OK, I’m done with that off-topic rant.

#’s 67-70 -
Thanks for the informative and intelligent analysis!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.