Star Trek Strong In 4th Weekend At Box Office June 1, 2009
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Paramount, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
The estimates for the fourth weekend of the new Star Trek have it in fifth place with $12.8M in domestic sales and another $8M in overseas sales. Star Trek topped $200M domestically and $300M globally over the weekend. The film’s continued ‘legs’ is impressing box office watchers, who expect Trek still have some life left in it.
According to estimates Star Trek came in fifth in its fourth weekend, earning $12.8M, bringing its domestic total up to $209.5M. This means that Star Trek has now passed the total sales of both the other recent ‘franchise reboots’ Superman Returns ($200.1M) and Batman Begins ($205.3M).
Star Trek came in behind Terminator Salvation ($16.1M) in only its second weekend, and Variety notes that Trek may be hurting Terminator:
"T4" may have seen some of its potential audience opt for Paramount’s "Star Trek," which remained a solid performer in its fourth frame with $12.8 million at 3,507. "Trek" has cumed $209.5 million, becoming the year’s first title to cross the double century mark.
EW was impressed with Star Trek’s small drop for its fourth weekend:
[Star Trek] continues to earn despite already being in theaters for a month. The J.J. Abrams-directed movie has now crossed the $200 million mark — dropping only 44% this frame, it proves it’s still got more earning power left.
And BoxOfficeGuru is also impressed with the small drop, going as far as to guess Star Trek can earn another $40M before it leaves theaters
Posting the smallest decline in the top ten was Star Trek which dropped to fifth with an estimated $12.8M, down 44%. Paramount’s reboot hit crossed the $200M mark on Friday in its 22nd day of release and became the first film of the year, and first since last summer’s The Dark Knight, to surpass the double-century mark. With $209.5M in the bank, Trek is still plotting a course to reach $245-250M domestically.
Star Trek opens in Japan – crosses $100M internationally
As for international, according to THR, Star Trek took in $8M overseas for the weekend, in a total of 59 markets. This includes a $2.2M opening in Japan, which is a lot better than the last Star Trek movie (Nemesis) and pretty good for a Hollywood film without any major stars, but still only half of what the big overseas hit Angels & Demons did two weeks ago when it opened in Japan. Even though Star Trek is handily beating Angels & Demons domestically, the Tom Hanks film has already earned more than Star Trek globally through the power of its overseas sales.
According to THR Star Trek’s international total as of this weekend is $101.5M. Assuming estimates hold, Star Trek has a total global gross of $311M.
Loading ...
Comments»
$311M !!! Isn’t it a blockbuster now?
I told you haters so. But you wouldn’t listen.
Greetings from France, a small Trek country ;-)
Congratulations to all involved for this continuing good news. Domestically, it’s beaten the pants off any competitor. Internationally, it’s more of a challenge, but the news still isn’t bad.
May Trek reach a global gross of $350 million or more before its theatrical run is over!
#1 Yes STAR TREK is most definitely a blockbuster! :)
I’m hoping it can at least reach $400M globally!
I wonder what the expectation on dvd sales is.
And I quote:
” Trek has cumed $209.5 million ” – Variety
What the hell does that mean??
To bad Star Trek has left IMAX Amsterdam, but I will be going again to the theater to see it again!!
I can’t help but wish the theatrical run was lengthend….
Who’d have thought this just a few short years ago?
> Pinky quotes Variety ”Trek has cumed $209.5 million” and
> says “What the hell does that mean??”
Accumulated total.
7. pinky — cume means “cumulative”. Variety likes to abbreviate industry related words. I guess It’s supposed makes them sound like they know what they’re talking about. :)
grammar correction: “I guess it’s supposed to make them sound like they know what they’re talking about.”
Unlike me, who apparently has no idea what he’s talking about. Seriously, that was some horrible writing I just did.
Well when I was watching “State of Play” this weekend “Star Trek” showed up on the board as the only session being sold out. This was in Brisbane, Australia. So it’s not Australias fault that international sales aren’t on par with US sales.
And since Trek is the kind of film that a lot of people will want on DVD (fans, etc.), not to mention how much a new film will have boosted merch. sales, I bet overall it’ll bring in a /lot/ of money. Which is great! :DD
I believe someone here wrote what a uniquely American experience Trek is and that’s why it does better here than overseas. For example- the whole manned space exploration thing, is still solely an American or Russian experience, and thus captures those population’s imagination more forcefully. Furthermore, while some other countries say they have equality amongst its citizens they tend to have homogenous societies, whereas America is a melange of cultures where anyone can achieve higher status through merit.
16= Oh dear what nationalistic poppy cock.. maybe one reason why box office figures are so high in the US, is down also, to sheer size of populace, compared to other territories… plus, the country where an idea originates, is often the “home” where it does best (hence Dr Who has best viewing figures here in the UK than in many other territories)… I don’t think it has anything to do with any one country “getting it” more than any other… it’s simply that tastes vary from place to place…
I agree that Trek is the American Ideal in space. E Plebnista!
# 17
And I also would add, that the marketing campaigns outside America were very small in comparsion to the US-campaign.
17
True, the US has more people, with more wealth, more disposable income for things like movies than other countries, and our tastes align more with Trek as it was written in the new movie- we all get the humor moreso than other countries I imagine. For example, I can’t for the life of me sit through a single episode of Dr Who, old or new, because I find it excruciatingly British, in mannerisms and dialogue, but I believe you are partially correct in your analysis.
20.. Oh dear.. this isn’t the place..
Where are the bitter and patronizing canon fanatics who piled scorn on the new film before even seeing it and who predicted disaster at the box office?
They’ve retreated to their basements and are watching old VHS tapes of TOS.
Good riddance.
I’d just like to say however, in the UK and in Germany for instance – Star Trek has been doing superbly well – considering the size and population of both countries compared to the US.
#23 Has ST09 really been doing well in Germany? Germany has a large Star Trek fan base, with Trek TV shows also having been extremely successful over the years. Somehow I expected more for the new film. (But I may be wrong.)
# 23
No,
In Germany, Star Trek has done very poor in comparsion to First Contact. Star Trek runs just a little bit better than Nemesis over here.
Star Trek Lives!
I suspect thoes basement dwelling trolls have been sneaking out for some Trek 09 and humble pie…
# 24
Schultz, you’re right.
What might be the reasons for the poor performance here in Germany? The critics and the press were very positive about the new movie (but only in small articles or side notes).
I guess, it has to do with the fact, that our (the german) contemporary taste prefers more Lord of the Rings-style fantasy than sci-fi adventures. Clone Wars was a desaster in german cinemas as well as “The day earth stood still”. I’ve also noted, that since 2002 movies hardly cross the 4-million-visitors-line (beside the idiotic Bully-comedies. But that’s a matter only Germans can understand), back in the 90’s in was a usual number for big summer-movies.
250 million looks really promising and hopefully the rest of the world warms up to TREK!…I would love to see Trek get into the top 50 of top grossing films and 250+ million would do that… TREK definately has the legs…to do it…It’s so gratifying to see the response to a TREK movie from fans and the mainstream as well!!!. We, the long time fans, have waited for this, whether the film is to canon or the story is a TREK story or whatever those nitpicky “fans” want to complain about…this is a great movie and the direction of the franchise is definately pointed in the right direction… and we the fans must convey that…NO MORE NEGATIVISM!!!
TREK LIVES LONG and WILL PROSPER!!!! \V/
The day the Earth stood still remake was a disaster, I’d be confident in saying it performed horribly world wide, because it was HORRIBLE.
considering that the original is almost 60 years old and was STILL better acted.
but enough of that.
yeah for star trek getting over 300 mil.
now roll out the BD versions!!
# 28
“NO MORE NEGATIVISM!!!”
Sorry, not with me.
I still place the blame squarely on advertising.
After following the stellar marketing done in the US, and despite my best efforts, I have only caught half of a single advert here in Australia.
Seriously, “I Love You Man” has been marketed better.
this is looking rather promising. And I bet Paramounts Advert department is kicking itself hard for not trying to market better
I made the mistake of seeing Terminator this weekend. That’s two hours of my life I want back.
Up to last Wednesday, 634 538 people have seen Star Trek in France. It is considered a success, if not a big success to have that kind of figures. Like 100 million dollars is psychological line to cross in the States, one million admissions is a psychological line to cross in France.
However, note that this number represents EIGHT TIMES the box office of Star Trek Nemesis. So given Trek’s alas poor reputation here, it is a sign that JJ Abrams did well.
And the positive thing is that word of mouth is good for most people.
i hardly saw any advertising in germany.
also the reputation of trek along the german society is really at its lowest point over the last 30 years.
but with better inernational marketing the globally performance would be much better. !
the new wolverine and terminator films are much more famous here !
#27
Here are the reasons I make out, why ST doesn’t do so well over here:
1) little to no promotion.
2) summer – people are outside instead of in the cinema
3) prices – watching a prime time movie is around 9-9.50 €. Many people, who aren’t that into Trek may wait for DVD release, rent it or won’t watch it at all. My gf loved the movie, but didn’t want to go with me a second time, because it’s so expensive, so I had to go alone
4) German translation – while ST is translated better than many other movies, the tone is way more silly than in the original – especially Kirk and Chekov. Several non-Trekkies told me, they thought it was ridiculous, because of the sillyness.
The marketing campaigns here in Ireland for star trek was the best i have seen for any movie this year. But i do understand that it was not as good in other countries , looking at the figures i think per population star trek has done very well in the UK and Germany too.
Hmmm. I’m sorry to say that despite all the marketing money thrown at Japan for this film, opening in 4th place is not very impressive. They’ll be lucky to crack $9m, which is respectable, but not blockbuster. I’m really surprised. It certainly wasn’t lack of effort, which I’d say was true of much of the international market.
I have to wonder how this will impact the budget for the next film. They must have been expecting it to do much better overseas given how much was spent promoting it worldwide in April and earlier.
#37
Well, here not even the cinemas showing it had Star Trek posters out front….
@ 38. Completely agreed. Their going to scale the budget down. Maybe from 140 million down to 110 or 100 million. Because this movie essentially SUCKED internationally. Now… its still going to bring in HUGE profits for paramount, but non the less…. not solid numbers from the world. Lets hope the Mexico release will be huge.
In terms of the film continuing to do well domestically, I attended a SOLD OUT IMAX showing last night in Virginia. (Yes, some venues are still showing it in IMAX).
I went and seen Termanator for the first time Yesterday and there were maybe 25 people in the Theater. I then went and Seen Trek for my Record breaking 9th time just a few minutes after termanator Ended and there were at least 110 people in the theater for Trek. I was very Inpressed with what trek did here in Austin. I did a little ease dropping and i heard that most of the People there seen trek for the First time and they all loved it. So on just that experence and the numbers that rek is doing it has plently of more legs for another 50 plus Million Domesticly. I thought Termanator was a decent Movie. I thought Anton Yelchin did a great job and Kyle Reese. I think he is a Major Star in the Makeing. Along with Chris Pine and the rest of the Trek Cast. I think the Next Trek Movie will make twice as much as this Trek Movie because next time everyone will know about the new Trek and what the New trek is all about.
22.
“Where are the bitter and patronizing canon fanatics who piled scorn on the new film before even seeing it and who predicted disaster at the box office?
They’ve retreated to their basements and are watching old VHS tapes of TOS.
Good riddance.”
So tell me, who sounds like the hater?
JJ Abrams is on the good side of inside Hollywood, and I won’t get into the reasons why but astute people on here know why. Terminator has not lived up due to agenda-driven reviews by haters in the industry since Christian Bale’s tirade on set. In my opinion Terminator: Salvation was a superior movie to Star Trek 09, and I’m a Trekker and I’ve seen them both.
Now, the worst movie I’ve seen in the last 6 months was ‘Ghost Town’. How does Ricky Gervais keep getting jobs? He is droll, boring, not funny and obnoxious. He gives people with no talent hope that they can make it in Hollywood.
Does anyone know if ST 09 is about to overtake TVH as the second most profitable film of the series? If so, that is quite an accomplishment! I remember what a big hit TVH was and how much the mainstream loved it when I was a kid.
#44 … Wow. You think Terminator was better than Trek AND you don’t like Ricky Gervais? You have no credibility with me, dude. :-)
German here, three times in the cinema with husband (once German, twice in English which was offered by only one cinema in town *sigh*) and reccing it to everyone I know. So if it doesn’t make money, it’s not our fault :)
Nemesis was the only trek movie I came out of the cinema thinking “I wasted life time, bleh”.
For what it’s worth, there’s hardly any coverage for “Star Trek” here in Japan. Especially when compared to “Angels & Daemons”, “Transformers Revenge” and “Terminator 4″ (I love the straightforward Japanese titles).
I went to see it today and the theatre was half empty.
There was a japanese man sitting next to me, in suit, around 50 year old. When the old Spock poped on screen he was “Awww :D”
As I predicted in another thread, I said ST would do between 2-3 million in Japan and it did. I expect by the time it is all said and done ST earn a little more than 375 mil globally. Not bad at all.
#44
John, you and I are worlds apart in our tastes. Terminator Salvation was bland as bland could be. No heart, no soul, no point. John Connor was second-fiddle in his *own* story, and I could not honestly say I gave a damn about anyone on screen. Lots of nifty explosions though, which was obviously the point.
40. jas_montreal – June 1, 2009
@ 38. Completely agreed. Their going to scale the budget down. Maybe from 140 million down to 110 or 100 million. Because this movie essentially SUCKED internationally. Now… its still going to bring in HUGE profits for paramount, but non the less…. not solid numbers from the world. Lets hope the Mexico release will be huge.
Both of you are totally off. Star Trek has never performed well overseas but the movie has not sucked internationally. Nor has any Star Trek movie budget been based off overseas grosses. It will still get around 150 mil overseas and for a ST movie that isn’t bad at all. They are not going to scale down the budget of the next film due to the internaional take considering the global take will probably reached $375 mil. And we haven’t even started to talk about DVD sales and rentals. All that matters is that the movie has brought in huge numbers and more than exceeded expectations financially.
#38, 40
I have to laugh at the thought of a reduced budget after Trek wiped the floor with X-Men, Terminator and a Ron Howard film, domestically.
By the time the new movie comes out in 2011, the IMAX technology will be improved and there will be many more IMAX theatres across the US. The box office numbers will be much higher then what we have seen. It can do 500 mil in 2011.
44. John from Cincinnati
Ah conspiracy theories, where would the internet and modern culture be without them?
I guess there is just no way that the majority of folks just honestly like Star Trek even if you don’t? Or do not like Terminator Salvation and you do? I know it’s crazy talk but maybe just maybe it’s true.
T4 was NOT as bad as many have indicated.
Great effects, performances. Crappy ending though.
ST09 is a FAR better movie, imo.
Yeah. I never would have expected this from a Trek film.
Live long and profit!
51. Roderick711
Exactly. Most of the 100 mil + from overseas is gravy folks.
It will only grease the wheels not slow the Trek express down.
This was the first weekend since May 8 that I didn’t go see Trek. I saw “Up” instead, and loved it.
And wow… the studio must be stunned by the relative failure of “Terminator Salvation”. Only $3 million more in Week 2 than “Star Trek” in Week 4? Ouch, that’s gotta hurt.
#55
What performances? Other than Marcus, I can’t think of one that seemed interesting.
Just be glad they didn’t use the original ending they filmed, which involved Connor dying, being replaced my Marcus, and Marcus subsequently wiping out everyone that knew. Blech.
58- The performances were good, it’s the script that’s the letdown.
And Marcus was overused and UNnesessary.
LOL
Probably not a bad idea if the goal is to keep Trek in the top 5 as long as possible.
Angels and Demons is strongly pacing Trek neck and neck. Considering its poor opening Domestically, A&D is showing good long legs with steady business at fewer theatres than Trek (and with higher averages), especially during the week when Trek performs worse.
While Terminator is getting bashed based on its performance relative to Trek, it also seems to be settling in as a steady earner, which ultimately is more important than in the long run. Compare to Wolverine which stomped Trek in terms of opening weekend box-office, but the numbers slid so quickly that Wolverine is merely sweeping up bits of popcorn after other films now to turn a profit. But, Wolverine’s strong foreign box office saved it, and A&D, whereas Trek is counting on its domestic legs to carry it.
Just out of curiosity, how do Trekmovie’s foreign visitors view the US domestic boxoffice-centric focus being trumpeted here? It almost seems like the sentiment expressed here by many US visitors is “who needs foreign markets”, which certainly can’t help draw in future foreign crowds for any outsiders who read such comments.
“I have to laugh at the thought of a reduced budget after Trek wiped the floor with X-Men, Terminator and a Ron Howard film, domestically.”
Why? It has to do another ~$165M globally before it reaches the low bound of the gross for the first movie, and that one was considered a flop worthy only of a cost-spreading el-cheapo sequel produced mainly by Paramount’s TV people.
Oops, wrong number. ~$73M, but the point stands.
#61
Completely different scenario here, Forrest. They’re looking for a Batman Begins style restart, and they’ve got it. The studio wants to reignite the franchise, and are looking well beyond one movie. After all the critical acclaim and excitement drummed up for this one, they’d be pretty foolish to start cutting corners on a potential sequel. Paramount were fully prepared to lose money on this going in, trust me.
#59
He was also the only interesting character in the entire movie! Ha. Sorry, but Bale sleepwalked through the whole thing, and I’m starting to think all Ron Howard’s daughter can do is look wide-eyed and gasp. TS was full of truly mediocre performances AND a bad script. The whole thing should have stopped at T2, which had a pretty definitive and hopeful ending. But someone got greedy, and here we are.
I live in the UK, where Star Trek did quite well.
But here is the problem:
there was no hype! not enough anyway. My wife said that if she did not know me then she would not have known that a film called Star Trek was coming out. Never mind that this was the most important event (for me) in about 10 years!
Secondly (and most importantly).
I asked some mates at work if they wanted to see the film. Not one said yes. This is because the mighty Trek is seen as sad, old, tired and only for geeks.
Having said that, some people I met at a garden party (how english) said (unprovoked by me) that they saw the Star Trek film and it was the coolest film they had seen all year!
Anyway, rant over….back to my mug of earl gray. HOT
#61. To be fair, as has been brought up before, the decision to slash the budget on ST II was due in part to an extremely weak ancillary market. IN 1979, it consisted mainly of network TV premieres. It wasn’t really until 1983 when the nascent home video market began to take off as a studio revenue stream. TMP has since more than made up for it’s principle production losses in home video sales. ST II’s budget would have likely never been as low if the DVD market of the last 10 years had been around then. Also, TMP was originally budgeted at $17M, so the $11M wasn’t a huge reduction from where they originally started.
ST09 will do quite well in all of its ancillary markets, to it does not NEED to even make as much at the box office as TMP. However, I am confident it will do as well in terms of box office by the end of its run, though it may not clear as much after its higher budget is recouped. Point is, it is already guaranteed to do better than TMP outside the boxoffice grosses. More importantly to the sequel, is that it will be as popular if not more popular than TMP, making it the most popular in the franchise.
To your credit, Anthony Pascale in saying that Paramount has already long since recouped its production cost and has been in the black fro some time now, also said that Paramount has been extremely careful with the budget. So it would not surprise me if Paramount’s goal was to keep the budget the same (inflationary reduction) or even try to lower it over the sequel. As long as it doesn’t come off the screen, since making more money is always better than making less. My personal observation is that most of the money spent on this film was in the CGI. WIth many of the CGI models, sets and costumes already built , lowering the budget is a likely possibility without sacrificing quality.
63. sean wrote:
” Paramount were fully prepared to lose money on this going in, trust me.”
With all due respect, why should we trust you? ;-) Personally, I think Paramount knew they could make money which is why they put $140M+ into the production budget to begin with. They had Trek and now Abrams, both with large, profitable, built-in, yet somewhat different, fan bases. I think their spending indicates they knew they would at least make their money back. They just weren’t necessarily expecting to do as well as Trek has done. Just looking at the historical numbers adjusted for inflation shows them Trek done right (particularly TOS Trek) will always fill theatre seats with a broad audience as well.
I dare say Star Trek will “Do as well as Trek has done” since it hasnt even been in the theaters a full calendar month…
Pssst… hey CBS… yeah you… wanna make a bundle producing a Trek TV show?
Iron man/Superman Returns/Batman Returns were in theaters 127ish days according to Box office mojo. That gives Trek another 105 days in the theaters, even if the money drops, they still have a long way to go
Even with all the major hype that we had here in Canada for the months leading up to the movie, there were still many who had no idea that a new Trek was coming out. That’s just the nature of the beast. There will always be people who miss the boat.
guys, it hasn’t sucked over seas – it has done really well – lets not forget, Star Trek is an American brand – it’s as big as Star Wars in the US – it was always going to do better on it’s home turf – however, internationally – compared to recent Star Trek films, “Star Trek” has done very well indeed – a lot of work needs to be done internationally for sure but the film has already secured it’s sequel – a sequel no doubt that will be made for at least another $150 million . The global reputation for Star Trek will only grow – give it time, this is the first movie after the abysmal Star Trek: Nemesis and it’s still done really well.
It’s going to live long and prosper and like Star Wars before it, it will eventually conquer the world.
Interesting. (punches calculator) WB was/were willing to spend ~75% of the nominal profit of BB on TDK.
Under that scenario, the ST sequels could have had budgets of $210M rather than $27M (II), $138M rather than $37M (III), $106M rather than $46M (IV), $155M rather than $52M (V)…Shatner could have had a whole replica of Hades, let alone one lonely rock monster!
Is this where they got their rep as a cheap studio?
(Strike my last line…)
#70. Using “Iron man” as the most popular film from the same time last Summer, it earned around $29M from the same point as Star Trek is now. In other words, It made most of its money during its first month and though it stayed at the box office, the number of screens dropped by half during June and trickled down through the hundreds of screens through July and August. Batman Begins (I’m assuming that’s what you meant) performed similarly.
Hopefully Trek has better legs than Iron Man & Batman, otherwise Trek looks to top out domestically around $240M and I think we are all holding out for more, especially if the foreign box office continues to underperform, and there’s no reason to expect it to improve since foreign theatre owners probably did not lease the film for as long or wide a run based on Trek’s previous foreign performance.
#73 – again, different time. Because Paramount let the budget of TMP skyrocket, it became the most expensive movie ever made at the time and had no where near the return of Star Wars over its significantly smaller budget. Also, since there was no profitable ancillary revenue stream outside of merchandising (and I don’t recall TMP toys really taking off, except for the re-fit model kit), there was no way to offset the box office loses like Batman Begins could over TDK. Paramount realized they had a popular “hit” on their hands, but lost money in the process, so their solution was cut the budget and get it into Star Wars range to take advantage of its popularity and make money. Later the budgets began to creep up because there was such an enormous back-end revenue stream. Sadly it was their undoing by betting on TNG as the future of the franchise. If Nemesis had cost half as much to make like many of its predecessors, it would not have been as a big a failure for Paramount. Then again, Paramount might not have been so eager to reboot the franchise. So it all worked out just fine.
RE: how much further does Star Trek have?
Iron Man made $66M (domestic) following its fourth Sunday, or about 80% of its total by its fourth weekend, which makes it a particularly strong long term performer. However if you look at the other extreme, a film like XMen: The Last stand (a very front loaded film), that only earned $18.2M after its fourth Sunday. It had earned 92% by the end of its fourth weekend.
Taking those two extremes. If Trek has earned 92%, then it will end up with around $228, but if it has earned 80% of its total run it will end up with $262. I suspect it will end up right around the middle, or in the low $240s.
I will probably look at this and the international sales when i do my four week analysis on Friday. But right now I think Trek’s global take will end up around $370-$380…which happens to be where I thought it would end up before it opened (although I had thought it would have a 60/40 dom/intl split. that split is likely to be closer to 67/33)
RE: sequel budget
As I have stated before, I would not be surprised to see it somewhat reduced. Money is a lot tighter today in h’wood, with little money coming from the funds. They have also sunk in costs for sets/costumes/etc. All the actors were signed to options so their increases will be reasonable. The Abrams team is likely taking a bigger chunk. I actually hoped they dont go crazy and drop $200m+ on the budget as that is why Superman Returns did not get a quick sequel, but Batman Begins did (even though SR made $20M more).
Trek’s challenge next time is to build on the international sales. and try and hold or increase the domestic sales. with a modest bump in domestic sales and getting international sales to close to parity, they could possibly get close to the half billion $ on the sequel. Of course the Batman sequel did over $1B, but I still think that was a fluke. I doubt Batman 3 will make that much.
James Rye #65
I agree with you that the advertising wasnt prolific here in the UK however having said that it was the most ive seen it promoted for any Trek film. i did see advertising boards, ads on TV as well as hearing ads on radio. I did expect more though especially on merchandise on products etc.
reviews in UK papers and magazines were good and positive.
i took a large contingent of work colleagues (15) to the film many of which had never been to a trek film before. they were all impressed by the trailers and the info i had been giving them. they all loved and were glad they went. some of them even went again. they are all up for the sequel and have already asked me for any news.
Greg UK
By the time the new movie comes out, you won’t be fighting the “Trek is old and tired” mindset and you will have hundreds of thousands of new fans thru DVD’s and TV that never saw it in the theatre. The key is for the sequel to as be good or better. If that happens, then Trek will break 500 mil.
77. Anthony Pascale wrote: “Of course the Batman sequel did over $1B, but I still think that was a fluke. I doubt Batman 3 will make that much.”
Agreed. People still downplay the importance of beloved Heath Ledger’s contribution to the box-office. However, I know people who never talked about Batman before who wanted to go see the movie because it was Ledger’s last film and the critical reviews were so high, again likely somewhat tainted by Ledger’s death. I’m not particularly a Batman fan myself but didn’t really see the justification of any of the hype. I barely remember the plot and have definitely seen better visuals and action in other films. One thing I think is universal is that I was not left with a particularly compelling reason to come back and see the next film with Bale’s even darker and outcast Batman. These are dark times, dark movies won’t cut it.
ROI…”Return on Investment.” How much do you get back for every $1 you put in? [Domestic box office/budget]
The Motion Picture $2.35
The Wrath of Khan $7.04
The Search for Spock $4.49
The Voyage Home $4.39
The Final Frontier $1.87
The Undiscovered Country $2.50
Generations $2.16
First Contact $2.04
Insurrection $1.21
Nemesis $0.72
Star Trek (so far) $1.40
#81 – this is not a good way to look at Trek. spending less money and earning more than was spent, is not the same as simply earning more money overall.
The fact remains to date, adjusted for inflation, ST09 is the 4th highest profit-over-budget film in the franchise behind TWOK, not 9th most profitable as your chart would have us think.
TMP 407-136=$271M 4-5 mo.
TVH 258-52=$206M 5 mo.
TWOK 214-24=$190M 4 mo.
ST09 311-142=$169M 1 mo. (Current)
All I know is I was in LA for the weekend and took my sister to see it. I got to the Arclight theater at 6:00 for the 7:45 show and they only had the first 3 rows available (assigned seating). By showtime, the theater was PACKED and SRO! Go, JJ and GO Trek!! The Trek rules! Long Live the Trek!
ive been wondering about this subject of ‘is it a successful movie’. There is no one who wants this movie to be called a blockbuster and i think seeing what we have seen so far in takings suggests that its just that.
however, my question is this. from my understanding, star trek v budget was around $32 million and the gross takings were around 70 million……doubling the investment. It was regarded as an average performer by and large.
currently star trek 2009 is around $300 million but the costs of production was $150 million. this again is a double your money scenario. admittedly its still out there raking it in which is great but i wonder how much the studio consider this to be a smash hit. any views?
Greg UK
The new Terminator movie is a good example of how to kill a franchise.
Trek 09 is a good example of how to breathe life into a franchise.
Trek was entertaining, while I thought Terminator was too heavy on cliches.
#84
Star Trek V – The Final Frontier earned a TOTAL of 70 million. The current movie is still in it’s first month of release, so I think it will be safe to make the call that this version will be a blockbuster once the finally tally is in.
Oooops!
final tally.
Whish I cud spel.
The Dark Knight didn’t become the second highest grossing film of all time because of Heath Ledger. That said it didn’t do it because of Batman either. The fact is there is no telling really what it is that will make a movie become am all time block buster. If there were then we would have much more of them as Hollywood would have the secret. Something just catches fire and people just keep going and going. Look at this list:
Gone With the Wind, Star Wars, Titanic and The Dark Knight. Honestly none of those movies are really very much alike. The two most similar might be GWTW and Titanic as they are both period piece romances set against a very famous moment in time.
Star Trek caught the imagination of the movie going public this year and offered heroics and lovable characters in a fun and exciting film. Much as Iron Man did last year. People seem to be hungry for that. Can’t imagine why.
84. ClassicTrek: Money itself is not the only measure. Many times what your competition made also factors in and Trek V had very stiff competition not the least was Batman. Also regardless of how much money a movie makes the overall reception of the movie that is fed back to the studio can also taint the film. Look at The Motion Picture, Lost in Space, The Hulk, Superman Returns and X Men III for examples of that. All did very well at the box office relatively over all.
The movie biz is a crazy world. :)
Terminator: Salvation was good for the following reasons: It gave what the people wanted. Ever since The Terminator, the movie going audience have been wanting to see the post-apocolyptic world as shown ever so briefly by James Cameron in his first two Terminators. This movie delivers in many ways. We finally get to see mankind fighting the machines in the future. I also like Anton Yelchin’s performance much more as Kyle Reese than as Pavel Chekov. This movie was non-stop fun and action, it never let up. There were no slow moments. Marcus’ character was very intriguing. After having watched all Terminator movies, I still didn’t know about this guy and whether he was good or evil. He kept me on the edge of my seat. There were new machines never seen before as well as familiar ones, T-600 and T-800. It combined new with nostalgic and gave it some heart at the end (no pun intended).
Star Trek 09 was good too. I’m a Trekker and I was hoping this was going to be the movie of the year. This movie was also fun that kept moving with hardly any slow moments. Where this movie failed is plot holes getting Kirk from a Cadet to Captain of a flagship in a blink of an eye. We are to believe he grew up from the arrogant, brash jerk to the James T. Kirk we all know and love in the short span shown in the movie? The growth happened but we don’t see why or how. At least in the original timeline we all know Kirk worked his way up through different ship assigments, being an instructor at the academy and by suriving the massacre on Tarsus IV. All character developing moments. Also, there is a gaping hole from when Nero entered the past throught the blackhole until 25 years later when Prime Spock comes through. What was Nero doing for 25 years? Why didn’t he just obliterate the Federation during that time? Also, the movie worked when it was nostalgic (the uniforns, McCoy, Scotty) and didn’t when it tried to be ‘different’ (bridge, engineering, slapstick comedy with Kirk’s enlarged hands).
IMO
84. Studios consider films that make high grosses more desirable than lower grossing films with equal or higher ROI’s because the higher grosses help to offset the losses the studio suffers on other films. Most movies lose money and some lose a lot. In recent years, studios have adopted a strategy of “rolling the dice” on some very expensive films in the hopes of obtaining higher returns even at relatively low ROIs. Studios need the big hits to keep their overall return on investment positive and to make their shareholders happy. A fabulus ROI on a $20M film isn’t, by itself, going to put the studio in the black. Still, if you are an outsider investing in a individual film, you very much care what it’s ROI is. If Star Trek films were stocks, it would be obvious which ones were the most “profitable.”
89 – John from Cincinnati – You’ve apparently missed some conversations. First of all, Nero couldn’t destroy the Federation because he was waiting for Spock to come though with the “red matter.”
As for character development, they’ve only had one movie. Character doesn’t develop much in two hours. Much of the development you’re talking about with Shatner’s Kirk happened off screen. I’m hoping to see Pine’s Kirk develop that character on screen.
The swollen hands were annoying. We didn’t need that kind of stupid comedy. Not as bad as peeing robots, but I think Mr. O. and K. need to rethink some of what they think is funny.
The rapid promotion is also fairly unbelievable, but the fact of the matter is, if we’re going to criticize this film for plot holes and implausibilities, then we must to it to ALL Trek films and series, because this isn’t a new phenomenon. I found this new movie to be no less credible than those that preceded it.
Oh the hands were funny. Trust me I have had and have seen some allergic reactions, the hands were not exaggerated. And Pine and Urban played the whole thing perfectly.
#89
We were watching two different films, John. TS didn’t give me what I wanted at all. There’s a reason Cameron gave us a taste of the future war but never spent much time there (and no, not just because of budget). T2 was all about taking control of your own fate and making a difference. That not all outcomes are inevitable. TS & ROTM both completely turned this concept on its head, and decided that it’s all inevitable no matter what you do. I found that far less appealing. At the end of T2 I was filled with hope; at the end of TS I was filled with indifference.
#67
And yet you always ask us to trust your assumptions and interpretations of the numbers. Interesting… ;)
The entire premise behind this movie based on everything that both the studio and production team stated, was to revive the Star Trek franchise. To open the door for future adventures and to get people who never gave Trek a second chance to look again. Of course they wanted to make money, that’s a given. But based on everything said, I believe they were more interested in repositioning the franchise as something to be reckoned with than they were on recouping costs. I say they knew that the $200 million or more spent on advertising was likely not coming back, at least not in immediate box office receipts. The Paramount execs are looking at the long term profitability of the franchise beyond this one film.
As for TDK/BB talk – Heath Ledger was reasonably popular but not exactly Brad Pitt/Tom Cruse/Will Smith, as far as marketability and recognition. His death clearly created a certain amount of sensationalism around TDK, but his death didn’t take it to the top. The bottom line was he gave an outstanding performance that stayed with audiences long after the movie ended. And your lack of interest in a sequel is clearly *not* universal, given the general audience reaction. I don’t know that Batman 3 will do TDK business, but it’s likely to do very well (and certainly more than any Trek film is likely to do).
And honestly, for all the talk about how ‘dark’ TDK supposedly was, it’s full of hope. In the end, we have a hero that is willing to do anything, even going so far as to take on the ’sins’ of others (good Christ analogy there) to protect the public. The villain is defeated by his own misanthropy and unwillingness to accept the goodness of others. We also have more than 600 people (including murders and convicts) choose death over killing innocents. The supposed darkness of the movie is really overplayed, IMO.
There were some terrible continuity errors in Terminator Salvation. This is forgivable in some low budget feature, but they must have had at least two pennies to rub together for this one. For example, intro battle…Conner fights legless Terminator…Terminator rips off Conner’s boot…Conner kills Terminator…Conner jumps in helicopter…no seatbelt…takes off…crash lands…unbuckles non-existent seatbelt…walks away…two boots on…
need I go on?
Oh, and one other thing.
When Conner meets Kyle Reese, I wish he would have said,
Wait for it….
“Come with me if I want to live!”
Thank you and goodnight.
92 I am Morg Not Eymorg
I too have to agree that the swollen hands weren’t nearly as bad as I thought they would be. Frankly, that whole scene worked better comedically than virtually all forced attempts at humor in later Trek combined.
Thanks on the box office updates, but what about all of the tie-ins? How is the Tiberius cologne selling? Has Burger King seen an increase in sales from their S.T. promotions? It’s great to see the movie doing so well, but I think the success of the merchandising will show us the real strength of the franchise.
I thought this movie was going to unseat The Dark Knight?
“$311M !!! Isn’t it a blockbuster now?”
I think Hollywood needs a film to do over $300M domestically and $500M globally to fall into “blockbuster” status.
#98
In an alternate reality, maybe ;)
#91 “John from Cincinnati – You’ve apparently missed some conversations. First of all, Nero couldn’t destroy the Federation because he was waiting for Spock to come though with the red matter.”
Bingo. I wish the Klingon prison subplot had made it in there, but waiting for the red matter so that he could destroy planets works for me.
Good thing about this Star Trek is that it is fairly family friendly.
Consumer perception would likely see Trek viewed as more family friendly than Wolverine, & certainly Terminator (higher level of violence), Angels & Demons (adult). This could be quite significant.
Perhaps also the early discussions on the ‘positive’ (rather than ‘dark’)mood of the film has also been siginificant.
Of course it is a darn good movie also!
#6
I’m sure the dvd sales will pass 100 million globally.
Congrats for Star Trek !!!!
Gee, I hope the next one has the courage to chart a new story – to me that is essential to keep ‘éveryone’on the edge of their seat.
Hopefully this film gives a multi-million dollar head start with certain effects (I.e. Enterprise already done etc) all ready to go without to much early development. That way the $$$ can be focused on the new story environment. The challenge will be to get away from Earth and link with the audience (as the mass audience needs relatable context – how many times can you save Earth(?)).
My hope is that the next adventure is truly on the edge of the frontier … so-to-speak. Can’t wait!
No one answered my question from yesterday…how close is this film to surpassing the box office of TVH?
105. Shatner_Fan_Prime – June 2, 2009
No one answered my question from yesterday…how close is this film to surpassing the box office of TVH?
TVH made $109,713,132.00 in 1986. Only Domestic B/O.
$109,713,132.00 in 1986 had about the same buying power as $211,024,627.08 in 2009.
$209,313,884 is the current Domestic Gross for Star Trek 09
It will break it in a day or so, maybe even today depending on how yesterday’s numbers were.
I hope it makes a zillion bucks.
#89—”Terminator: Salvation was good for the following reasons: It gave what the people wanted.”
Not according to the box-office figures (which is a sure-fire measure to guage what the people want). If what you suggested was true, TS wouldn’t be so disappointing in comparison to ST09.
“We are to believe he grew up from the arrogant, brash jerk to the James T. Kirk we all know and love in the short span shown in the movie? ”
Why should we believe that? We were not introduced to “the James T. Kirk we all know and love” until several years after 2258 (the point where ST09 ends). The story ends around 7-8 years before the point where the 5 year mission began in the previous timeline. The fact is—he *shouldn’t* be fully developed yet at this point.
“At least in the original timeline we all know Kirk worked his way up through different ship assigments, being an instructor at the academy and by suriving the massacre on Tarsus IV. All character developing moments. ”
Those tidbits of backstory you mention are but mere single episode dramatic devices. When you first saw “The Man Trap”, for instance, you would know nothing of how Kirk’s character development took place. You just accepted that he was captain of the ship.
The only time any of that “backstory” mattered was in making the story in a given episode (or Kirk’s relationship with a guest star) more interesting. These were individuals stories wrapped up in under an hour. There was no “development”. It is only canonistas like us who attempt to piece those things together to form some cohesive chronology of events.
“Also, there is a gaping hole from when Nero entered the past throught the blackhole until 25 years later when Prime Spock comes through. What was Nero doing for 25 years? Why didn’t he just obliterate the Federation during that time? ”
I’m afraid you’re missing something quite important, beyond Nero’s wish to wait until Spock could see and therefore suffer as he did. Without the red matter aboard Spock Prime’s vessel, Nero would be unable to destroy planets as he does 25 years after he arrived. That is far from a “gaping hole”. It is right there in the film. I’m not sure how you missed that.
#91—”I found this new movie to be no less credible than those that preceded it.”
No question there.
#45 & #105.
Unless the USA is the only thing that matters in the world:
It has already surpassed TVH at $258M adjusted worldwide (which was included in my post at #82) to claim the NUMBER 2 SPOT. However, after deducting the cost to make the film, ST09 still needs to earn about $37M to equal the same profit margin and achieve the #2 spot overall (2 more weekends?).
Then about $60M more to claim the overall top spot in the Trek franchise over TMP. It is within sight.
This is an excellent page for comparing the movies in the franchise:
http://www.thecaptainkirkpage.com/trekcom.html
108. Closettrekker wrote:
Not according to the box-office figures (which is a sure-fire measure to guage what the people want). If what you suggested was true, TS wouldn’t be so disappointing in comparison to ST09.
Should we draw from that conclusion that Star Trek didn’t give foreign audiences what they wanted?
I’m afraid you’re missing something quite important, … Without the red matter aboard Spock Prime’s vessel, Nero would be unable to destroy planets as he does 25 years after he arrived. That is far from a “gaping hole”. It is right there in the film. I’m not sure how you missed that.
With all due respect, this is a poorly developed aspect of the script. While your points are perfectly valid, I would be just as satisfied with the explanation that Nero was literally hanging out in the region (perhaps on a nearby planet), scanning and waiting for Spock as he was not sure when he would arrive. I actually have a bigger problem with him being on Rura Penthe and having no idea if Spock had already returned or not. The even bigger problem is that Nero’s super futuristic ship has already destroyed 47 Klingon warships and handily dispatched a sizable federation fleet without “blinking an eye”. With such power at its disposal, Nero could have easily inflicted significant damage on the Federation without the red matter. With no interstellar ships to service the Federation, there would be little federation left. Besides 25 years is a long time to come up with another plan not involving red matter. Obviously you can justify any of this any way you want, but I don’t see a specific way of looking at it as being more correct or “logical”. The film as it is presented simply asks us to believe Nero was brooding on his ship for 25 years – and I have no problem with that, he was clearly obsessed and insane, a condition which evidently afflicted his entire crew – perhaps something in the ore they mine akin to that which affected the Troglytes.
#111—”Should we draw from that conclusion that Star Trek didn’t give foreign audiences what they wanted?”
That’s probably a fair assessment. There are other factors, however, just as there are other factors in the lack of BO success for TS (R rating, poor reviews).
“With such power at its disposal, Nero could have easily inflicted significant damage on the Federation without the red matter…Besides 25 years is a long time to come up with another plan not involving red matter. ”
I think that Nero specifically wanted to use the red matter to carry out his plan. I think his twisted plan was served better in his mind with a ruthless and symbolic irony—-he would use what was supposed to save his own world to destroy those of the Federation. That, along with his desire for the personified focus of his anger (Spock Prime) to arrive in time to witness his brand of justice works for me.
“I actually have a bigger problem with him being on Rura Penthe…”
As for the deleted scenes, it is impossible to know at this point whether they are beneficial/effective or not, since we don’t really know of what they consist. But they are, of course, irrelevant anyway—at least until such time Abrams elects to include them in some sort of extended edition dvd (if that ever happens).
NYT opinion that the BO receipts industry-wide are stalled this summer.
http://carpetbagger.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/after-a-blazing-start-to-the-year-the-hollywood-box-office-shows-signs-of-cooling/?hp
Also, A&D has cleaned Trek’s chronometers in combined US/overseas BO: $358m.
As predicted by me :D. I said way before Star Trek was in the cinemas, that movie would make 258 million at US Box office, OK, I got it wrong with the International audience figures, :(, no one seems to watch trek in Japan, Germany or France :(
Total disaster when it comes to non English markets, Star Trek doesn’t do well there :(
Anyways, I am so glad movie did well, I am looking forward to the next installment of the movie :)