Good movies make money. Duh.

Math Let's See
450.0 Million to make & Advetise
239.4 Million Made after 45 Days
210.6 Million more to break even

Dang how could I have Ever Doubted that this movie would fail. It worked as well as the saving & Loans in the 90's or the housing market in the early 2000's

{Rolls eyes}

-Captain Zac, you might want to work on Reading and Comprehension before tackling hard subjects like math. The 239 million is the DOMESTIC take only. Also you might want to do your research before making yourself look even more stupid since the budget, while higher than other Trek movies, was actually 150 million not 450 million so in fact it made 150 million in profit domestically having recouped its production value. If you look at internationally its close if not already over 350 million which means they made about 200 million off of it already. Domestically it is the most successful Star Trek movie to date actually, having surpassed the highest which was The Motion Picture. The movie is not even out of theaters yet and they have more then made their money back. This is also before DVD/BluRay sales and all the other merchandising stuff is totaled up. As far as movies go its actually quite a success and doubly so for a Star Trek movie.

Wow, can readers lighten up? How much a sci-fi movie is making IS news on this website. What more do you expect?

The circle is now complete.

Even with the donning of the rosiest of glasses (and Paramount quite cleverly gaming the domestic gross by getting ST'09's dwindling exhibitions into the higher priced IMAX venues), no one in the industry is expecting STAR TREK 2009 to exceed by greater than 9 percent the number of worldwide tickets sold by STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE and that's within a margin of error of ten percent of STTMP's total. Expectations are even less so, once Paramount shifts their focus to the TRANSFORMERS sequel later this week.

What does that mean? Well, the oft stated goal of ST2009 was to expand the fan base. Numerically what it looks like is that a lot of money was spent deciding where to drill a new well to exploit a new vastly larger plume only to discover that they've apparently tapped into the exact same well of ToS fans that launched the movie franchise in 1979.

And ironically, once all the 1979 movie's budget figures are adjusted for inflation, ST2009 "parallels" STTMP in ways far too numerous to list here.

Wow, you Trek whiners just can't get over the success of this movie. Gee, I'm sure Paramount felt they had to game the profits on that movie didn't they? That's probably why they greenlit the sequel even before the movie came out, because they had absolutely no faith in it. Yes, that's also why Paramount chose to move the film from a DOA premiere on Christmas day 2008 to spring 2009 because they never wanted to make the movie, and never had any faith in it. Right. You just keep on believing that. You people are so sad.

Aerfen, are you young and naive or just an idiot? The film was $150m to PRODUCE, then another $75m spent on advertising and distribution. So its cost them in the region of $225m. Consider that theatres take almost half of the box office themselves, and you will see that Paramount has not made its money back from Star Trek at all. And it may have become (just) the most successful Trek picture domestically, but The Motion Picture's worldwide gross when adjusted for inflation would be around the $400m mark....so it ain't the biggest Trek film yet, and I very doubt it will reach it.

Star Trek made another $4.7 mill this weekend? So what? How is this headline news?

Sorry Honor but theatres make their money for the first month on concession stands, not ticket prices. I've seen theatre chains complaining that 85% of each ticket or more goes to the studio when explaining the high cost of the concessions.

@CaptainZappyPants,

You are confused. STTMP got a sequel greenlight too.

THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER is neither some Trek whiner rag nor an unquestioning Paramount cheering section, but rather a credible source for film industry news.

Paramount is not "gaming" profits they are slyly inflating the domestic gross and hoping that no one adjusts for the additional "inflated" IMAX ticket pricing over the 1979 to 2009 inflation adjusted ticket unit sales comparisons between the two films.

Some believe they are putting on a "game" face as a prelude to a merger to get out from under mounting debt as signaled by the extensive cost-cutting and layoffs they instigated beginning in the first quarter of 2009.

You don't reward executives responsible for production (Roddenberry for STTMP and Weston for ST2009) of two of the most "profitable" movies in their respective runs with firings unless someone's not happy about something regarding each project's "success".

In 2005, Moonves divorced Trek merchandising from Paramount so they have no recourse to it.

Gee Whiz! By these standards to make a movie profitable, nothing ever makes money in the motion picture industry unless it breaks 400 million. I guess Up and all other 9 Pixar movies were dismall failures too.

My god, who ARE you people? Comparing Trek 1 and Trek Reboot like they're even close to the same page is plain silly. In 1979, theaters were still considered the only game in town. The aftermarket pre-packaged videotape was still in its infancy, cable rights wasn't a big moneymaker, yet, so what was left? Fracking action figures?

These days the theater is just the beginning. Blu-ray is going to be huge for ST-reboot. Within a week of release, Paramount signed an exclusive deal with FX Channel for about $25 mill (not counted in the ticket sales figures). In 2009, the marketing is different because the potential markets have expanded greatly, beyond just the theatrical release.

(And SciFi's captcha STILL sucks rocks!)

WHO CARES!?!?!
In this economy, I'm happy people are spending $$, regardless of whether it's dreck or poetry.
These movies are keeping some people employed, via product sales, theater tickets, etc.
To that I say, "HOORAH!"

@Thomas re: Captcha...Amen to that! Maybe it's on purpose to keep posts to a minimum?

Thomas,

Perhaps it would be easier for you if you are reminded that STTMP was a Christmas of 1979 release that for the most part reaped its grosses in 1980?

Videotape was in its infancy until STTMP broke the affordable home video price barrier which it did on its first video release in both Beta and VHS. And there were comparable network exhibition advances once you adjust for inflation.

Unlike 2009, in 1980 Paramount was able profit from STAR TREK merchandising.

But the whole idea of bringing up the aftermarket is foolhardy because in the intervening 30 years STTMP .fully exploited each and every one of those markets you listed (You might even say it blazed the trail for future STs.) plus ones that no longer exist for ST09 to to be able to compete.

There's no way ST09 is going to catch up in those aftermarkets by year's end. And I doubt it will if we give it another 30 years either.

Capt Zac,

Why do the numbers keep changing? Shortly after the movie came out. It was 150m to make the movie and 100m in advertisement. Several days, it went to 150m advertising, few more days later - 200m advertising, and finally YOUR saying its 300m advertising... making it 450m total... an impossible mark for most movies to reach.

Hmmmm.... I think you can see where I'm getting at, if not, just use your imagination, as you do with your Math...

Holy crap there are a lot of kids and haters on these forums.

ST09 was good. It’s making a lot of money. A lot more money then most movies currently in theater. And it is a GOOD movie! I guess the “real” ST fans would have preferred a Voyager or Enterprise film so that it could further fail like it’s predecessors (and yes, Nemesis and Insurrection were failures both at the box office and Star Trek in general), driving away ST fans and potential newcomers.

Like it or not, this movie has in fact given ST franchise new fans. New people that enjoyed the film will more then likely looked into previous ST works. And those new first time ST viewers that didn’t like the film were not likely to explore any previous ST works had the new film been a continuation of any of the previous franchises. In fact, they were not likely to even bother stepping into the theater in the first place. The main reason ST09 is doing as well as it is (even if they still have not yet broken even as some would claim) it is because the movie was being rightfully sold as fresh starting point for fans and newcomers alike. Not more 40+ years of ST history to know in order to fully enjoy the film!

Give it up haters. Like it or not, this film has done more to rejuvenate ST franchise then the last 4 films combined!

@scifivxn,

Actually, you make a good point. Fans have been operating under the misapprehension that Trek is tied to Paramount. It's not. CBS owns it after the 2005 Viacom split.

If Brad Grey's inexperience at tentpoling leads him to totally tank Paramount nothing will happen to Trek as it stays at CBS where they have been making money hand over fist in merchandising for doing little more than give Gail Berman a deadline.

@Gallowglass ,

I'm wondering if possibly your theater anecdote dates back to the days of STTMP? And this might interest aftermarket Thomas, because back then Paramount (and other studios) made the theater owners submit to a blind bid to win the right to exhibit their movie on release. Yes, even before there was film in the can, Paramount was making money off of STTMP before even one ticket was sold.

That practice has long been rescinded. I'm not certain but I believe one of the odd numbered ST "disappointments" helped contribute to the end of the blind bid.

The whole movie is a wash anyway, because history was changed in the beginning preventing us from actually seeing how everything originally unfolded (A++ for profoundness!).

Aerfen, you are correct.

Quote from 11:37 PM ON 06/21/09:
"Captain Zac, you might want to work on Reading and Comprehension before tackling hard subjects like math."

Well, maybe he might want to start with basic spelling and grammar, then work up to reading and comprehension.

So much for public schools, huh?

In a nutshell: the movie has been a success to the general public, most of whom have at east heard of Star Trek, but a disappointment to most actual Star Trek fans. It only showed here in Washington for 1 week .

these are the same people that get on line and bash other series of the franchise Startrek. Simple destory shows like Enterprise. always bashing storys o it not canon! member back the hell they raised over the ship of the new movie....

@Dreugan,

The initial production budget was $140 million and then they went over budget. Estimates hover around $150 million+.

The initial marketing budget was $30 million ($3 million of that went to the Super Bowl ad.) but then Paramount decided to spend an additional $150 million on top of that for a worldwide campaign in an attempt to build up international fans. And apparently they are still spending marketing dollars as I still see TV commercials - which is odd, because usually when a studio has a runaway hit with legs they pull all the expensive ads and let it run on its own word-of-mouth steam.

Paramount took Spyglass on as a partner in financing ST09 so they don't even get all of whatever they recover from the gross. Estimates vary as to the exact nature of the deal but a 25% cut for a partner isn't unusual.

It's sad when you can't argue anymore, and just bring on the grammar police argument, and the petty ad hominem attacks. Shows how shallow you really are. I'll just end this by saying that New Trek will go forward as the success that it is, and you whiners and moaners will have to sit there and watch it. Or not.

Oh, trust me, CaptainZappyPants, you missed the biggest chunk of shallow attacks in the time before the movie hit theaters.

Watching the virtual bloodshed and manhood size competitions makes me ashamed to be a Trek fan. I pray that sense will prevail at some point.

Capitalism is capitalism, and everyone will try to turn a dime on everything. The true spirit of Star Trek lives in the actions of the fans. If this is how we treat each other, then Trek is more certainly dead.

I liked both flix. Trek was cool (Although Wrath of Kahn is still my fave) and Up was a nice tale, although a little to emotional for most kids in my opinion.

All in all, reboot was good, numbers keep the movies comin and the fans are always there.

@CaptainZappyPants,

"With $240.3 million in 45 days, it edged past Star Trek: The Motion Picture on that front, though it may still have a ways to go in terms of attendance: around $22.3 million of the new Trek's total comes from IMAX runs, which typically cost a few bucks more than regular shows." - Brandon Gray, BoxOfficeMojo.com

https://secure.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2597&p=.htm

""...“Star Trek,” a hit which has racked up $350 million worldwide, even though questions remain about its ultimate profitability given high production and marketing costs."" - Jay A. Fernandez, THR

http://thr.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i34e2ede5adb7e1e85dd94be7d5378f60?774ee7e8

Great news.