension (nwave)
-300778 extreme (bldjf)
-304998 baadshah (eros)
-1006999 taal (eros)
-1089004 lost & found (wb)
-2126981 everest (macgillivray freeman)
-2272350 island of the sharks (imax)
-2376508 t-rex: back to the cretaceous (imax)
-3894387 the sixth sense (bv)
-4254919 star wars: episode i - the phantom menace (20th)

(*) Hollywood Propaganda Ratings are a way of ranking movies according to how willing the industry is to sacrifice money in order to expose those movies to the public.

The sacrifice for propaganda is estimated to be the number of showings of the movie times the estimated sacrifice per showing. The sacrifice per showing of the movie is estimated to be the average revenue per showing of a movie minus the expected revenue per showing of the movie (based on the movie's prior week's revenue figures). The showings are estimated by compiling movie schedules from around the country (about 10,000 showings) and giving non-prime time showings only 1/4 of a prime time showing's exposure (and therefore potential sacrifice if no one attends that showing).

These figures deliberately exclude the opening week's revenues for each movie.

A problem exists due to the fact that small sacrifices per showing can be 'in the noise' which means it is unclear whether there is any sacrifice per showing or not. Yet with large amounts of exposure, the total estimated sacrifice can be large. This can wash out the ratings of movies with more certainty of being over/under exposed -- especially if the movies 'in the noise' are recent releases with huge exposures, which is frequently the case. To remedy the situation, the total sacrifice is multiplied times the sacrifice per showing to stress only those movies whose total sacrifice is certain of being due to market distortion rather than a huge exposure of a possibly misestimated small sacrifice per showing. The results are then sorted accordingly and the stress which is called "Market Distortion" above.

Additionally, only the few most distorted movies are displayed in each category (OVER and UNDER exposed).

I saw both and as bad as TSOAF's "neoNazis will be the death of us all" self-indulgence was, it wasn't as bad as Insomnia's urbane-self-indulgence-at-the expense-of-the-heterosexual-male-hayseeds genre for which Katz and his ilk so continually lust.

This has always amazed me. To compare a 2002 movie's revenues at $8 a seat to a 1977 movie's revenues at $4 a seat and say it outsold Star Wars! Well, duh!

As with most statistics, it's important to understand the concepts. The main point is that they are comparing to the fifth Star Wars movie: "Episode II" (confusing, huh?). This, of course, opened only two few weeks after Spider-Man, so chances are ticket prices are close enough for a valid comparison.

Now why don't we just look at number of tickets sold and see where we stand, keeping in mind that even that metric is skewed...

My guess is because only gross revenues are reported, not individual sales (which can vary just from time of day...)

And another thing that's meaningless is how much a movie did in it's first weekend (as opposed to altogether)...

Actually, that's not so meaningless. The vast majority of movies follow a general pattern where the first weekend is the largest, then they progressively slide from around 33%-50% per weekend. Given that and a little basic math, the first weekend take can be a good indicator.

Now, there are a few movies that don't do this. Titanic was one (actually hit a 28% increase for its second weekend). Of course, that movie stood out for all sorts of reasons, and was an anomoly. Off-hand, I recall Amistad and Mouse Hunt also grew their second weekends. Of course, those two were initial films from an untested new studio, so there's reason for them also.

If you are interested, check some sites like Box Office Mojo or The Numbers and look at the percentage change, not just the raw numbers.

...which is released in late spring when the weather is beautiful and people want to be outdoors instead of in a theater, there are graduations going on, and a million other distractions, is ridiculous at best.

Sounds like you really need to stop relying on personal preference there and look to industry information. Right off hand I see that February is usually down for ticket sales, while late spring is usually when sales really start to take off. My first Google hit checking things even shows just that. Feb 1999: $341,959,083. May 1999: $742,936,211. Doesn't sound "ridiculous" to me.

Meaningless numbers are just that- meaningless. You must look at the meaning behind the statistics and take everything that could affect them into account.

Exactly. Unfortunately, it seems that you are missing on this a little. Go to The Numbers and do some looking up. Pay careful attention to the % change from weekend to weekend. That's quite informative. And even more informative is looking at the change in the change. And ponder things like "Why did 'A Beautiful Mind' have a sudden reverse in change from -24% to +28% for the weekend of 2/15/2002???"

This has always amazed me. To compare a 2002 movie's revenues at $8 a seat to a 1977 movie's revenues at $4 a seat and say it outsold Star Wars! Well, duh!

As with most statistics, it's important to understand the concepts. The main point is that they are comparing to the fifth Star Wars movie: "Episode II" (confusing, huh?). This, of course, opened only two few weeks after Spider-Man, so chances are ticket prices are close enough for a valid comparison.

Now why don't we just look at number of tickets sold and see where we stand, keeping in mind that even that metric is skewed...

My guess is because only gross revenues are reported, not individual sales (which can vary just from time of day...)

And another thing that's meaningless is how much a movie did in it's first weekend (as opposed to altogether)...

Actually, that's not so meaningless. The vast majority of movies follow a general pattern where the first weekend is the largest, then they progressively slide from around 33%-50% per weekend. Given that and a little basic math, the first weekend take can be a good indicator.

Now, there are a few movies that don't do this. Titanic was one (actually hit a 28% increase for its second weekend). Of course, that movie stood out for all sorts of reasons, and was an anomoly. Off-hand, I recall Amistad and Mouse Hunt also grew their second weekends. Of course, those two were initial films from an untested new studio, so there's reason for them also.

If you are interested, check some sites like Box Office Mojo or The Numbers and look at the percentage change, not just the raw numbers.

...which is released in late spring when the weather is beautiful and people want to be outdoors instead of in a theater, there are graduations going on, and a million other distractions, is ridiculous at best.

Sounds like you really need to stop relying on personal preference there and look to industry information. Right off hand I see that February is usually down for ticket sales, while late spring is usually when sales really start to take off. My first Google hit checking things even shows just that. Feb 1999: $341,959,083. May 1999: $742,936,211. Doesn't sound "ridiculous" to me.

Meaningless numbers are just that- meaningless. You must look at the meaning behind the statistics and take everything that could affect them into account.

Exactly. Unfortunately, it seems that you are missing on this a little. Go to The Numbers and do some looking up. Pay careful attention to the % change from weekend to weekend. That's quite informative. And even more informative is looking at the change in the change. And ponder things like "Why did 'A Beautiful Mind' have a sudden reverse in change from -24% to +28% for the weekend of 2/15/2002???"

I went to the-numbers.com and I could not find anything that stipulated whether it listed domestic or international gross. Industry analysts generally look at international gross.

Just click on any of the movie titles listed (Spider-Man, for example). The text they use before listing gross is "Total US Gross".

nd partially due to the fact that the AOTC was shown on fewer theaters worldwide, and won't even open until next month in some countries...

One point is that the many of the comparisons here are on domestic gross, not international. At least that's what I watch at The Numbers, and jives with what people are citing. And as for number of screens, you can check my other comment for that.

...There is no overarching generaltional statement in the ticket sales of these two movies.

More importantly (since you correctly point out that differences are in general 'negligable'), there are a few things that can be seen in the ticket sales. Among them are the interesting point that Spider-Man's gross did not drop extra on the weekend that AOTC opened. In fact, the decline slowed by a couple of percentage points compared to the decline from first to second weekend. This is especially telling, as many expected that much of the expected Star Wars audience overlapped the expected Spider-Man audience.

The one that really shows an unusual pattern in weekend-to-weekend decline was Titanic. That one started with a 23.8% gain instead of the usuall 33%-50% drop that movies get. And.... we all know how that movie fared.

Yeah, so the 3,800 or so screens that Spider-Man is running on (even more than Shrek), compared to ~1,000 less for Attack of the Clones has nothing to do with it, eh?

Although... studios usually put a lot of research into the number of screens a particular film can support, and generally like to open on as many as they can fill.

BTW, some sources list that Star Wars opened at 3,161 theatres, while Spider-Man opened at 3,615 theatres and then only last weekend bumped up to 3,876. So that's only ~450 less, not ~1,000.

Yeah, so the 3,800 or so screens that Spider-Man is running on (even more than Shrek), compared to ~1,000 less for Attack of the Clones has nothing to do with it, eh?

Although... studios usually put a lot of research into the number of screens a particular film can support, and generally like to open on as many as they can fill.

BTW, some sources list that Star Wars opened at 3,161 theatres, while Spider-Man opened at 3,615 theatres and then only last weekend bumped up to 3,876. So that's only ~450 less, not ~1,000.

Check out the-numbers.com. They have plenty of stats on movies. Most notably is the gross per theatre a record that is held by Spider-Man.

Even though Spider-Man opened with more screens than AOTC it is still making more per screen than AOTC.

While past conversions such as Super mario Brothers and Street Fighter were box office flops

Tomb Raider grossed about $131 million. Not a superhit but definitely not a flop.

Angelina Jolie probably helped that one out.

Actually, Titanic had a worldwide gross of nearly $2 billion. Sen to Chihiro still has some catching up to do.