Star Trek Box Office 5 Week Analysis June 12, 2009
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Paramount, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
The new Star Trek movie has completed its fifth week at the box office with another fifth place showing. The film brought in $954K domestically and another $968K internationally to bring the five week global take to over $341M. See below for the full analysis of Star Trek’s five weeks at the box office.
Box Office Update: 5 week total $341.5M
On Thursday Star Trek stayed in fifth place in the domestic box office, and finished its fifth week with over $226M.
| Film | Wed 6/10 | Total (Dom) / days | |
| 1 | THE HANGOVER | $6,091,024 | $71,974,102 / 7 |
| 2 | UP | $5,125,891 | $156,663,709 / 14 |
| 3 | NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM 2 | $1,822,051 | $133,846,805 / 21 |
| 4 | LAND OF THE LOST | $1,672,475 | $25,826,520 / 7 |
| 5 | STAR TREK | $954,517 | $226,428,402 / 35 |
| 6 | TERMINATOR SALVATION | $865,987 | $109,135,672 / 22 |
| 7 | DRAG ME TO HELL | $740,630 | $31,281,890 / 14 |
| 8 | ANGELS & DEMONS | $726,065 | $119,100,204 / 28 |
| 9 | MY LIFE IN RUINS | $349,229 | $4,661,283 / 7 |
| 10 | X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE | $219,506 | $175,216,933 / 42 |
Star Trek is now well ahead of recent franchise reboots, but still short of some other recent big blockbusters. Here is an update of the chart we have been showing each week.
Internationally Star Trek picked up another $968,424 to bring the total international sales to $115,154,765. The film opened on Wednesday in Indonesia, which gave the film a boost to be the first time int’l sales were greater than domestic sales. However, Star Trek’s international sales are still lagging other feature films. Although the film continues to be ranked #1 for 2009 in domestic sales, it is ranked ranked 8th in international sales by BOM (note: BOM data is a few days old).
Star Trek’s strongest market by far is the UK (which includes Ireland & Malta in sales reporting). It is also doing very well relative to other films in Australia and New Zealand, also English speaking countries. It is doing fairly well (not great, not poorly) in Germany. Its weak points are essentially everywhere else (the rest of Europe, Asia, Latin America, Middle East & Africa). Although Star Trek is doing better than past films in the franchise for those territories, it is still underperforming relative to other ‘tentpole’ Hollywood films. Here are Trek’s top 10 markets overseas.
| Country | Gross (as of 6/7) | Days | |
| 1 | UK | $ 31,095,889 | 30 |
| 2 | Germany | $ 11,849,235 | 31 |
| 3 | Australia | $ 11,542,175 | 31 |
| 4 | France | $ 6,881,162 | 32 |
| 5 | S.Korea | $ 5,687,110 | 31 |
| 6 | Russia | $ 4,107,618 | 31 |
| 7 | Japan | $ 3,974,603 | 9 |
| 8 | Spain | $ 3,872,013 | 30 |
| 9 | Italy | $ 3,127,646 | 30 |
| 10 | Brazil (by 5/31) | $ 1,730,458 | 23 |
Star Trek’s new global total is $341,583,167. It is ranked in 5th in global sales (again note BOM data is a few days old).
Week 6 predictions: New milestones ahead
BoxOffice.com is predicting that Star Trek will take in $5.6M in domestic sales, dropping to seventh place this weekend, as two new movies are coming out (The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 and Imagine That). The Box Office Mojo ‘Derby’ consensus is also for a 7th place finish, with $5.9M. [UPDATE: Steve Mason at Slashfilm is predicting Trek will take in $5.1M]
Star Trek opens in India today, so combined with the recent openings in Indonesia and Mexico, Star Trek could have a similar weekend overseas. Star Trek is approaching the $350M global sales mark, which it should pass this weekend.
Trek is also encroaching on the #1 inflation adjusted domestic sales mark for the franchise. When we last discussed that, we used the figure of $239,115,674 for the adjusted gross for TMP, which came from an analysis from BoxOffice.com. However using Box Office Mojo’s 1979 $82,258,456M gross, adjusted for 1979 ticket prices, gives the figure of $235,305,065. Here is a chart using the BOM figure.
As Star Trek is projected to near $232M by the end of this weekend, topping either of those figures doable by the end of June. Figuring out where Star Trek will end up is not an exact science, but the Star Trek film is falling into a pattern somewhat similar to the 2004 film, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, which topped out at $249.5 domestically (it also made over $540M internationally, or over four times what Star Trek will likely do). That film had a gross of $228.7M at the end of its fifth week, here is how its trajectory matches Star Trek’s.
So Star Trek finishing domestically in the $240-250M range seems likely, with probably another $125-$130M or so internationally, for a global total of around $370M, which is just about what Trek’s benchmark film Batman Begins did, with more coming from overseas.
Loading ...
Comments»
Wow… I thought it would be good, but I didn’t expect THIS good!
Can’t wait for number 2 (12?)
Malta is part of the UK? Are you sure it’s not just part of the commonwealth?
Malta is a state nation in itself. It was declared independent from the United Kingdom of Great Britain in the sixties
i swear the nitpickers are going to be the death of me
Malta and Ireland box office is combined with UK box office, that is just the way it is listed.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/uk/
FFS
Very good news! Welcome back ‘Trek’!
No worries, Anthony. After all, Malta hasn’t gotten a fair shake since a guy named Paul had a few problems there with his boat and an annoyed snake…. :-)
Seriously, thanks for the analysis, well done!
dissapointed with international sales- why didnt paramount spend more on marketing & merchandise? the promotion was poor here in australia- i cant imagine how it was in the smaller markets?- the press conferences were not enuff- they knew trek had a history of poor international sales?
Sweeeeeeeet!!
I might go see it again here in Germany. Drove across the border to the Netherlands to see it there. I can see Belgium from my house, but 1 subtitle is better than 3. ;)
All in all this is VERY impressive. I just hope that it doesn’t mean that the often leisurely pace of TNG-era Trek is now dead. I loved the movie, but next time around a more meatier moral dilemma at the heart of the story would be much appreciated.
That’s great news! I still think ST09 will finish in this year’s top five. Pretty good for a movie about “that guy with the ears.” (course, it’s that and so much more).
I think it too soon to be thinking of providing sequel coverage…. yet (but I am sure Anthony has that under control).
Thinking of how the Batman franchise leap-frogged its beginnings with The Dark Knight, TREK fans have the same expectations for ST 2.2, although I don’t think the writers need the pressure of us fans hounding them every day for plot details.
I know I have high hopes for the sequel and expect it to transcend what some feel is a “popcorn” film (though I don’t exactly share that sentiment), but I do want to see more of the Roddenberry philosophy next time around.
But that will wait… be patient…
Heck, for now, I doubt Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof have barely had time to lay out a solid storyline, especially since they are probably busy gearing up for Transformers 2.
Needless to say, OKL are going to be busy in the months ahead!
Please won’t Transformers Hurry up and come out so it’ll Crush this thing and I won’t have to hear about it anymore.
I realize I’d Be rooting for Orci and Kurtzman again, but that is a franchise they can ruin and I won’t mind.
Frankly, I am sad that “Terminator – Salavation” isn’t doing better than it is, as I think it is a fine film… I liked it better than “Terminator – The Rise of the Machines.”
TS has some truly chilling, creepy moments and it presents some interesting concepts for the franchise’s future.
To paraphrase someone near and dear to our hearts, “I like this film, it’s exciting!”
Yay, Trek! I think this has been a great performance by the film so far.
# 11
Uh, you’ve made your point. No one is forcing you to “hear about it anymore”. This “thing” that should be “crushed”. You must be into S&M……just a guess.
Yeah, BTW, I can’t wait for the high-brow, character-driven, intelligent sci-fi of Transformers 2 !! It will be a mindless diversion, right up your alley!
Very cool.
#11:
I don’t get why you would bother reading about something (ST09) that you can’t stand nor like hearing about. It really makes no sense. If you don’t want to hear about it, then don’t read about it!
For example, I hated Nemesis, and I never read anything about it after I saw it. It really is only logical.
It must beat Transformers! To be beat by a 1980s Japanese excuse to sell robot-car toys would be an indignity.
#4: “i swear the nitpickers are going to be the death of me”
I’m pretty sure that this is the mantra of anyone who has ever spent any time working on any serious project related in any way to Star Trek.
I would be great if Star Trek can break $250 million mark but with Transformers and Harry Potter coming out soon. I am not sure if Star Trek can reach $250 million mark.
Also regarding inflation numbers. They are giving me bloody head-pains. Especially regarding TMP numbers. I haven seen numbers from other sites ranching from $235 to $240.9 million for domestic gross for TMP. It seems none can give definite numbers.
for now best way is to calculate is how many tickets TMP sold in 1979 According to Lee´s movies
TMP sold approx 33.303 million tickets but in Mojo approx: 32.7 72 million. It would interesting if Sta Trek can surpass these numbers.
South Korea surprises me . It is a tiny country with 48 million people compared to France that has 65 million and Russia that has 141 million.
I know Germany has a big Star Trek fan base but I didn’t think South Korea did. I wonder why their numbers are so strong especially since they aren’t an English speaking nation. For the next movie, Team JJ and crew have to promote it in Russia. 141 million people and only 4 mil???
I think someone should hold a Star Trek Convention there.
Matt D #3
Get a life!!!
Some of my friends feel Potter is great, but I never got into it.
I love the graph that shows ST:TM very close to Potter will really freak them out, and if it in the end bets Potter where can I get a Heart Shock machine, because I know I’ll have to restart some hearts or I’ll be visiting them when they are 6 foot under.
I’ve been saying for years Trek is almost 50 years old so lets see the Potter fanhood in 40 years and see how strong they are.
By then how many Potter fans will have reached the age of Star Trek’s age now, I’d guess around 33% will have reached 50 years. Star Trek fans will always be those of Wisdom, but but Lucus or Potter fans will have their loves because that is all they new so to them it becomes the best.
Just remember smaller inexperienced minds rarely make the best choices.
Trek minds will always rule!!!
These numbers get really interesting if you put them in relation to the population of the contries.
Here are the top ten and the US cents every inhabitant of that country spend on ST:
United States of America | 332,96
Australia | 52,93
United Kingdom, Ireland & Malta | 45,73
New Zealand & Fiji | 31,41
Iceland | 28,74
Singapore | 23,7
Norway | 17,71
Austria | 14,59
Germany | 14,44
South Korea | 11,76
Sadly that doesn’t consider low or high ticket prices, as these are very different between say the US and Nigeria (which is the last country in the list and where every inhabitant only spent 0,006 cent)
But it clearly shows the big gap between the US and the rest of the world.
I would also say that the marketing for the movie was quite good here in Australia. The numbers above confirm it.
I’d pay $50 to have it on Blue Ray TODAY!!! Oh well, looks like I’ll have to wait 5 more months. Waaaaaa!
I’m glad it’s doing well. It’s even leading UP! I’m not sure if the new Harry Potter will dethrone Trek, but I think Transformers 2 likely will top Trek for the year. Still, I’ll be happy if Trek makes the 2nd highest grossing film (domestically) for the year! I’ll keep pushing for it! I still need to see it for a 3rd time anyway!
A $245 domestic gross and a total take of around $370 is spectacular when you consider that the franchise had been on life support for such a prolonged period of time.
Now the question is can the sequel build on the momentum that this film has created much like “The Dark Knight” did after the success of “Batman Begins”?
My best guess is yes and no.
I don’t think “Star Trek” is going to make a big splash in international markets unless they get a major star to bring attention to the film. Unless a Tom Cruise type star is brought in to raise to the profile of the film I just don’t see ST gaining in the international market.
Star Trek has yet to really become a global phenomenon. While it’s numbers were more than respectable, I was hoping for a bit more when you consider the quality of the product and the fact that the movie wasn’t only targeted at the usual Star Trek demo.
Domestically Star Trek is back on the map… The powers that be finally did everything right. They brought in the new creative blood (writers, director,cast, etc..) that the series so desperately needed. And they finally treated the property with the respect it deserved… This was the first Star Trek movie that actually looked like a film rather than a tv episode in a long time.
Most importantly they gave the general audience back the characters they wanted to see. To the vast majority of the public Kirk and Spock are Star Trek. To be blunt, the general audience cares little about anything besides the TOS characters. They are the icons that made the series what it is. The return of Kirk and Spock made this film an event rather than just another ST film.
I think the next film has a great chance to at least hold the audience the current film has enjoyed (assuming it’s a quality film) and could add upon that audience. I don’t think “Dark Knight” box office is very realistic, but a sequel could top the $240 -$245 million this one brought in.
“Star Trek” did a great job of reestablisihng the franchise. I don’t think you could have asked for more this time out.
#22: “I’ve been saying for years Trek is almost 50 years old so lets see the Potter fanhood in 40 years and see how strong they are.”
Your comparison really is apples and oranges.
“Harry Potter” was published with the intent of a seven book run. It’s author JK Rowlings scribed the saga with a beginning and a definitive ending. “Star Trek” obviously has no limitations in that regards (thankfully).
This is not to say that Harry will not have some kind of cultural impact 50 years from now like TREK has had over the past 43 years.
“Just remember smaller inexperienced minds rarely make the best choices.”
Huh???? This means what exactly? I’d be careful about labeling anyone with the handle of a “small, inexperienced mind.”
1) some of your comments reads arrogantly condescending.
2) having been a teacher, I can certainly vouch for today’s inquistive young minds, most of whom can run rings around us in computer tactile skills.
And if you are referring to kids, I still wouldn’t make that assumption; using your comment as a basis, a lot of us had small inexperienced minds when we first starting watching/reading TREK. A lot of those same people went on to be doctors, scientists, writers, teachers, engineers… and even a President of the United States.
Sounds like we made some pretty good choices, and I would predict the same for our younger generation. Who knows? Maybe some of our young readers of Harry Potter will go on to do equally amazing things.
Just seen it again. i live in the UK but am in San Francisco this week and just caught it at the IMAX, bloody excellent! not only to see it again but to actually be in San Francisco and see the drilling rig fall into the bay just down the road.
i’m currently having a trekgasm!!!!
My hope is that Trek 2.0 continues to follows the Nolan-Batman pattern; first a successful reboot, proving the viability of the franchise (which has clearly been accomplished), and then a deeper, thoughtful, more involved sequel that takes all of that to the next level.
Star Trek – the concept – is more than capable of this. It’s up to Abrams and his team to realize it. They’re on the cusp of unprecedented “Trek” greatness so long as they don’t fall into the all-too-common trap of repeating themselves.
This Trek was a terrific “popcorn” movie, one that brought new life and new interest and a lot of good old-fashioned fun – it was the defibrillator that the franchise desperately needed – but the next one needs to grow beyond that, or interest will begin to wane again.
Witness “Quantum of Solace” – a solid enough movie that made plenty of money, but one that failed to truly build upon its predecessor and therefore saw 007 slide back down the hill a little bit again. Another like “Solace” would put the Bond franchise at risk once more.
Star Trek runs the same risk, but theirs is even larger – let’s face facts – it’s still not nearly as “mainstream”, especially internationally, as the numbers prove.
Abrams and Co. need to make Trek’s version of “The Dark Knight”, not “Quantum of Solace” – not as much for the money (both made plenty), but to continue building moviegoers’ faith. Going to the movie theatre is expensive these days, and audiences are being far more judicious with what they’ll spend their money on.
Quality – and forward movement – will be critical to long-term success. Anything less, and we’ll be right back to where we were post-”Nemesis” within five years… and it’ll take something even more remarkable to bring Trek back a third time, if it would even be possible at all.
I don’t envy the task before them, but heavy is the head that wears the (multi-million dollar) crown.
I’m a Brit with a Maltese wife and a large Irish in-law contingency so typically UK box office!
Still amazing how well TMP did adjusted, that film must have got something right despite the critics.
Regardless of population, you must also have sufficient number of MOVIE THEATERS which has a large affect on people being able to see the film!!
I live in Asia. Many, many theaters here have lower quality projection systems. And while higher end cinemas can easily be found, Asian’s often choose the lower quality cinema since the ticket price is 50% lower.
I got to see Star Trek 09 on a lower quality systems and the lens flares used by the director often turn the screen almost entirely white! It was terrible!
Some of my friends saw Star Trek 09 on these lower quality systems and I tell them “you haven’t really seen Star Trek yet.”
Maybe fewer lense flares in the next Star Trek movie will help Asian ticket sells.
Wonder what TF 2 will make?
TF 1 made $710m ww – $70m opening (star trek beat it!!)…$320 domestic…$380m overseas
now im gonna go against the general opinion here but i think it wont be as big….
maybe a $90-100m opening… HOWEVER – i think its gonna have a big drop off and will wind up with less than the original made overall as people have seen the whole transforming robots thing which people hadnt seen b4 with TF1 (like the way The Lost World made alot less than Jurassic Park as people werent so wowed by the dinos a 2nd time)…maybe the recession will impact too on those mega numbers
i know Megan Fox and Shia are bigger stars this time around (both were pretty much unknowns with the first one) but i still think it’ll make less
So maybe $300m domestic and $300 overseas = $600m ww
of course i could be very wrong and it does 800m (after all – although trek etc has been successful this year – there hasnt been a mega box office hit yet )
Anthony,
you’ve been comparing Star Trek with Batman Begins, but I followed that film very closely and I remember that Batman Begins didn’t get as big as promotional campaign as Star Trek has. So even if Star Trek reaches $370, which I think is a bit of a long shot, it still won’t have made as much as Batman Begins
Glad to see it doing well in the UK… I will be doing my bit, and seeing it for my 5th time next week.
It might beat TMP this year, but next year TMP will retake the lead :)
OOOOOOH Spain already exists for the international trekdom… Good for Spain… she’s a trekker nation as well, no paella no flamenco no more Spanish Inquisition… ST lives as well in Spain!!
Live long and prosper!!
Larga y próspera vida!!
Wow. Nothing like trying to clarify my own country’s borders to elicit abbreviated swearing from the site-runner. Literally the first time I have ever “nitpicked”, and it wasn’t to correct bad spelling, or Trek trivia. It was to confirm that Malta is not part of the UK.
What a terror I am.
#38-I think maybe this is just a language thing via internet print. I don’t think the way your post was worded gives the impression that you were clarifying. I think it made it sound like you were wanting to see a seperate statistic on Malta. But, I see what you were trying to point out and why.
On the other hand, I see Anthony’s point of view. Go to ANY other Star Trek site and see if it even comes close to the fantastic coverage this site gives. Bet you won’t find this kind of coverage and analysis anywhere else. Additionally, I thought Anthony’s statement about nitpickers was totally in jest…a joke about how nitpickers will be the death of many Star Trek movie writers, producers, directors, etc. But I could be wrong; only Anthiny can speak for Anthony.
Let’’s all make up now and be happy. Frankly, should you want to clarify about Malta, perhaps you should send a message to the people that run boxofficemojo.com
For Star Trek to do so well against such strong summer competition is unheard of.
Witness the fate of ST:NEM that fought and lost to LOTR
and of course poor old ST:V that lost out to a whole plethora of big movies, most notably Batman.
This film has triumphed against very big summer movies. If I was a betting man then I would have bet on T4 and wolverine trouncing the Trek.
Quick, somebody cue up “Charts & Graphs” by Paul Shaffer to run in the background when this page is loaded!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1906939339033461190
If Paramount wants international box office for the next one, they can have it with a three word plot description: Doctor Who Crossover.
Box Office Mojo sadly only shows what a movie made in dollars. I guess that doesn’t matter for the domestic market. But internationally you can’t easily compare the popularity of Star Trek in different countries this way because they convert the different currencies into dollar. Star Trek could be quite popular in a country which won’t be obviously in any dollar list, if the currency there is weak. On the other hand Star Trek will look more popular in a country with a strong currency, even if there aren’t many viewers.
At the moment 1 US dollar is worth:
0,6079 £
0,7134 €
1,2286 Australian Dollar
1,927 Brazilian Real
30,988 Russian Ruble
98,415 Yen
1250,4 South Korean Won
That are the currencies of Star Trek’s top 10 markets overseas. Of course for a really good Star Trek popularity comparison you also have to know things like the population of the country, ticket prizes, numbers of cinemas which show the movie, how popular watching movies in cinemas is in itself in the different countries, and so on.
I guess we would know a little more about Star Trek’s popularity, if we have a list of numbers of viewers in relation to the total population of each country.
But for the film studios it is of course more important how much money a movie makes which makes some markets quite unimportant for them. I find that just a little sad for the fans living there. I already was disappointed about the advertisement in Germany but at least there was some (the Berlin premiere, a few commercials) and Star Trek was also shown in all big cinemas. In other countries there wasn’t any advertisement at all and Star Trek fans had to search for a cinema which showed the new movie. Hopefully this movie will be successful in DVD sales and TV ratings especially in those countries, so that fans living there won’t have to search for a cinema when the next Star Trek movie comes out.
Now let’s reboot Space 1999 :)
44. Captain Dunsel – June 13, 2009
Now let’s reboot Space 1999 :)
Agreed. While there at it they can reboot Buck Rogers in the 25th century and reboot Babylon 5
JimJ,
I love this site. Have been been a visitor for years. Will be a visitor for more years. Wasn’t trying to cause trouble, was just offering clarification.
I’m glad it’s doing well, but like others have said….. I wish it would hurry up and get out of the theaters so I can see it on blueray already!!!
#25, In terms of the other films in the franchise, looking at their relative popularity at the box office against its competition, an interesting trend emerges.
1979 TMP was #4
1992 TWOK was #6
1984 TSFS was #9
1986 TVH was #5
1987 – ST:TNG –
1989 TFF was #25
1991 TUC was #15
1994 GEN was #15
1996 FC was #17
1998 INS was #28
2001 – ST:ENT –
2002 NEM was #54
The first 4 TOS features were in the top 10 box office rankings. The rest have been in the top 25, until Insurrection and Nemesis.
Based on these rankings, it would seem that TNG indeed killed the franchise. It has been suggested that one reason TFF did poorly at the box office was the appearance of a poorly received TNG on TV the year before and its continued dissipation of the novelty of Trek at the boxoffice. But, there are many other problems with TFF as well. However, it still did a respectable #25 at the box office, presumably based on the success of its predecessor. This may have well hurt TUC which rebounded to #15 and likely would have performed better had it followed a stronger installment in the franchise. Interestingly, while GEN made more money than TUC, it ranked identically for its year. This was the ONLY TNG film to do as well as a TOS film in the year it was released, despite FC being the 6th highest grossing film overall. And, it wasn’t exclusively a TNG film since it starred Kirk and opened in the TOS era. Oddly as soon as TNG had to stand on its own, the overall popularity at the yearly box-office began to decline. Was this because TOS fans who did not embrace TNG stopped going to the movies (especially after the ignominious death of Kirk? Or, was it simply that TNG films faced stiffer competition for the year than TOS ever did? TOS definitely went up against some stiff competition for its day. Consider TWOK still earned 6th place in a year when ET topped the box office charts.
Another interesting observation is that there was an additional year gap between both TVH and TFF during which an unpopular Trek TV series was launched, followed by a weak feature at the box-office. If anything was going to turn a general audience away, that might do it. The exact same gap appears between INS and NEM, with yet another unpopular Trek series (ENT) debuting on TV in the interim. Coincidence? Or pattern? Was an additional year between films enough for a general audience to lose enthusiasm for the franchise? Like TUC after the weak TFF, so too did NEM follow INS and the numbers may have suffered from a double whammy, absence from box office and following a poorly received predecessor. Add to that the poorly received ENT TV series in the interim and a general lower lack of support for TNG from the broader Trek fanbase, not to mention a weak script and NEMESIS never stood a chance.
But overall, it would seem TNG never caught the interest of the entire fan base the way TOS did, nor was it as interesting to a newer general audience in the way that even the aging versions of the TOS actors did. Returning to TOS was clearly the right move in terms of galvanizing the whole fanbase and returning the most exciting and familiar characters to a general audience. If I had to guess, TNG will never return to the box-office, especially if CBS-D decides converting the entire TNG series to HD for syndication is cost prohibitive. Certainly, one thing that helps TOS is the fact it has been running in syndication constantly for 40 years and the ease of conversion and updating to HD, not to mention the popularity of the current film ensures it will be around for 40 more.
Almost forgot the most important observation:
1969 Star Trek (3rd season cancellation)
1979 TMP (reboot at boxoffice) – huge success
1989 TFF (worst of the 7 TOS-based films), TNG TV success
1999 INS poorly received, DS9 ends, VOY ratings drop
2009 Star Trek (reboot at boxoffice) – huge success
Trek seems to run in 10 year success/failure cycles, with box-office success coming every 20 years, following a reboot of key elements.
#48—-For me, the general explanation is much simpler than all of that.
The first 4 entries to the film series (TMP-TVH) were in the top ten versus their respective competition simply because they were better movies, IMO.
While I wouldn’t dismiss the notion that all of those other factors may have hurt those other 6 films to some degree at the BO, I don’t think that the absence of those factors would have resulted in any of those films making it into the top 10.
With that said, I do feel that the TNG films were handicapped from the beginning, in that the characters never had the crossover value of their TOS predecessors—upon which the first four original films were able to capitalize over an 8 year span (1979-1986). Obviously, TFF was a disaster, and the public taste for yet another one had been dimninished somewhat (not to mention the original cast was pretty long in the tooth by 1991’s TUC).
While the TNG characters have certainly since become sci-fi icons themselves, the TOS characters were/are “pop culture icons”, and there is a difference—-particularly in the potential for box-office receipts.
With the likes of mainstream figures such as Buzz Aldrin, Eddie Murphy, Tom Hanks, Ben stiller, President Obama, etc. referencing and indicating their interest in the Original Series to the public—-it is difficult not to acknowledge the disparity in crossover appeal between the original characters and those of the spinoffs (even the most successful of them). Aside from the most obvious factor (the individual film’s own merits), I think this is the most significant factor in looking at the BO results of the TOS movies (particularly the first 4) vs. those of the TNG-era.
I think the main issue here is that we have a move that everyone seems to like, yet not everyone is watching overseas, despite promotion, media coverage and things like that. My idea is that Star Trek XI is a tentpole movie, in a year full of tenpoles movies.
@ RD
That is interesting. I have looked what places the Star Trek films made in the year charts in Germany. I wanted to know if there are similarities to the USA numbers.
1980 TMP: 24
1982 TWOK : 39
1984 TSFS: 50
1987 TVH: 43
1989 TFF: 70
1992 TUC: 42
1995 GEN: 17
1996 FC: 13
1998 INS: 15
2003 NEM: 30
2009 Star Trek: 14 (at the 7. June 2009)
Some of the years are different to the US years because the films often started later in the cinemas in Germany.
All in all Germany numbers are completely different to the US ones. With the exception of TMP all TNG movies did better than the TOS movies. Even NEM did quite well in comparison to the TOS movies. I believe it help the newer movies, that at that time Star Trek were shown constantly on TV. The premiere of the TNG series was only in 1990 in Germany on a public channel. Then since 1994 it was shown on a private channel. That channel help Star Trek a lot. I can still clearly remember that they show each afternoon TNG often with a TOS episode before it. Later there were double episodes also in combination with DS9 or VOY. All in all everyday you could see 2 hours Star Trek. And the channel also repeated every year all movies. Today a smaller private sister channel still does this. That was very good marketing for the newer Star Trek films. The channel did its best to make a hype around GEN with success! I also remember that Shatner and Stewart were on two TV shows promoting GEN personally. I can’t remember if actors did the same when the other Star Trek movies came out. I only know that they didn’t promote the new movies this way in Germany.
The whole Star Trek hype did lasts a few years. The TNG movies after GEN also profited from it. But now it is very different. No big TV channel is showing Star Trek anymore. A smaller private channel is now the “Star Trek channel” in Germany. They repeat the movies each year and at the moment they also have TOS and ENT in their program. But they only show TOS on Saturday morning at 05:45 and ENT at midday 12:35 on Sunday. They couldn’t have chosen worst times but it is better than no series at all on TV which were also the case for some time.
So the new film and the old ones had it harder because of this. In contrary to what you wrote for the USA, I think Star Trek series exposure on TV help Star Trek movies to do good in Germany in the cinemas. The more Star Trek on TV, the better is the box office.
The new movie is at the moment (7.6.2009) on place 14. I guess it is probably that at least 10 more movies will surpass Star Trek in the box office charts. That would make it together with TMP the most successful TOS movie, but it won’t be as good as most TNG movies.
Box office chart 2009 from Germany:
http://www.insidekino.de/DJahr/D2009.htm
#50 and your opinion is as valid as anyone else’s. From a story/filmmaking perspective I think there is almost unilateral consensus that TWOK ranks in the top 2 with the ST09. And everybody seems to agree that NEM, INS & TFF rank at the bottom. However, to say TSFS or TVH home is are better than TUC or FC is purely subjective. I never had any great love for TNG, but FC was a first rate movie for me, every bit as good as TWOK, with the exception it did not feature my favorite characters. TUC still ranks above TSFS and TVH for me overall. I leave TMP out because like ST09 it was the first of the new film franchise and probably ranks down around TSFS, TVH & TUC in terms of story & filmmaking. TUC country was certainly a better film than GEN, yet GEN equalled the year end ranking and made more money.
Rankings will always be subjective. Here are some critical rankings compiled from Rotten Tomatoes:
Star Trek: First Contact 91%
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan 90%
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home 84%
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country 82%
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock 76%
Star Trek: Insurrection 55%
Star Trek: The Motion Picture 50%
Star Trek: Generations 49%
Star Trek: Nemesis 36%
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier 21%
I certainly wouldn’t rank them that way. However, assuming all of the critics and every reviewer are not Trekkers, it gives a more balanced perspective on what constitutes the best the franchise has to offer to a broad audience. So yes, I do think one has to look at more than just what one individual or group perceives as the better film in determining its success at the box office.
#52 – that is interesting. I took a look at the Foreign grosses as well and the international box office rankings seem reflect the trend you’ve observed in Germany:
1. TMP
2. ST09
3. FC
4. GEN
5. TVH
6. INS
7. TWOK
8. TUC
9. TFF
10. TSFS
11. NEM
But no matter how you slice it, something terrible happened to Nemesis worldwide with the obvious exception of Germany and probably some other territories. My own personal feeling is that it is better than INS, & possibly TFF in many respects.
But yes, TNG seemed to have much greater international box office appeal than in the US. Unfortunately neither was enough to sustain it, so I’m back to lack of interest in TNG and the direction Trek was going on TV killed the franchise overall.
interesting read. thank you.
Greg UK
This is some astonishingly good box office analysis. Of course, it’s always that good at TrekMovie, but I felt it needed saying.
I’ll start gearing up for the franchise victory party we’re totally throwing when we break $235.3 mil.
Star Trek on IMAX has returned to Ottawa! Three showings per day, every day. Museum is down to 1 IMAX showing a day here. Glad I waited for my 4th viewing. I’ll have to make some time this week.
I have to admit confusion as to why Star Trek is doing so poorly overseas? Are Americans just bigger nerds than the rest of the world? It seems like it should have more to offer an international audience given its diverse cast compared with most Hollywood films. Chekov’s horrible accent must be pissing of the Russians or something.
11. The Last Maquis – June 12, 2009
“Please won’t Transformers Hurry up and come out so it’ll Crush this thing and I won’t have to hear about it anymore.”
Then why are you on this particular thread reading about it?
#48
TMP was #2 not #4.
#60 It depends on whose numbers you use. We seem to like Box Office Mojo around here, so for 1979, TMP was #4 domestic box office grosser. It’s not summarized on BOM, so look up the top 4 yourself if you want to verify. But I’ve included the top 10 1979 movies since TMP & ST09 seem to be running a similar course to compare respective box office competition. Interestingly enough, only 1 film in 1979 broke $100M, where at least 2 films each in ‘78 and ‘80 broke $100M & at least one broke $200M each year.
1979
#1 Kramer vs. Kramer
#2 The Amityville Horror
#3 Rocky II
#4 ST:TMP
#5 Alien
#6 Apocalypse Now
#7 Moonraker
#8 10
#9 The Jerk
#10 The Muppet Movie
ST09 should hit TMP domestic gross milestone by next weekend if not before. However, it still has to make up roughly $50M between its domestic & foreign take to equal TMP’s adjusted foreign gross of roughly $169M, for a total of about $404M worldwide to equal TMP.
#58
Lot’s of reasons have been offered: TREK is too American, in a negative way; TREK doesn’t translate well internationally; the geek factor; STAR WARS comparison and competition; too cerebral and wordy for underdeveloped countries; poor marketing…. I guess there is some truth is all of these. Personally, I think it’s also because the TREK movies have not been spectacles, or appeared cinematic enough to even qualify as movies–at least the kind of movies audiences around the world crave and expect from genre-based films. I haven’t seen ST09 yet, but, by spending $140 million, I’m sure the movie looks like a spectacle.
Again with TMP! I find the constant comparison annoying, at best. First, the $239M figure is the number to beat. When that is a done deal, we’re given the $404M ww number to beat. What’s next, the betamax/vhs/dvd/blueray sales numbers??
I realize TMP is a sacred cow to some, but give me a break! This current movie is more succesful than TMP ever was, or ever will be. And it’s a better movie! Paramount was so disappointed with the performance of TMP that it reduced the budget of a proposed sequel and basically gave Roddenberry his walking papers (in regards to future films). Hear any talk of that kind from Paramount now?
I do have a fondness for TMP, mainly because it was the first. But it was a slow, tedious, boring movie with no heart.
Here’s the $domestic:$rest-of-world ratios I calculated…
TMP 1:.69
INS 1:.60, FC 1:.59, GEN 1:.56, NEM 1:.55
TFF 1:.35, TUC 1:.29, TWOK 1:.21, TVH 1:.21, TSFS 1:.14
“First, the $239M figure is the number to beat. When that is a done deal, we’re given the $404M ww number to beat. What’s next, the betamax/vhs/dvd/blueray sales numbers??”
No, the percentage-return-on-budget number — ~$600M.
“And it’s a better movie!”
Just more spectacular, like a fireworks display.
“Paramount was so disappointed with the performance of TMP that it reduced the budget of a proposed sequel and basically gave Roddenberry his walking papers (in regards to future films).”
More fools they. The history of the films is an absolute shame. The first film perhaps started out wrong, but at least ended correctly, leading into an expectable next episode — and that opportunity was promptly thrown away. The second film introduced new characters who could have taken over as a next generation — and that opportunity was promptly thrown away. The third film went to great lengths to bring back a character whose arc ended in the first. The fourth ended the same way as the first, but the fifth was basically an appendix, and the sixth ended the series. What a waste.
Glad to see the comment about Space 1999. I would love to see a reboot similar to how Star Trek came back.
#65 – LOL, Opcode pointed out at one point that ROI may not be applicable when it comes to numbers on this scale in this day and age, and I tend to agree. Money is after all, money. At the end of the day, while TMP had a 4.04:1 return on investment, there is no reason ST09 needs to gross a proportional amount more than its budget to unseat TMP at the top spot on the list. If ST09 makes $1M more than TMP picture made over its budget, that’s still an exceptional profit. The reality is that it simply costs more to make a film of this type that will compete with current films at the box office and meet audience expectation. Therefore, the expectation of ROI must be less than it once was. In the same way an auto dealer must take a lower percentage today on the sale of an SUV than it did 10 years ago, despite the fact the SUV costs the same amount to make. Profit is profit. I would certainly not hold ST09 to TMP ROI.
Also, because of the nature of the film business 30 years ago and the paucity of data available, if ST09 comes anywhere close, I would consider it the new top dog. Frankly, I consider TMP a fluke anyway, that delivered on the decade-long build-up for the return of Star Trek as well as capitalizing on blockbuster space-themed movies ignited by Star Wars, which Trek filled handily in the protracted time it took Lucas to bring a sequel to the boxoffice. Moreover as successful as TMP was, it was a failure compared to Star Wars (which had an ROI of approx. 55:1), which is what Paramount was expecting. It was also a failure for the audiences. With mainly the fans driving the boxoffice, it was a disappointment to general movie-goers who might have been expecting a Star Wars style filler and got a plodding 2001 with much less interesting characters instead. In fact only about 60% of the audience returned for TWOK (just the fans?).
What is interesting to me is the number of similarities to the release of TMP & ST09. Both come at a time of national recession. Both are reboots of a dead franchise, with a nostalgia building for TOS over the last decade via highly rated DS9 & ENT episodes. Both had massive marketing campaigns with promotional tie-ins and merchandising. Both had similar budgets. Both sought to compete with similar films at the box-office. Both seem to be grossing in the same ballpark at the boxoffice. The only difference seems to be that ST09 is a much better made movie for the audiences’ expectations. What’s clear, is that ST09 seems to be doing no better than TMP, despite its better reception by everyone. However, I don’t think this one is a fluke. Certainly the sequel should do better than TMP’s did, at least the same box-office or better by audience retention alone.
Of course ST09 has the added benefit of a healthy DVD market, which TMP did not. However, TMP was released on VHS & Beta in 1980, then again in 1982 and numerous special editions into the 1990s, followed by the conversion to DVD. Essentially TMP has had a 30-year head start on ST09 in numerous formats providing opportunities for repurchasing. Frankly, ST09 does not stand a chance making as much home video revenue as TMP, so I would not even begin to compare them, even if the data were available. But I’m not worried about ST09 at all, or its sequel, though I am extremely interested to see how the sequel proceeds compared to the TMP’s.
Is $400M worldwide the most any Trek movie can make at the box office? If so, I doubt Paramount will be the slightest bit unhappy with that prospect.
although we have reporting on the whole TMP thing, I still only think that is somewhat irrelevent. It is a different era. What was much more important to Paramount was if the movie could compete like other modern tentpoles. Star Trek v Batman Begins was always more important. Star Trek has acheived that, exceeding domestic hopes, but falling a bit short internationally. That is not to say that the sequel is expected to be anything like The Dark Knight, but there can be no doubt that Paramount is very satisfied with Trek and with the team that made it. That could not b said of TMP, as Paramount went in a totally different direction in terms of the team, design, budget, etc for the second film.
So when Trek passes the TMP number we will report that, but it is just a footnote really. Trek is already the success that it needed to be, with international obviously being an area Paramount needs to do some work on.
,,That could not b said of TMP, as Paramount went in a totally different direction in terms of the team, design, budget, etc for the second film.
Firstly my thoughts/rant on Paramount, the Paramount expectations for ST:TMP to active smilier success as Star Wars was pretty obvious now hindsight 20/20 unrealistic. Actually ludicrous. Star Wars was a phenomenal when it came out in 1977 and as of day the second most popular movie at the box office(adjusted for inflation). Also no matter how we look at this. Paramount has mishandled Star Trek movie franchise with TOS cast from day 1. They went from TV series to B-quality movie back to TV-series until they decided to make A-quality movie. They hired legendary Robert Wise to direct but Paramount gives him deadline to finish the movie that was almost impossible to finish correctly. Robert Wise himself as said that he needed more time and ST:TMP is the only movie that he didn’t have a change to screen-test it before it realize. Paramount refused the editor of Citizen Kane a change to edit ST:TMP correctly. We all know if any Star Trek needed proper screen-test and editing it was ST:TMP. Thankfully it seems there are smarter people behind Paramount now than 1979 because when Star Trek 11 wasn’t totally ready in December they moved to Mai.
Regarding Paramount direction after ST:TMP wasn’t handled any better. Instead of taking any blame for ST:TMP screw ups they in their wisdom took the franchise from its creator Roddenberry and gave it to relative unknown a TV producer who had limited knowledge in Science fiction and knew nothing about Star Trek. Not a clue. This TV producer agrees to make a Star Trek movie with no budget and hired a unknown TV director were his first response was when he was offered job was ,,the show with the guy with a pointy ears right,, and to this day this 2 guys are considered as Star Trek messiah by most fans for saving Star Trek.
#69. TMP is no different or less relevant to today’s box office than it was in its own. In 1977, Paramount saw Star Wars gross $461M domestically over a budget of $13M. Then 6 months later saw Close Encounters of the Third Kind gross $128M over a budget of $19M. Then they said, hey we have a Sci-Fi franchise so we can make the same kind of money with it! They rushed TMP to the box office in order to beat the Star Wars sequel 6 months later where it would rule the Summer, which grossed $290M over a budget of $18M. Trek was greenlit with a budget of $15M, but it quickly ballooned to $25M not including the $10M+ in substantial development costs of Phase II.
Anyone who has ever read anything about TMP will know the production was a mess. They began behind schedule and fell further behind with every shooting day. Much of the blame was placed squarely on Roddenberry for incessant re-writes and failure to control the production. Since he was the sole “producer” it was his job to bring the film in on budget. Despite Paramount holding the line and failing to give Wise enough time to finish the film, It was clear the major critical faults concerning the plodding plot, lay with Roddenberry’s script. In the end Paramount had spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $35-46M on a film that only grossed around $82M at the domestic box office. Far from the numbers SW, Close Encounters, or even Superman had made. Further, like ST09 they poured much of their marketing resources into promoting what would ultimately be a critical flop.
Nevertheless, TMP was still #4 at the 1979 box office, so there would be more. Since TMP did not gross anywhere near Close Encounters, much less SW, which were also made for less than half the budgets, it only makes sense that Paramount wanted to make changes. If TMP had even made as much as Superman (which had a similar budget), perhaps things would have turned out differently. But they likely felt Roddenberry had betrayed them, much like NBC & the Cage pilot which was hardly a “wagon train to the stars”. And it was clear he could not handle the reigns of producing a major motion picture, given the delays and how much it went over budget during production. Unlike the Cage, this time Roddenberry didn’t get another chance. For what it’s worth, TWOK was produced for a similar budget to Star Wars 5 years earlier.
In stark contrast with ST09, Abrams had already proven himself a trustworthy producer who could bring in a money-earning film on budget and on time with MI:III and did it again. Despite the fact ST09 is not performing any better than TMP, yet, as Anthony has pointed out, it is holding its own and outperforming other “successful” genre films at the box-office, which is ultimately the goal. Therefore, no reason to change production teams. The same is true of TMP. If Roddenberry had delivered the film on time and on budget, regardless if it was still a critical failure, Paramount might have left him at the helm, to brainstorm a more exciting sequel (in much the same way he was allowed to produce a second pilot for NBC).
Ultimately, TWOK was #6 and TVH was #5. ST09 is likely going to end up in similar company against similar competition at the box office. ST09 is still driven by the fans and better movie or not, how it stacks up against others in the franchise, paints an informative picture about Trek as a whole, regardless of how it stacks up against other films at the box office.
How much money the film makes relative to other films in the franchise is not necessarily important except in one respect: it shows a historical benchmark of Trek’s popularity and sustainability. The other Trek films had to compete with similar films at the box office. And in the case of the first 4, they all ended up in the top 10, 3 of which with handsome ROIs.
ST09 doesn’t cost any more to produce than its current box office competition. However, it still has to earn a good ranking at the box office, just like films made 30 years ago. What makes a particular type of film popular during any given year will vary, but as long as a film ranks in the top 10, it does pretty well. That’s what TMP tells, us … and looking at all the rest. Trek has been successful in the past and there’s no reason it cannot be again, which ST09 is certainly proving. Like the SUV that costs the same to make as it did 10 years ago but sells for less profit today, if Paramount wants to compete with the big boys for blockbuster marquee space, it has to spend more and earn less and make it up in volume. That is the only difference between 1979 and 2009.
#66 –
Absolutely loved that series, the first season!! The second, uh, …. not so much, coincidently produced by the same ‘new” producer that killed season 3 of the OS. Unfortunately, it would need to be renamed Space:2039 due to our wasted opportunities and short-sightedness. I get angry when I realize that we set foot on the moon 40 YEARS AGO, did nothing, and now are told we might get back in 10 years!! WTF!!! What a waste!!!
OK, I’m done with that off-topic rant.
#’s 67-70 -
Thanks for the informative and intelligent analysis!