The best Trek move IMHO will always be ST 2, followed closely by ST 4. I put this move at number 3, and 3rd out of 11 isn't too bad.

tWoK is tops for me as well. I liked the new one, but once you get past the shiny new exterior, there are plenty of problems. It was much better than having no Trek.

simple answer....no it s not and i hope the next movie will be more star trek like the movies before XI !

Wrath of Khan stands head and shoulders above the rest!

Pretty well cast, but a terrible script & nonsensical plot. BAD REBOOT!

There is no BEST Trek film because each one had its flaws. However, it is SAFE to say Trek XI is the film that will have to
be outdone by JJ Abrams and crew in the next one! Case
in point, Batman Begins was good, but The Dark Knight was
the BEST of those films!!! So I am REALLY hoping Trek XII
WILL be "The Dark Knight" of those films; acting, writing, and
sfx wise!!! JJ, let's see if you can produce THE best Trek
film EVER!!!

Diehard, diehard fan- seen every movie and every episode of every series. I personally liked this the best of all. Once you get past the idea that its an alt universe, it was just great. Nits? Yes of course, but jeesus everyone, fanboys love to crap on this. Give it a rest. This is the new Star Trek. If you want to keep looking backwards, theres about 500 episodes and 10 other movies to do it with,

I love TNG. I ike the latter half of DS9. I even kind of like Voyager.

So I consider myself a Star Trek fan, pretty much. And I cannot stand any of the ST films.

I loved this movie because it wasn't TOS or next generation, etc. It was FRESH and new! To say "was it the best" is hard for me. I really liked the Star Trek movie with the whales...humor and a message..., hated Nemesis which I found dull and boring. Can't wait for the next installment... Heard maybe there might be a tribble or Harry Mudd in the story!

Tribble or Harry Mudd? Give it a rest already. Just watch the episode again if you miss them.

This is a new direction and they should keep it as such. I for one don't want a repeat or rehash or remake of something already explored. The power is in the writing. Write something never before seen.

Cheers

Appears to be a little off. Taking numbers from BoxOfficeMojo.com and running them thru the governments inflation calculator TMP comes to 244.5 million. That's about 2.3% higher than the chart above.

That chart may have adjusted for inflation, but it did not adjust for population growth. Which is what you would also need to do to measure a movie's true popularity. When adjusted for population growth as well, STXI comes in at number 4 after TMP, TWOK and TVH.

I enjoyed the new ST movie. Most importantly, my 9-year old enjoyed it. It was a fun movie to watch. Was it full of plot holes? Yes it was, but that is not the point. For me, it was the experience of the movie, not the movie itself. I actually feel sorry for these fanboys who have bankrupted their own lives to the point where the only gratification they can find is to blast an honest attempt to revive a "dead" franchise and make it more digestible for the general public. Lets face it, the AVERAGE American reads and understands things at a 6-8th grade level. The movie companies know this. They do studies on this. That is why they make movies at the level they do. If you don't like it I'm sorry, go back to watching Trek reruns on YouTube and leave us "easily entertained" comsumers alone with our brain-dead entertainment.

This was definateley one of the best Trek films. I personally loved tWoK tVH & this one ranks right up there with the best!

Best Trek was V, the one with Spock's brother, Sybok. The next best one was The Motion Picture folloed by Trek III and then Insurrection.

Ha. ;-)

YES! It was the best Trek movie! But this is coming from someone who only in the last few years has grown to love Star Trek. Laugh as you may, but it wasn't until I saw ST:TMP (Directors Edition) that I fell in love with Trek. It was everything I ever wanted Trek to be, but usually wasn't (that is... epic exploration and truly transcendent hard SF ideas). Because of that experience I've grown quite fond of everything Trek (except for DS9, which in my opinion is more "Star Static" than "Trek").
So anyway, since I am a sucker for high concept and big blockbuster visuals the new Trek is #1 in my book, but not by much.... Star Trek I, II, & III come in a VERY close second. At any rate the best Trek films are right up there with the rest of the best genre films (Star Wars, Alien/s, and LotR).

ST2 first, and ST 6 is second, then the JJ Reboot is 3 for my money.

I enjoyed it, but I too felt the story/plot, was weaker than several of the other films -- a little generic.

As a reboot with a new untested cast -- awesome. Special effects -- awesome. It works as a reboot; the fact that it is flawed, yet enjoyable, tells me that they can do better and that future movie(s) will be even better...

The best Trek movie of them all?

Nemesis, hands down.

Because it made me realize how great the others, even The Final Frontier, were in comparison.

Zaphod, that was hilarious. And, perhaps, true!

I did enjoy this new Star Trek and look forward to more adventures.

I can't remember where I heard this, but does anyone have information on STAR TREK: DARK ERA? 1.Wrath Of Khan, 2.Voyage Home, 3.Undiscovered Country, 4.JJ's, and 5.First Contact

Why is this new imposter listed with Star Trek movies? It isn't one. jbs?

Bull, Psiphi, considering population growth is not a stable metric. You're assuming the appeal of movies, period, has the same draw over time. Clearly, the entertainment landscape has changed dramatically in the almost 30 years between the first film and the last film, so you'd have to engineer something more complicated than simple population growth metrics to contribute anything meaningful to this discussion.

Where are all the box office warriors of the summer? You know, the one's who kept raising the bar to define the film as successful every weekend? Methinks this "population growth" metric is the last straw they can grasp at before they concede it's just not their franchise anymore.

It was a good movie. It was a fun movie. It was a movie well made for today's typical audience. But as a STAR TREK movie... dead last.

JJ needs to do something about the sound effects of the Enterprises weapons. They sounded like something done by the high pitched voice of a small child going " pew pew pew". Disgusting for what the Klingons in IV called a "Federation Battlecruiser". The sounds from II were good enough.

Hey "wolfie"....

Why don't you get YOUR f**king facts straight and re-read SyFy's article!!

The best?
KHAN!!!!!!!!
Even without the Corinthian leather.

Once again, here is an article that implies only domestic box office matters. It doesn't. There's a whole world out there, and in the world beyond the shores of the US, Trek XI bombed. I'm also not convinced it beat TMP in terms of adjusted worldwide box office so NO - this was not the best Trek ever. And in terms of quality, the only thing this Trek has succeeded in doing is ensuring that ST5 is no longer the worst Trek film of all (and I honestly never thought ANY Trek film could be worse than that one). Congratulations on your "success", Paramount.

I will not try to say which movie was (or is ) the best but will say the newest one has brought maybe millions of new folks back to the franchise. I am always amazed to find when I do a search for SCIFI shows on my DVR how many different Star Trek series or movies are available, usually for TOS to DS9. I really doubt any series or franchise in tv / movie history has been available somewhere to watch as often as this franchise.

I see folks attacking reboot or a remake of past shows - movies all the time and cannot understand why they get so hateful some times. If everyone was already born so no new generations could ever grow up as times have changes, I might agree with this attacking, but new folks are born every day so new imaginings are ok every day for me. Having said that, I do appreciate the general message most of the Trek stories told of doing things on a generally ethical way and I hope that is continued but I am getting old and ethics is something I still value but some folks may not believe this is not needed in entertainment and I will leave that to others to settle.

"Now we know there are a handful of you out there who insist this movie is a bomb because of the high cost of production (an estimated $150 million), the high cost of marketing it and the need for the film to gross about two and a half times its production costs to make a profit. We're not sure this is true, especially once you factor in the anticipated grosses from home video, not to mention ancillary revenue from TV rights, etc. etc. "

A 150 million dollar budget will require at least 300 million to break even. That's covering the cost of the production budget, film prints, advertising, etc. And it could be as high as 375 million. But let's say it's 300 million. That means Star Trek made a modest 85 million dollar profit against 385 million in worldwide ticket sales. If you take the high number, however, the profit is only 10 million. That would mean that the bulk of the profits would come later from DVD sales (which is where many films make there profits these days), and then much later from TV revenue.

In either scenario Star Trek is certainly not a bomb, but it's not a blockbuster. The ratio of profit to cost will not be that high. And traditionally, although there are exceptions, the next film will likely make less. It's a good rebound, however, from the last few Trek films.

what happened with trek was it painted itself into a politicaly correct corner . what we ended up with was a pretty toothless version of the orginal vision . it became more and more formatted and watered down . i think what jj did was the only way to make it interesting again. essentially it set it trek up in an alternative timeline/universe . lets hope without a prime directive this time .

It's not surprising that this SO much money since so many, many, MANY NON Trek fans seemed to like it. It certainly didn't make it from Star Trek fans because Trek this ain't.

O.O

No...freaking...way! Over it's 147 day run, J.J. Abram's Star Trek movie became the 47th highest grossing movie of all time! 47th!!!

Can you believe how awesome that is!!!

Both J.J. Abrams and Star Trek have a history of throwing the number 47 in as much as possible! Go look at the history of 47 with both of them. This is unbelieveable!

I love it!!! :-)

As William Shatner once said, "Irony can be so ironic sometimes."

Oh, Frel no, Marty B. What's bull are these metrics that don't take population growth into account. Why don't the classic blockbusters that EVERYONE agrees are the best movies of all time always buried on these charts by newer, clearly inferior, movies? Casablanca and Citizen Kane are two examples from the 40s that make the point quite well. Shouldn't they be on the list of most popular movies? But they aren't. And solely because these ridiculous charts don't take population growth into account.

As for your point about the Entertainment industry changing. Yes that's true. So what? I'll let you engineer that unnecessarily complicated chart. The point is: If the chart doesn't take population growth into account it is rendered useless.

So, again, in real world popularity the new Star Trek ranks number 4, not number 1.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bringing this up because I hate the new Star Trek. Quite the contrary. I absolutely loved it. In fact, I personally would rank Abram's Trek as my third favorite. Let's just get the numbers straight before declaring this "The most popular Trek of all time." It's not.

Rob,Spiff,...Guys...Just because you dont want it to be Star Treke does not mean that it is. in fact, not Star Trek. You guys need to get past this...move on with yoiur lives...If you don't want to go see the future movies in the series...gee...this is a great country we live in...you dont have to. But this was/is Star Trek and the future flicks in the series will also be Star Trek.

It looks like a duck. It swims like a duck. It quacks like a duck. It is a duck. The rest of us are having fun. Feel free to join the party!

Captcha fails again!

lets just say the next one has to be better. Not just good.

Iso, Spaceman Spiff, Rob: Why do you guys even READ these articles? Just so you can trash? If I were an airheaded Speaker of the House, I'd say you were simply un-American. As I actually have a brain, I'll simply say that you are pathetically in need of a hobby.

And JustMe, you said: "In either scenario Star Trek is certainly not a bomb, but it's not a blockbuster. The ratio of profit to cost will not be that high."

If we were to truly apply the stringent rules to evaluating net profit that so many OCD types on this topic require of STXI, I'll bet we'd discover that every Star Wars movie ever made was a flop, every Spider-Man movie ever made bled red ink, and every prior Trek movie--except I & II, of course--left Paramount incapable of paying the light bill.

After all expenses were paid, the studio made $85 million. As I've said elsewhere, IN THIS ECONOMY (and it is a good bit different an economy than it was in 1979--I know, I actually remember) $85 million is a smashing success for a movie as chancy as this one.

Third captcha. SciFi Wire is so incompetent...

Perhaps we read them so we can write responses that will infuriate you. Purely as a hobby, of course.

As an old diehard ST fan for oh so many years, I beliweve this to be a great movie and a wonderful restart of the franchise. Therefore it is hard to draw a comparison between this one and STII or STIV or any of the movies. I have tried to see each as a stand-alone project as best as possible, and this one was very good considering the advances in motion picture technology and what was available in the 60's. So a comparison would and can not do any of the movies or series justice.

TMP and TWOK are my favourites. Abrams film was almost as bad as Nemesis and it certainly had the most egregious plot holes and bad science Star Trek has ever had to suffer.

Why does Nero have to drill to a planet's core to destroy it with red matter when the red matter is clearly shown creating black hole in the middle of space capable of swallowing a super nova large enough to destroy the galaxy (don't get me started on that either).

Next time they need to not hire the idiots that write the Bayformers films.

ST II is number 1. All others are number 2 or below.
ST XI doesn't even count. Abrams took a few names (Kirk, Spock, Enterprise) and just started over - doesn't even fit with Star Trek - except in name only. It should just be called Star Trek 'B.1' or something.

"If we were to truly apply the stringent rules to evaluating net profit that so many OCD types on this topic require of STXI, I'll bet we'd discover that every Star Wars movie ever made was a flop, every Spider-Man movie ever made bled red ink, and every prior Trek movie--except I & II, of course--left Paramount incapable of paying the light bill."

No, just pointing out that Star Trek is not a blockbuster. I'm sure Paramount was hoping for a much better showing at the box office. At this point, Star Trek's profits don't even cover the cost of making a sequel.

And as a matter of fact, Paramount has had money issues:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4b3eea5c-51f9-11dd-a97c-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/27563712-65b2-11de-8e34-00144feabdc0.html

^ Oh, forgot to add, Paramount has OCD types that definitely evaluate this stuff.

Hate to throw cold water, but you're neglecting to factor in 30 years of inflation, and it's destruction of value and purchasing power.

TMP made $239M...in 1979. According to "Tom's Inflation Calculator" (http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html), that's over $789M in today's dollars. Conversely, $258M today would only be $78M in 1979.

TMP, FTW, now and always.

Ok, Psiphi, I'll accept your complaint about "popularity". A lot of reasonable know that, but "popularity" is easier to write and impress people with than "greatest attended in original run" or "pulled in the largest audience." The complex metric you want is outside the scope or care of entertainment market research ... maybe a "Star Trek studies" professor would be. The simple metric makes sense, and we all know what it means.

I mean, with popularity, you'd also have to assume some sort of approval. Unfortunately, theaters don't do thumbs up thumbs down polls of their audiences upon leaving the theater. I suppose tracking merchandising sales may help, and developing some sort of track mechanism for all online discussions, but even those models are flawed.

Your mistaking marketing and PR for demographic science. They're not. That's clear to most people.

@Just Me, oh, and those OCD people at Paramount have apparently authorized a sequel, so what does that do to your argument? You do know that _every_ movie studio is having trouble these days, right?

"Oh, and those OCD people at Paramount have apparently authorized a sequel, so what does that do to your argument? You do know that _every_ movie studio is having trouble these days, right?"

I was simply making the point that Star Trek is not a blockbuster. And if you make a sequel that eats up all your profits, and then the second sequel eats up all the first sequels profits, you get no real profit until you stop making sequels and pocket the income from the last film. Of course, Star Trek will probably do good DVD business, so there will undoubtedly be a small upfront profit after all.

I like looking at the boxoffice of different films, not just Star Trek films. I'm fasinated by the gambles studios take with big budget projects. Think back to Superman Returns. They spent 270 million making that film and it didn't do well. But then think about Titanic which cost 200 million and went on to make billions (yes, billions with a B). Or compare Star Trek to the Bond franchise. Those films, as of late, have had huge budgets, but they're profitable because they have a big international audience. Star Trek, on the other hand, didn't do so well outside of the U.S.

"Doing the math," as they say, isn't a shot at the fans. But if only Star Trek "fans", those who have been following it for decades, went to Trek films they would all be bombs. Star Trek needs a growing audience to stay viable in todays world of big budget projects. That's why they let Abrams rework it from top to bottom. I'm just saying that it wasn't a huge breakout success like the Dark Knight was in comparison to previous Batman films (the Dark Knight has made over a billion dollars).

Paramount looks at all of this, and they have decided to roll the dice on a sequel. Will it make more money or less? That's the gamble. I saw Star Trek. For me it wasn't the best and it didn't make as much money as I thought it would, but I'll see the next one. That attitude, if shared by others, will help the bottom line. But if that doesn't happen then Trek may not do so well over the long haul.

Let's face it, TOS was not a big hit and struggled to survive just three years. It took time to become a phenomenon. The other incarnations of Star Trek, while doing better than TOS, were not big TV hits like other shows of the time. Star Trek has lived a long life and prospered, but it's not a blockbuster franchise.

Star Trek (JJ "wonderboy" Abrams trainwreck) is very good sci fi (oops, I am sorry, syfy) movie. But it is not Star Trek nor will it ever be.

Capt. Calvin, we know that, but those non-fans just don't get it. Only an actual Star Trek fan can see it.

It did give the trek franchise a much needed shot in the arm.

Rob said "Capt. Calvin, we know that, but those non-fans just don't get it. Only an actual Star Trek fan can see it."

Rob.........statements like this are why I resond to you the way I do....! WHAT INCREDIBLE ARROGANCE!!! Who...the...HELL made you the judge of who is or is not a Star Trek fan is or is not? Who gave yo a black robe and gavel? The answer is...you...you annointed yourself! I mean WOW...what credibility you have!

Well you know what? I have as good ablack robe and gavel as you do.

You and youre fellow childish haters are NOT STAR TREK FANS! You never were and you never will be!

Now that stement is completly silly, isn't it? Of coarse it it. Just as Silly and Childish as YOUR statments about who is or is not a fan of the show.

Grow up. For heaven's sake. Grow up and GET OVER IT.

Captcha faile again...as usual.

Marty B. "complex metric you want"??? "mistaking marketing and PR for demographic science" ??? What are you talking about?

It's reeeaaaallllyyy simple. Take the population in 1979. Compare it to the population in 2009. It's grown by 35%. Apply that percentage to STTMP. That brings it from $239 to $323 in inflation and population adjusted dollars.

I'm not guessing, or hoping someone else will do the math. I did it. It took two minutes, the internet and a calculator.

And Thomas, They already adjusted for inflation.

^ Oops, I left out a step. Here's the full equation:

You can't increase TMP's inflation adjusted boxoffice by 35% just because the population increased by 35%. You're assuming that all 35% would go see TMP and add to the boxoffice take. You would need to figure out what percentage of the 1979 population saw TMP and then add that percentage of the 35% population increase to the total.

So let's do that. The average ticket price in 1979 was $2.47. The 1979 boxoffice take in the U.S. for TMP was 82,258,456 dollars. That means 33,303,018 people went to see TMP (or at least that number of tickets were sold). That equals approxiamtely 14.8% of the 225,055,487 million people in the U.S. So now, 35% of 225,055,487 is 78,769,420, and 14.8% of that is 11,657,874. Take the inflation adjusted boxoffice of 239,000,000 and add 11,657,874 and you get 250,657,874.

But I disagree with the initial inflation adjusted dollar amount of 239,000,000. According to the governments inflation calculator the TMP boxoffice, adjusted for inflation, comes to 244,547,817 dollars. Add 11,657,874 to that and you get 256,205,691 dollars.

So using inflation and population as factors, TMP comes very close to Star Trek, but Star Trek does edge it out

Someone check my math.

I'm not even going to bother wasting my precious life-energy and relatively good mood reading all the vicious nay-sayer responses that are no doubt above this post. I just think it's sad that there are still SO many in the Star Trek fan community that either can't accept the new vision of Star Trek or can't just be content with the Star Trek iteration of their choice that an article such as this one has to be written. Oh, well. I have my Amazon exclusive Star Trek Blu-ray collectors' release pre-ordered, so I'm set, and I CANNOT wait to see what's on tap for Star Trek 2, er, 12!

Boogly, boogly, ha ha ha.

Te, he, he

from one of the best lines in any movie to describe what I have read from all of you........... NERDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nerd:

One whose IQ exceeds his weight.

This is SPAAAAHHHHHH-TAH!!!!
Hey SPAAAAAHHHHHHHTAAAHHHHHH,
why would you waste your time posting on
a "geek/nerd" site? That by definition makes
you a "nerd want-a-be" which is worse than
being a NERD. What do you think of that
Big bird!

When I'm in Holland I eat the pannenkoeken...

And poffertjes.

Have enjoyed ST since 1966. TOS shows were filled w/fun, adventure & loyalty. Most everything after is a shadow of TOS despite bigger budgets. If ST wishes to survive, go back to the basics with FRESH ideas. No tribbles or Harcor Fenton Mudd ect.

First Contact is hard to beat.. Wrath of Khan is next.. this one is third..

Just Me: "You can't increase TMP's inflation adjusted boxoffice by 35% just because the population increased by 35%. You're assuming that all 35% would go see TMP and add to the boxoffice take."

No. The box office increases by the same percentage as the population.

But let's go ahead and do the math your way:

"The average ticket price in 1979 was $2.47. The 1979 boxoffice take in the U.S. for TMP was 82,258,456 dollars. That means 33,303,018 people went to see TMP (or at least that number of tickets were sold). That equals approxiamtely 14.8% of the 225,055,487 million people in the U.S. So now, 35% of 225,055,487 is 78,769,420, and 14.8% of that is 11,657,874."

We're OK so far.

"Take the inflation adjusted boxoffice of 239,000,000 and add 11,657,874 and you get 250,657,874."

You forgot that the 11,657,874 is still the population figure. You can't add it to the adjusted box office figure yet. That's 11,657,874 tickets in 2009 dollars is $85,568,795.

$239,000,000 + $85,568,795 = $324,568,795.

It's actually a little higher than my original, but I was rounding. So, yes, your way of figuring it also works, and confirms my calculation.

But your right that their inflation adjusted figure is wrong. Let's see what the final figure is:
$244,547,817 + $85,568,795 = $330,116,612

Wow! TMP is kicking butt!

OK, I'm tired of doing math for now. If someone else feels like checking the figures for the other movies, go ahead. But Abram's Trek drops to, at best, number 4.

Glad to hear it. This movie did a great job of capturing the zest and spirit of the original tv series--and is a textbook example on how to bring a fading franchise back to life.

Psyphi

Damn! I forgot to multiply the population increase by the price of a ticket!! I knew I had to do that but I forgot along the way. My head hurts.

LOL! Great job capturing the zest & spirit of the original TV series?! What movie did you go see. It sure wasn't Abrams folly, that had nothing in common with Star Trek in any way except the names he stole.

@SCI FI WIRE STAFF,

You also conveniently ignored TrekMovie's analysis addressing the fact that even though this year's STAR TREK was intended to address the foreign market that it failed to live up to its expectations to excel there.

And even though I admire that site for its polite openness to opposing views, it obviously has a bias and I don't think it would be too unfair to point out that even though they don't have direct ties to Viacom/Paramount or CBS they clearly have a vested interest in promoting movie Trek, that is, to ensure that Star Trek movies continue to be made.

Also, how likely is one is to get a fan commentary on a Paramount BD by tossing hard hitting tough piercing journalistic questions, analysis, and investigative reporting Paramount's way?

I don't have a problem with what they do over there, but it is irksome when you appear to be trying to palm them off as some resource with an unbiased high journalistic pedigree when it comes to their reporting/analysis regarding things Trek.

This alternate source from the 6th of this month suggests a possible Pyrrhic victory at best:,

latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-moviebiz6-2009oct06,0,702751.story

"Paramount Pictures, the only movie studio to report its finances separately, has seen its profits fall consistently. While revenue was growing until this year, Paramount's operating income has fallen like a boulder, down 22% in 2007 and 75% in 2008 until it swung to a loss of $148 million in the first half of 2009.

As profits vanish, new capital has become as unattainable as the best picture Oscar.

In the decade's early years, high-net worth individuals and cash-flush hedge funds poured billions into Hollywood, backing independent productions and co-financing big-budget popcorn movies. But as those investors lost fortunes in the markets (and, too often, on dead-on-arrival movies), they pulled back on their show business speculating, forcing the studios to put more of their own money at risk -- like homeowners undone by their mortgages." - John Horn, Ben Fritz and Rachel Abramowitz, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES

"We're not sure this is true, especially once you factor in the anticipated grosses from home video, not to mention ancillary revenue from TV rights, etc. etc." - SCI FI Wire Staff

You might gain some certainty as you peruse from that same LA TIMES article,

"The money that came into the business from new markets and enhanced [ancillary] markets mostly went to increasing negative costs, marketing costs and overhead, and not improving profit margins." - Jonathan Dolgen., former Paramount Chairman

"But as DVD sales have collapsed by as much as 25% at some studios, access to outside financing has vanished and production and marketing costs remain sky-high, media companies are cracking under all the pressure.

...

In a business largely governed by artistic intuition, ups and downs are inevitable, but there's far less margin for error today. Many analysts and industry veterans cite the recent and unexpected decline in DVD sales as the ignition point for the current unrest.

For years, DVD sales, coupled with the growth in international markets, compensated for box office losers. On a typical movie, DVD revenue accounts for about half of a film's income, with the remainder split evenly between theatrical receipts, both domestic and international, and television, both pay and free channels.

But as the global economy tanked, so did DVD income. According to Digital Entertainment Group, DVD sales fell 9% in 2008 and were off 13.5% in the first half of 2009. The DVD ledgers are equally bleak overseas; owing to widespread piracy, some studios essentially have closed DVD operations in the once-profitable Spanish and South Korean territories.

Though new businesses such as digital downloads and video-on-demand are growing fast, they have come nowhere close to making up for the decline in disc sales. At the same time, foreign monopolies in paid television have driven down the formerly generous license fees paid to American studios for cable and satellite reruns, while increasingly popular local language productions (movies in Japanese made for Japan, in other words) have cut into the international box-office returns for U.S. productions." - John Horn, Ben Fritz and Rachel Abramowitz, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES

Psyphi

Good job on showing them what the numbers really mean.

And isn't it perplexing that when profits are brought up the hypemeisters for this film don't perceive as "too complicated" updating the old theatrical run metrics to include anticipated future home video and cable but forbid updating anything else because not that but this would be "too complicated"?

As an example, their own sources break the IMAX theatrical domestic gross out as $28.1 million part of the domestic total but we are admonished that it would be "too complicated" to determine more accurate attendance figures using that available data and the higher IMAX ticket price.

On the other hand, I for one would not like to try to project home video sales based on any Trek movie's attendance as those are inherently rife with a large percentage of repeat offenders (j/k i.e., devoted fan attendees who attend extraordinarily multiple times ) and there's no logical way that I can see to expect that they are each going to buy 7 or more Blu-ray box sets of this one STAR TREK, especially in this downturn..

"...the high cost of marketing it and the need for the film to gross about two and a half times its production costs to make a profit." - SCI FI Wire Staff

Just so you know, that figure was not pulled out of thin air; there is historical precedent for it as first reported in the September 27, 1981 in section F page 3 of the PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER in an article by Desmond Ryan, Inquirer Movie Critic,

"The hugely publicized STAR TREK made $100 million but that rosy figure looks slightly less cheerful when one remembers that the film cost an astronomical $42 million to make and that a picture has to bring in three times its production costs to break even."

This article, TREKKIES TREMBLE AT SEQUEL TALE on page three of the October 2, 1981 BOCA RATON NEWS,

news.google.com/newspapers?id=A8sPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=H40DAAAAIBAJ&pg=1552,286832

is a reprint of it as carried by Knight-Ridder.

Now whether you use the more refined 2.5 or the older 3x figure one thing seems clear: when 2009 has to go through the same hurdles as its 1979 parent's metric for success, it falls short - and that's before adjusting for inflation.

As for home video grosses, TMP had these in sales and rentals of VHS tapes, Beta tapes, Laser discs and Videodiscs. And as for ancillary revenues, TMP had all that and then revenue from the theater exhibition blind bid auction which is no longer available in 2009.

The question we all have to ask ourselves is not was JJ's the best, but would Gene Roddenberry have approved? Gene meant Star Trek for exploration, not just of space, but of our lives as well. Did the new Movie do any of that? In my opion it did not, it was a good movie, but it was just an action fest, nothing more. No exploration, no moral, no friendship and very little commaradre (sorry about the spelling). These are the things that I enjoyed about Star Trek. Movie wise Star Trek V was probably the worst, but it had more of these qualities that you look for in a Star Trek movie or series. I just felt that Mr. Roddenberry's idea's were shoved aside so the powers that be could package a new product for their Star Trek shelf.