209 my ass!
there's no way star trek is at 209, if you go and look at the total gross every weekend you will see that they lied and made the box office numbers higher than what they really are.
star trek is not at 209, it's a lie.
and it bombed overseas.

Ummm. you do realize that people go and see movies during the week as well, not just on weekends? Not as many true, but they still go, meaning it is probably $209. Think sometimes before you post.

He was right though....it did bomb overseas.

Trek by NO means "bombed" overseas. Trek films have traditionally been "soft" overseas, and Star Trek has actually done better than all the other Trek films overseas. With over $200 million domestically in only 4 weeks, I'd say quite a few people like this film, even love it. I have taken quite a few friends with me who have never liked Star Trek and it and they thought it was awesome. If YOU don't like it, don't go see it.....with these box office numbers, you won't be missed.

I am not sure I would say a movie making $92,015,063 in non-US reciepts is a bomb. Especially when you consider that Star Trek has not opened in all non-US markets. Non-US markest also tend to be longer runs then the movie gluttoned US theaters producing legs.

You may want to look here, to see the box office totals:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

You can see that, indeed, Star Trek sits at $209,500,000 for its four-week run. You can also check the overseas amounts by clicking on the movie title.

Clearly some people don't understand how things work in the overseas movie market.

I saw Star Trek on a weekday, and for a small theater it was 2/3 full, with people coming in during the opening scene. I've seen this movie multiple times, and plan to see it again. For a summer movie it's got really impressive legs, too.

Sure wish I had time to spare. I really want to see 'Up'.

I'm sorry but anyone counting the cash flow created by a summer film that doesn't reap any of those rewards needs to take a step back and reassess there priorities. All of these movies appeared to have made a $#@!load of money. But on with the gladiatorial competitions if you please.

it hasn't bombed over seas by any means, it's playing in only a few foreign markets. It hasn't even opened in Asian territories yet.

It's good to actually know what you're talking about before talking about it.

I love the post saying Star Trek has bombed internationally... making close to 100 million (mostly with only 1-2 weeks of box office numbers) while Monsters vs Aliens has made 150 million so is that movie a bust as well?

Considering this Star Trek has already doubled the most profitable ST movie ever I think it has done pretty well.

Oh, dear, jcroasdaile, you'd best gird your loins my friend, 'cause the newTrek-haters are gonna come for you now! LOL ;^)

good grief, what a load of retards. A "bomb" is determined by how much something makes in relation to its budget. To go into profit, Trek needs to clear at least $400m worldwide. It might be doing alright in the US, but the US alone will not take it near $400m. And since it hasnt even cleared $100m yet overseas, that makes it a BOMB. The performance of previous Trek films overseas is not relevant to the equation.

Worldwide gross is $301.5 million. So far.

Sigh...the way people address each other over this "isssue," you'd think it was Northern Ireland.

"Considering this Star Trek has already doubled the most profitable ST movie ever I think it has done pretty well."

Erm....I think not, when you take inflation into account.

This is fun to read. Last week I read if it doesn't clear 200m its a bust. Few days later someone posted if it doesnt clear 300m its a bust. Now today - 400m or bust?? Next week or 2 when it hits 400m, will the bar be set higher to make you haters happy?? =)

No matter how high you set the monetary limit, Vulcan is gone and this won't bring it back....

Koala,
I didn't realize the budget was posted... I heard that it was estimated around $165 million so I don't understand where you get the $400 million figure to make a profit.

I am still amazed at how much Wolvie has made considering it is steamy pos

God you people are such dorks. This story was about Up not Star Trek. Who cares what the Paramount "reimagining" did, the story is about a much better Pixar movie, one that actually has a message!

have the alternate reality grosses come in yet for star trek?

If the movie's a "bomb" how come Paramount execs keep saying the movie has surpassed it's own box office expectations and discussion for a sequel/trilogy are already in the works? I mean is Paramount just going to run its own operations in the ground just to spite the old Trek fundamentalists? Seriously guys, this "hope for fail" lost out opening weekend.

Care factor?

I'm not getting the money. Are any of you?

anyone know how much it cost to make Drag Me to Hell? Isnt 16.6 mil a good opening for Sam for one of his non Spidey films?
I saw it and loved it BTW...

Leonidus - I am a huge Pixar fan, but honestly I felt let down with UP. The beginning of the movie was the best part of the film and while it still a good movie it wasn't great and the quality I expect from Pixar. I wouldn't be surprised if it loses a huge percentage next weekend. I bet it will end up around 200 million possibly below that mark.

I am a long time fan of Star Trek, ever since STIII came out in 1984. I have TOS on DVD, and still love the original to this day. For all you new movie haters out there, get over yourselves. I think they have done an outstanding job of bringing new life to the franchise. The new movie has exceeded expectations, so obviously all the whiners out there have lost their battle to make others hate this movie.

Warning: Mild spoilers ahead.

Up is an emotional movie, with moments that are so intense, young children shouldn't view it, which is a switch from most of the Pixar movies. The plot was well-conceived and the visuals amazing, which means the usual fare from Pixar. What I liked best were the moments of humor, and I think Russell was the most heartwarming character. I did enjoy the first part of the movie, establishing the emotional basis.

Something happens not far in, where a large potentially good part was skipped over, and I missed being shown how the kid navigated all the way to where they wound up. I felt that other potentially interesting and humorous moments were overlooked. So I agree that something felt missing,and I wouldn't give it 5 stars as a result.

While I can understand the frustration of the explorer character, I felt his character was too one-dimensional, and didn't show the characteristics of the "heroic adventurer" that the main character admired. I think some humanizing should have taken place, in the transition from idol worship to reality.

To be honest, The Incredibles still remains my favorite Pixar movie. I wish very much that they would consider a sequel. Something that shows them perhaps a few years afterward, where they are a fighting team, and the kids have had time to grow into their abilities.

FWIW it's a matter of public record:

www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/pdf/104hrg/27957.pdf

that Charles B. Fitzsimons, executive director of the Producers' Guild of America, in 1996 testified before Congress that Paramount considered a picture that grossed $350 million to not be profitable.

RAFLMAO X^)

I'm very excited about both Up and Star Trek doing well at the box office, even though I get nothing from either doing so.

Why? Because they are both truly quality films, and I like to see quality rewarded and seen.

As for Star Trek's grosses, I've been watching them closely since its opening, and because of how strongly audiences have reacted to the movie, the middle-of-the-week totals have been unnaturally high. The movie has great legs.

Finally, regarding the foreign box office, I'd say that the Star Trek mythos is primarily and American creation, and doesn't quite translate to overseas excitement.

For future Star Trek movies, that will change, though, because this movie is aweseome.

@malikg

P.S. I cried twice during UP, and laughed my behind off...

Star Trek bombed overseas? I live in the Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean, saw the movie the second week it was out on a Friday at 2p.m. and the cinema was two thirds full. It is doing very well in my country thank you very much. I thought "bombed" meant do poorly. Apparently I need to get a new urban dictionary.

What the producers were saying is that Trek movies usually don't do well overseas (other than UK and Germany) and this one didn't do as well as they hoped. But bombed is an overstatement. I think no way may have been talking out of his hat.

And, umm, isn't Star Trek the highest grossing movie of the year? I keep reading that every where. Strange.

Let's get to the meat and potatoes. No matter how much millions of dollars this movie makes the Trek purists will still hate it and tear it down because they want original reality and not alternate reality. Plain and simple.

But as a long time Trekkie I am glad to be getting new Trek - and a quality movie as well - and was very pleased at all the little details in the film that only true Trekkies would enjoy.

And the producers are going ahead with a sequel. I shall be among the millions watching that too.

Thanks to Art Buchwald in Buchwald v. Paramount, we know exactly how Paramount transforms gross receipts to net profits:

''The transformation of ‘‘gross receipts’’ to ‘‘net profits’’ requires subtracting a number of expense items. These fall into four categories. First, there are the distribution fees and expenses. These include (1) the distribution fee (30 percent United States and Canada, 35 percent the United Kingdom, and 40 percent elsewhere), (2) direct advertising and publicity expenses, (3) the cost of prints, and (4) overhead charges of 10 percent of direct ad and publicity costs. Next are the costs of getting the master print created.'' - Mark Weinstein, associate professor at both the Marshall School of Business and the Law School, University of Southern California

marshallinside.usc.edu/mweinstein/research/hollywood.pdf

Frohike ,

You aren't going back far enough. It was first the predisposed pro Mary B., himself, who first cited unnamed superior box office analysts that he would bet on, and claimed this picture would only make a profit at the box office of $60 million.

It is, in fact, the pro side that's been trying to abandon these "bankable" anonymous analysts and continually rewrite this claim without a clear understanding of how Paramount transforms gross receipts into profits.

It is to be hoped that that clarity has now been provided.

Frohike ,

Errata: "Mary B." should be "Marty B."

Something to ponder is that according to BOX OFFICE MOJO:

boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=angelsanddemons.htm

ANGELS & DEMONS' world-wide box office gross is $356,969,726

and STAR TREK's world-wide is only $310,664,277

A&D has just bested ST in only 17days.

Extremely dissapointed with UP, I'm sorry but the environments were so unvaried, the dig bit was funny for two minutes and the movie was essentially over in the first 20 minutes (which was the best part of the movie).

It was like Pixar took one of its shorts and decided to make it longer.

It also does not fit into any demographic well, nor is there much to sell on the back-end. Sorry to say this is the first Pixar film I will not be buying...clear they took a break to get ready for Toy Story 3 and Cars 2.

So the new movie is moving along. Big deal. This movie rips established canon to shreds and ruins Roddenberry's legacy of fine entertainment. If they are thinking of making any more movies, return to the original canon and ignore COMPLETELY any of the backstory from this movie. Otherwise, the franchise will be dead and buried.

rkf,

If you liked that, you're going to love this:

When its world-wide grosses are adjusted for inflation, 1979's STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE's have been roughly estimated to $420 million in 2009 dollars.

Paramount "fired" Gene Roddenberry, which is why he wasn't a part of STTWOK's production, because it considered STTMP's grosses to be "a failure" even though they were good enough to green light a sequel.