After a long life of 21 weeks in theaters, JJ Abrams new Star Trek movie has officially ended its run. The film is still in a handful of theaters (including some IMAX), but distributors will no longer be tracking performance. The final tally, as of last Thursday, brings the film a few thousand short of $385 Million world-wide, which is certainly a big success, especially for a franchise that was given up for dead by some just a few years ago. See below for more analysis
Star Trek is Back
According to Box Office Mojo, Star Trek’s domestic tally is $257.7 over the 147 day theatrical run. This includes $28.1 Million for IMAX (or around 11%). This makes it the highest grossing and highest attended film in the Trek franchise.
Star Trek’s performance makes it the 47th highest grossing film of all time (180th when adjusting for inflation). More importantly, Star Trek ended up beating expectations, by outperforming its two primary May 2009 competitors, X-Men Wolverine ($179.9M) and Terminator Salvation ($125.3). The film is currently the 5th ranked film for 2009 (Fall/Holiday releases like 2012, Sherlock Holmes, New Moon and Avatar could push it down the list). The film also met Paramount’s goals of of putting it into league with other recent tentpole films, like Iron Man, and ‘franchise reboots’ like Batman Begins and Casino Royale.
Star Trek has work to do internationally
Although Star Trek was a hit domestically (which covers US and Canada), internationally it was more of a mixed bag. According to the international distributor, Star Trek brought in $127.2M overseas. This is quite good for the franchise, and the best outing since Star Trek The Motion Picture.
(note: chart below adjusts inflation based on domestic release year, although much of international sales came later, so these are ‘best cases’)
With the strength of it’s domestic sales, Star Trek brought in around $385M total worldwide, which currently ranks it 8th for the year. But when you look just at its international sales, the film is ranked 13th. In the last two decades, Trek films have just not been a strong performer overseas. A number of films that Star Trek eclipsed at home, ended up beating it overseas.
As a percentage, Star Trek earned about 1/3 of its total money overseas, which is very low for modern big budget movies (except for comedies). Most films earn closer to 50%, with some films (like Ice Age 2, and Angels & Demons) earning up to 70% or more overseas. When one looks closer at the numbers, you can see that Star Trek actually performed well in the English-speaking countries (UK, Ireland, Australia, & New Zealand), where its competitive position was not unlike the domestic ranking. However, everywhere else in the world, the film did not perform like a Hollywood tentpole, and more like a medium-sized Hollywood movie. For example, in the UK Star Trek is ranked 6th for the year with $35.2M, but in Korea it is ranked 27th with $5.7M, in Mexico it is ranked 30th with $3.4M, in France it ranked 42nd with $7.0M.
As for why Star Trek under-performed in the non-English speaking world, there is no obvious single answer. One factor is clearly that Star Trek has never been a strong brand outside the English speaking countries (with the exception of Germany). In the past Star Trek films have been short on action and long on dialog, which has not worked well vs. other summer tentpoles. Even though the new Star Trek tried to redress this balance, it is possible that many foreign film goers just didn’t give it a chance and didn’t get the message that this was a totally new kind of Star Trek film (hopefully those that did go can help the word of mouth for the next film). Another factor could be that the film had no big bankable stars in (like a Tom Cruise, Wil Smith, Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, etc.). Even though studios make more money off their domestic sales (less middlemen, no currency issues, etc), international sales are no longer the ‘extra’ bit for a movie. For the Star Trek sequel to break into the $500M+ category of ‘super blockbusters’ it is going to need to find a way to increase its appeal to non-English speaking audiences.
Home Video coming November 17th
The next big milestone for the Star Trek movie is the highly anticipated release on home video. The movie is getting three core releases in North America (1 disk DVD, 2 disk DVD, 3 disk Blu-ray), plus some special gift sets. There are also special sets in the UK, Germany and Japan. Paramount executives have been talking up the sales of Star Trek home video to investors, so it seems that they expect to be a big factor in their 4th quarter returns. It is possible that the film can build some more goodwill for first time viewers who waited until he film was available to rent, especially overseas.
And you can reserve your copy now, see below for pre-orders, including the Amazon and Best-buy gift sets.
|Star Trek 2009||3-disk set
3-disk set w/ replica
3-disk set w/ badges
I am in Spain, a country that hasn´t ever had a big Star Trek following. But one thing I can say is that the few people that have seen it over here have loved it and none of the had seen anything to do with Trek before
See .. Star Trek TMP was also an excellent performer. Personally I thought that was the best film they did.
TMP gets a bad rap. It’s at least better than Insurrection, Nemesis and ST V.
-“A blessing! A blessing from the Lord!”
-“God be praised!”
“Star Trek ended up beating expectations, by outperforming its two primary May 2009 competitors, X-Men Wolverine ($179.9M) and Terminator Salvation ($125.3). ”
dont forget Angels and Demons (133m) – so much so it nearly retained its no 1 spot for the 2nd wkend over A&D
its good to look at the imdb domestic BO charts and see how Trek beat some of this decades biggest films that just a short while ago you wouldnt think a Trek film wouldve been able to do in a million years
stuff like I Am Legend, Harry Potter 3, War of the Worlds (2005), King Kong (2005), The Da Vinci Code, all the X men films, Gladiator, Matrix 3, T3 etc
i mean who would think star trek could ever beat a Batman or Terminator movie?
Chris Pine needs a fairly high profile role to make him a more world famous name before the next ST film.
It’s nice to know we Trek fans are back in the saddle again. The way Star Trek refs and innuendos have popped up in so much popular culture is also muy gratifying. They did a great job on ST 2009, with no huge stars and a premise many thought had been depleted. I’m one of those grannies that watch TOS when it first ran and loved it ever since.
Now I have one question. I should know the answer, but I don’t. Why was there never a Voyager movie? I know why there was no DS9 or Enterprise movie (they sucked). But Voyager, even though they completed their journey home, seemed to have a lot of charisma left over.
6 – Either that or cast Hanks, Cruise and Ford as a bunch of Captains and Admirals
seriously though its possible the sequel might get that Batman Begins, The Matrix, Austin Powers, Pirates Caribbean effect where the sequels went supernova and did about double what the previous one did (more in batmans case)….
people that missed what all the fuss was about took note of all the great WOM, caught it on dvd and were there for the sequel a couple of years later.
Star Trek certainly fits in with those so Trek ‘2’ could be looking at $500m ww (300m domestic, 200 overseas) – maybe more….thats why it might be a good business idea to have Khan in the sequel as it will power up the recognition factor too (like the joker appearing in TDK)
As an Irish fan, I have to ask, how well exactly in Ireland?
I went 2.95 times. The projector broke the first time, so I had the perfect excuse to go again!
So including the two times my Dad went, that’s about $45 from our house… I think I deserve a free DVD!
And is’nt 47 an important Star Trek number?
Ironic, is’nt it?!
With the goodwill generated by the first film, simply crank out a good story in the second one and watch it pull in $500 million!
p.s. cast Tom Hanks in a role (he loves Trek) and that will secure the deal!
I’m very proud to be a Star Trek fan and based on the numbers above, Star Trek is “in”. Also I have to agree with #4. The first 54 minutes of TMP are pretty cool. I don’t know what in the hell they were thinking, but the rest is painful to watch. Not as bad as the CG in STV or the (near) franchise killers that were Insurrection and Nemesis. Man am I glad the new movie rocked.
I hope this spawns a few more projects like:
Direct to DVD Movies
or even a Mini-Series
and of course, XII
I was with you for the first paragraph…but the notion that DS9 “sucked” but Voyager both had “charisma” and should have had a movie??? Yikes.
DS9 was fantastic, and easily holds its own with TOS and TNG. The complex philosophical, religious, and political allegories along with some fun story arcs really boosted its cred.
Voyager had about 3 seasons worth of good material, and while Enterprise did struggle with recycled scrips and continuity, there is no arguing that season 4 was probably better than anything Voyager put out there
The simple reason for Paramount not doing a feature film based on VOY, DS9 or ENT is that the studio is in the business to make a profit, and those brands (and actors) were not enough to carry a tent pole feature film, which is what they want out of the franchise. Back in the 80s, and into the 90s, Star Trek was a big part of the Paramount bottom line. They want that back, and that is what they did by going back to the core: Kirk and Spock.
@ 9. I think any fan who watches the film over 3 times should get some sort of recognition by paramount.
– $385 million for a franchise that was considered dead is great news. Well done to everyone involved.
– The return of Kirk and Spock was the key in bringing back the fans to ST. I have said for years that nobody, but the hardcore fans care about Star Trek unless they were involved. The many spinoffs were just copies of copies of copies. It seemed obvious that the way to save ST was to bring back it’s cultural icons.
– How much do you want to bet that we are going to see a big name in the sequel that will bring in more of an international audience?
– For all the talk about how “this isn’t your father’s Star Trek” I didn’t think the new film was very different than many of the others. It simply felt like an updated Kirk and Spock film with maybe a little more action thrown in. Just think how “slow” the orignal ‘Star Wars’ is compared the films like Transformers 2… Needless to say Star Wars is superior.
– With inflation taken into account “TMP” still has a slightly higher overall take than “Star Trek”
Worldwide adjusted box-office:
$388.7 million – Motion Picture
$384.5 million – Star Trek
$261.9 million – Voyage Home
$217.0 million – Wrath of Khan
$200.9 million – First Contact
$180.7 million – Search for Spock
$172.0 million – Generations
$151.3 million – Undiscovered Country
$147.5 million – Insurrection
$122.2 million – Final Frontier
$79.9 million – Nemesis
It’s amazing that “Star Trek” made nearly five times what “Nemesis” did.
– Why wasn’t “Star Trek” always treated with the kind of respect (and budget) that Paramont gave it this time out?
Take a look at the adjusted domestic box office returns… Star Trek, especially the Shatner/Nimoy films were blockbusters in their day. I would always laugh when people (on this board and others) would tell me that ST was never a big deal… They were wrong and the numbers prove it.
Domestic adjusted box-office:
$257.7 million – Star Trek
$230.0 million – Motion Picture
$216.1 million – Voyage Home
$176.5 million – Wrath of Khan
$158.9 million – Search for Spock
$126.6 million – First Contact
$116.9 million – Undiscovered Country
$110.2 million – Generations
$91.9 million – Insurrection
$90.9 million – Final Frontier
$51.2 million – Nemesis
– “Star Trek” is going to easily be the biggest ST project ever on dvd and Blu-ray. It has been at #1 (off and on) on Amazon since the first day you could pre-order it.
– All and all I don’t realistically think that Paramount could have asked for more this time out. Lets hope ST 2/12 takes the franchise to the next level the way “The Dark Knight” did for Batman.
– 2009 was the best year that the franchise has seen since it’s rebirth in 1979. A year ago the series was dead and buried to the general public. A year later “Star Trek” is back and as strong as ever and It has one of the most promising futures of any franchise I can think of.
– STAR TREK LIVES!!!
I saw the film 5 times, that means I enjoyed the film and found it great fun and captured the fun of TOS.
I am proud to be a Star Trek fan, always have been even when it seemed other fans had given up I had stayed with Trek all the way.
I have all the shows and enjoy all them all.
As much as I loved this film I still dont feel that its the best one, to me it is one of the better movies and gave it 8 out of 10.
yes they went back to the core but I would choose not to use the term prequel for this film as we are now in an alternate universe.
I just want people to not forget about what came before as a result of this movie
CmdrR – 3 viewings
1 LtR – 1 viewing
other LtR – 1 viewing
EnsR – 1 viewing
AdmrR – 1 viewing
$70 to JJ’s Tiffany toilet seat polishing fund
Here in Brazil, Star Trek had non-stop re-runs altogether with “Batman”, “Bewitched” and “Knight Rider”. But the name was translated into brazilian portuguese “Jornada nas Estrelas”(Journey to the Stars).
If the new movie had received it´s translated title “Jornada nas Estrelas” when it opened in brazilian teathers, instead of the original english “Star Trek”, i´m sure it would have more ressonance with the brazilian public.
George Lucas started this somewhat disrespectful trend of not translating the movie titles of the latest Star Wars movies to other countries.
For example, Star Wars for us, was always “Guerra nas Estrelas”. It was aired on TV countless times with that title.
Paramount shouldn´t have copied that trend.
TMP, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise all sucked. At # 7
“DS9 was fantastic, and easily holds its own with TOS and TNG. The complex philosophical, religious, and political allegories along with some fun story arcs really boosted its cred.”
These are the exact things that I don’t give a crap about seeing in a movie. I have my own philosophical, religious, and political views and the last thing I want is a Hollywood film telling me what they should be. The new movie for the most part lacked all of the above and was the most successful of them all. I don’t think that is coincidental. When I go to a movie I just want to be entertained and have a good time. I can go to church and watch cable news for the rest.
#17. captain_neill wrote: ” I just want people to not forget about what came before as a result of this movie”
What difference does it make if it is forgotten? As a fan, the only thing that matters is that it continues … and it will. Like it or not Abrams has found a new audience and almost certainly exposed the franchise to a new fans. Which means for those of us who already loved it, it endures. Who cares if no one remembers Bill Shatner’s Kirk? For many, Chirs Pine not only represents the only Kirk they know, but a more accessible one in line with their other contemporary film heroes.
17. agreed, It is technically a sequel, since Future Spock comes back in time from the post-nemesis era. It’s more of a time travel movie where they never return to the future. (thanks to all of those damned theoretical physicists that can’t make their minds up about how time works) but I did like Spock’s slam on Back To The Future (which is another awesome series btw that needs a reboot.)
The next film has to even more accessible to general audiences…more epic, larger scale, huge Kilngon war film, huge cinema shaking land / space battles and as much as some people are not into…Kahn.
He is ST’s Joker. The only ST bad guy the reaches beyond the fan base. He may only be in this new film a little bit, so he is set up as Kirk’s opponent for the 3rd and final film – yep, make it a trilogy and then end it.
20- (Best Bones voice) “Steve, you green-blooded hobgobblin…”
Actually, I see your point. As businessmen first, last, and in the middle Hollywood execs greenlit a movie that sold tickets. We can expect it to be the same with the sequel. Personally, I hope JJ sneaks in some social commentary or lofty ethical ideas, but I doubt he will. TOS Trek had a lot going on for 1960s TV. But now, movies that aspire to make us think tend to offer theatre owners the chance to air out the seat cushions. So, while I wish it would happen, I’m not holding my breath.
Still, it´s a pity that this new timeline is doomed anyway.
The romulan Hobus star will explode again in this newtimeline, as it´s its natural course, and this time there´s no more RedMatter to stop it since the planet Vulcan was the only source of it´s raw materials.
A real shame.
I’m very glad that a series that is usually cliqued as being for “nerds” got a good following with the general public. (Unfortunately I have to call myself a “nerd” for seeing it 10 times:)
Well, regarding DS9, which I mischaracterized by saying sucked, actually was sucking squared, IMHO. Story arcs, I’ll give you, but the voodoo spirituality stuff, the flimsy political constructs and the infantile allegorical attempts were precisely what turned me into a hooting detractor. Not to mention a captain that was acting in his sleep, ugly-ass sets and the lack of that spirit of exploration that drove every other ST spinoff. They did come off with revisiting Tribbles, that was awesome, but the way it eclipsed the overwhelming majority other episodes was telling. Moreover: everything brightens up when a member of the TNG cast shows up. (1)
I never saw season 4 of ENT, so I probably should retract that one. The episodes I saw were half baked recycled stories funneled through a lackluster cast. However, everything brightens up when a member of the TNG cast shows up. (2)
Totally agree w/everyone that says the Kirk and Spock ST is the proven model for the future of the franchise.
ST TMP prior to the director’s cut; completely horrid.
ST TMP Director’s cut; top 5 ST movies behind only STII, ST09, STIV, STFC.
#16. VOODOO wrote: “Star Trek, especially the Shatner/Nimoy films were blockbusters in their day. I would always laugh when people (on this board and others) would tell me that ST was never a big deal… They were wrong and the numbers prove it.”
Thanks for pointing that out. ST:09 is merely back to what Star Trek could be. The last 4 films were not really Star Trek, they were TNG, and they split the audience and took the franchise in a direction that had little to do with what made the franchise great and the early films successful.
#16. VOODOO wrote: “Why wasn’t “Star Trek” always treated with the kind of respect (and budget) that Paramont gave it this time out?”
Greed? I’ve updated the chart below to include adjusted budget numbers (in italics), with domestic grosses in bold. The ROI is generally quite high on these films.
380 –– 84
370 –– ––
360 –– ––
350 –– ––
340 –– ––
330 –– ––
320 –– ––
310 –– ––
300 –– ––
290 –– ––
280 –– ––
270 –– ––
260 –– ––
250 –– 57 58
240 –– –– ––
230 35 –– ––
220 –– –– ––
210 –– –– 12 14
200 –– –– –– ––
190 –– –– –– 92 98
180 –– –– –– –– ––
170 –– –– –– –– –– 78 72
160 –– –– –– –– –– 63 ––
150 –– 50 –– –– –– –– –– 52 55
140 –– –– –– –– 49 –– –– –– ––
130 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– ––
120 –– –– –– –– –– –– 29 27 ––
110 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– ––
100 00 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 07 08
090 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 94
080 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 80
070 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 76 –– 71
060 –– –– –– –– 61 –– –– –– –– –– ––
050 –– –– 52 –– –– –– 00 –– –– –– 53
040 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 46 ––
030 –– –– –– –– –– 34 –– –– –– –– ––
020 –– –– –– 24 –– –– –– 27 –– –– ––
010 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– ––
000 01 11 04 02 08 03 07 06 09 05 10
I want those new fans to see Shatner as Kirk.
You want Trek as we know it to be forgotten?
God no, Back to the Future does not need a reboot
too many reboots these days
Stick with the originals, always better
Wy do you insult TNG
TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT are as much Star Trek as TOS to me
I place the new Trek movie in 6th place
14… “The simple reason for Paramount not doing a feature film based on VOY, DS9 or ENT is that the studio is in the business to make a profit, and those brands (and actors) were not enough to carry a tent pole feature film, which is what they want out of the franchise”
Anthony, I really think something else was going on. Sure DS9, VOY and ENT were not big hits. But neither were “The X Files” and “Firefly”. David Duchovny, Gillian Anderson, and Nathan Fillion are hardly big names that can carry a movie, but for some reason we got X Files and Firefly feature films. We even got a second “X Files” movie long, long after anyone gave a darn. “Nemesis” did twice the box office of both “Serenty” and “I Want To Believe”. The Stargate franchise got lower ratings even than “Enterprise”, but we have two Direct-to-DVD movies for SG1 and one coming for Atlantis. DS9, VOY and ENT never got lower ratings than BSG, but BSG has “The Plan” coming out on DVD later this year while the modern Treks are treated like pariahs.
There is a reason Paramount/CBS are sitting on the modern Treks and refusing even Direct-to-DVD reunions, but it isn’t a bottom dollar reason, that simply doesn’t add up.
star trek voyager tv series has a much better version in one of its plots than the stupid Abrams movie for alot less money than all the nonsense above. Seams like the movie just about copied the whole idea from the show.
As an eternal optimist, I thinking the video release will help prime the rest of the world for the sequel. Maybe they didn’t want to risk $10 (or international equivalent) or a property they thought was dialog-heavy. Once they see it, it’ll catch on….and they’ll be ready for the sequel.
(It might be helpful to put someone like Tom Hanks into a key role. Great actor. Trek fan. International superstar. Win/Win.)
TNG should never have been put in the cinema. It was an extremely strong TV brand. Just because a show works well on TV doesn’t mean it will translate comfortably to the cinema. In the case of TNG, they sucked the show’s brains out.
TOS was comfortable blending action and philosophy. TNG was very talky and, long term, just didn’t work retooled as an action movie franchise.
They’d have been better off keeping TNG running on TV for a few more years, gradually introducing new characters (Riker replacing Picard as Captain, Worf leaving and joining DS9 and so on) redesigned sets and maybe even the Enterprise-E.
To this day the destruction of the Enterprise-D being down to no one on the ship having the brains to check Geordi’s Visor after he’s been imprisoned and tortured by major enemies of both the Federation and the Klingon Empire sticks in the craw!
All this talk that goes on about parallel universes . . . well, I choose to see the TNG movies as a parallel universe separate from the TV show’s universe: one where everyone is infinitely more stupid!
Would the same people who created rotating shield frequencies and managed to defeat a Borg invasion really let their chief engineer walk around with a lipstick camera strapped to his head?
I’m thrilled the new film did well. It had its weaknesses, but was made with enough brio to get away with it. I look forward to adding it to my Blu-ray collection in a month or so!
Ha Ha Ha Ha ,……. Nemisis???,…. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
I have watches worth more money!!!
I am from Germany and i Can Say here was almost no promotion..Not in the beiggest newspaper “BILD-Zeitung” a little bit in tv and almost no trailer sin the cinemas…thats fact. So you can’t bring people in the cinemas, when the hole promotion-budget is spend to the US-market.
trek was definitely missing its fun factor, jj brought it back which is why this movie did so well.
trek was being crushed under its own heavy handedness.
#30. captain_neill wrote: “You want Trek as we know it to be forgotten?”
Not at all. But it will happen. And in the end it doesn’t matter if anyone remembers it or not as long as the franchise goes on … right?
#32. captain_neill wrote: ” RD Wy do you insult TNG”
I don’t mean to. I liked a lot of TNG. But the fact is, Star Trek was and will always be TOS to me. Kirk, Spock & McCoy. Anything else, for better or worse, is not the same thing. TNG is NOT TOS, anymore than DS9 is TNG. Very different animals. I’m sure that is a reason the ST:09 title went back to the two words by themselves: “Star Trek”. While these shows all exist in the same “Star Trek” universe, they are far from the same. In much the same way all of the CSI’s are NOT the same. Vegas, Miami and New York all have similarities, but for my money they could all be produced by different creators and studios. It’s the stories and characters that define a show and sticking a label on something does not necessarily make it so.
Also, TNG split the fanbase, the film numbers demonstrate that – on average TNG generated half the numbers of TOS films. If they were the same thing, the numbers should not have fallen. Paramount tried to simply replace one with the other, keeping the same film title format (“Star Trek: fill in the blank”), but ultimately audiences didn’t buy it. With the return of young Kirk and Spock, the numbers are back where they were before TNG came along, ultimately suggesting a provable difference.
It really did look possible for a while that it might cross the big 300 barrier for domestic, but heck, it busted those blocks anyway, so everyone involved should be proud of its success as a product. A job well done producing a product well-sold.
I’m from Denmark, and I know why Star trek doesn’t do well here. It’s because no one knew that there even was a new movie out. I didn’t see a single trailer or commercial for ST09 on TV or anywhere else in this country.
Trek should do better overseas. But, it could stand to add some (good) international actors and locales. Certainly, the sheer beauty of China’s countryside should be worth a look — even if JJ has to call it Ceti Alpha V. (Or was that VI?)
Both the new Batman movies made a point of including Asia, with no loss to the quality of the films and perhaps a great boost to the bottom lines.
From the INTERNATIONAL adjusted gross of all Star Trek movies, the discrepancy between TMP and TWOK is mind boggling. My interpretation is that lots of folks were curious about Star Trek and went to see TMP, but didn’t connect/like and therefore didn’t even bother to go see TWOK.
agreed @ rocky and thor
I’m from Germany – a country where we have FedCons and are very Trekkish since the early seventies …
There was nearly NO promotion here, very, very few trailers in TV but you really had to watch out for them and thats it. Some movies didn’t even show the trailers – but the fans knew and spread the word, took others with them into the movie …
…. then there was the problem of a very bad dubbing (in my opinion)
…. there are only 4 IMAX in Germany and none of them showed Trek :(
…. there are several more Digital 3D Movietheaters in Germany, but none of them showed Trek
… maybe there is an financial or lobbiysh problem
The Trek-Fans are there … a lot of them ….
1st. Of all trek never was dead! Dvd sales have always been syrong. Trek has always oulled good ratings TOS TNG in reeuns SYFI made a bad error in no longer running TNG. Ent. Is doing well. Saving Syfis butt the junk & they are trying to show now! Ugh! We fans still hold cons, around the world. Trek speaks a great message! That needs to be heard! My familyu 4 gens. Strong. The movie awakened othres. They now are watching the reruns new to newcomers. Trek willalways have a solid place in scufi as jules Verne, gGG Wells and Gene roddenberry. Rek is classic scifi it can only get better like any vintage wine or romulan ale!
I saw it twice in theaters, once in Bangkok and again in NY on my way back home fm Asia. Saw it many more times on the scuzzy Russian DVD I picked up in Shanghai. Looking fwd to the DVD release. Wonder if I should get a Blu-Ray machine. They’re at like $169 now or less.
Glad to hear the DVD release is going to be a blowout. Didn’t know that.
I can’t seem to find the exact number Trek did over here as on a lot of sites such as box office mojo we get lumped in with the UK figures but I remember reading that Trek did roughly around a 1m – 1.5m euro in Ireland, finished up 12th overall this year so far at the Irish box office.
On the bankability issue I’d love to see Tom Hanks in the sequel or at some stage anyway in the future in Trek. The guy is a bona fide Trekkie and a great actor. It would be fantastic to see him cast as the villain maybe as he’s always been the good guy in anything he’s done so it would be a complete change of pace for him and of course his name on the credits couldn’t harm the box office! I’d take him over Cruise or that who would be phoning it in to collect a paycheck or slumming it in their eyes.
Actually lets start the Hanks for Commodore Decker campaign! He’d make a great absolutely driven insane starship commander!
47th highest-grossing film of all time after 147 days in the theaters.
That’s just weird, in a really cool way.