Star Trek (2009) Surpasses TMP in Inflation-Adjusted Numbers!

[Jeri]

Ooh... That's my holiday viewing sorted!

Just what I was thinking.

 

[RAMA]

Tom's Inflation Calculator gives different answers, depending on which data set you use. If you use the U.S. Retail Price Inflation (Annual Average), you get TMP with a domestic take of $271,560,238. If you use the December-to-December index, it's $255,117,256.

I think the best tool would be a motion-picture specific inflation based on ticket prices. Using Box Office Mojo's average ticket prices of $2.51 for 1979 and $7.18 for 2009 results in $235,305,065 for TMP's adjusted figure. However, I usually see TMP's adjusted figure reported between $239M and $242M.

Either way, it doesn't make much difference, as you say. What's important is that Star Trek has been a great success for the studio, on par with the best box office performances in series history. We can therefore expect more in the future.

The $235 mill figure for ticket prices seems to be the most accepted now.

According to SHowbiz Data, ST 09 has made $239.478 mill....and its the ONLY movie to have an increase, at 1%!

http://www.showbizdata.com/dailybox.cfm

RAMA

The actuals pushed the movie over $240 million!!! It made almost as much over the weekend as TWO weeks ago! It was UP 50.9% over last Sunday! Even if you use the $242 million number for STTMP, ST09 will destroy that.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Tom's Inflation Calculator gives different answers, depending on which data set you use. If you use the U.S. Retail Price Inflation (Annual Average), you get TMP with a domestic take of $271,560,238. If you use the December-to-December index, it's $255,117,256.

I think the best tool would be a motion-picture specific inflation based on ticket prices. Using Box Office Mojo's average ticket prices of $2.51 for 1979 and $7.18 for 2009 results in $235,305,065 for TMP's adjusted figure. However, I usually see TMP's adjusted figure reported between $239M and $242M.

Yeah, the only problem being that it's the average ticket price. (A price that I can honestly never remember paying anywhere ever. I want to know what bumblefuck town I need to move to in order to pay less than $7.18 to see a first-run movie. ) How do you account for differences such as TMP having a longer theatrical run than ST 09 likely will? Or first-run versus second-run "cheap" theaters? Even figuring it out Box Office Mojo's way isn't perfect.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I want to know what bumblefuck town I need to move to in order to pay less than $7.18 to see a first-run movie. )

Don't know about first run, but if you go to the AMC River North in Chicago at about 4PM you can see it for five bucks or so.

And the Cinemark in Melrose Park has em for $7.00 in the evenings; that's what I paid the night after opening.

 

[MvRojo]

I want to know what bumblefuck town I need to move to in order to pay less than $7.18 to see a first-run movie. )

Don't know about first run, but if you go to the AMC River North in Chicago at about 4PM you can see it for five bucks or so.

And the Cinemark in Melrose Park has em for $7.00 in the evenings; that's what I paid the night after opening.

AMC's here on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and on Holidays before noon are $6.

 

[Nimthim]

Tom's Inflation Calculator gives different answers, depending on which data set you use. If you use the U.S. Retail Price Inflation (Annual Average), you get TMP with a domestic take of $271,560,238. If you use the December-to-December index, it's $255,117,256.

I think the best tool would be a motion-picture specific inflation based on ticket prices. Using Box Office Mojo's average ticket prices of $2.51 for 1979 and $7.18 for 2009 results in $235,305,065 for TMP's adjusted figure. However, I usually see TMP's adjusted figure reported between $239M and $242M.

Yeah, the only problem being that it's the average ticket price. (A price that I can honestly never remember paying anywhere ever. I want to know what bumblefuck town I need to move to in order to pay less than $7.18 to see a first-run movie. ) How do you account for differences such as TMP having a longer theatrical run than ST 09 likely will? Or first-run versus second-run "cheap" theaters? Even figuring it out Box Office Mojo's way isn't perfect.

Here in Bradford County, PA, the 3 towns that have theaters would qualify as 'bumblefuck towns', I suppose - first run movies are always $6 for adults (all 3 theaters are operated by our Regional Arts Council). 2 of them have multiple screens and Star Trek just finished its run on Thursday.

 

[CoveTom]

Ultimately, though, all of this is really inconsequential; what's important is that the new movie is a phenomenal success, beyond most of our wildest dreams.

That's true, but as a moderator you should appreciate the fact that if we did not discuss the inconsequential around here, TrekBBS would likely cease to exist...

 

[wew]

In parts of the Charlotte region if you go to the earliest showing its $4.00. I saw it twice for a grand total of $8.75; my popcorn and drink cost more than actually seeing Star Trek 2009 twice.

 

[Omega_Glory]

TMP was shown on 800-something screens...I think the new movie is like 3800 or so. That would have to be calculated in too I would imagine.

 

[Blue_Trek]

I am really tired of these inflation numbers game's.

Things have changed too much in 30 years, I really don't think they are relevant anymore. We have the advent of the home theater, huge HD TV's with awesome sound systems that are quite expensive and are purchased so that people don't have to go to the movies as much, or even ever anymore. DVD's & Blu-ray.

You have Star Trek online, a crappy picture but it's there.

Nope you may cling too that old inflation numbers game, but really too much has changed in thirty years for it to be relevant anymore. Maybe 10 years ago you could have made these statements, but not now.

STAR TREK [2009] is the new king of the hill in the Trek world anyway you slice it now.

I saw the TMP in theaters in 1979 when it came out, and no movie ever let me down as hard in my entire movie going experience as the TMP.

It flat out sucked, and it still does, Nemesis is better IMO.

 

[Therin of Andor]

TMP was shown on 800-something screens...I think the new movie is like 3800 or so. That would have to be calculated in too I would imagine.

It would average out though. ST:TMP opened in one huge cinema per CBD, and perhaps stayed for about six months, eventually moving out to a few short runs in smaller suburban cinemas. Compared to now when JJ's ST is on several screens per every suburban multiplex in a city.

... TMP in theaters in 1979 when it came out, and no movie ever let me down as hard in my entire movie going experience as the TMP.

It flat out sucked, and it still does.

Totally opposite experience. I was blown away by TMP at age 21, having somehow missed the TOS phenomenon. TMP made me a ST fan and remains my favourite movie of all time.

 

[Tulin]

^ Indeed.

I was nine and the film also blew me away!!!

Being so young, I wasn't fully able to comprehend all the metaphysical stuff going on. What I knew was this experience was BIG and GRAND and I was absolutely HOOKED!!!

That is something I feel is missing from today's sci fi(or rather, as I have waxed elsewhere here, films that call themselves SF but are actually brainless action 'splosion films set in space or the future) - the big ideas and the sense of grandeur and epic scale that we got from films like 2001, TMP, CE3K and even Alien.

 

[npsf3000]

That means that the new film now is the most financially successful of all the Trek movies

1. ST:TMP worldwide gross $409.5 million
2. Star Trek worldwide gross $361.6 million

and using this http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl ST:TMP domestic gross is now $242.3 million.

I'm curious how you got any sort of result out of that, given that the calculator gave me an error message saying it couldn't handle a base number larger than 10 million.

...

Its a simple principle used in maths and programming all the time, devide it by a value e.g. 1,000,000(lets call it 'M') do you maths and later times it by the value again.

For example

$82,258,456 / 1,000,000 = 82.26M

I put that into the calc...

it gave me $213.49

so thats

$213.49M or $213,490,000

What do you think all those symbols in math are? M = million, K = thousand, G = Billion etc.

 

[RAMA]

The movie is only $4 million from being the number 2 movie worldwide in 2009.

RAMA

 

[Stardate]

1. ST:TMP worldwide gross $409.5 million
2. Star Trek worldwide gross $361.6 million

and using this http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl ST:TMP domestic gross is now $242.3 million.

I'm curious how you got any sort of result out of that, given that the calculator gave me an error message saying it couldn't handle a base number larger than 10 million.

...

Its a simple principle used in maths and programming all the time, devide it by a value e.g. 1,000,000(lets call it 'M') do you maths and later times it by the value again.

For example

$82,258,456 / 1,000,000 = 82.26M

I put that into the calc...

it gave me $213.49

so thats

$213.49M or $213,490,000

What do you think all those symbols in math are? M = million, K = thousand, G = Billion etc.

I have no problem using this inflation calculator. Just dial 82.258 and select 1979 and you will get $242.3 million for ST:TMP domestic gross.
Also npsf3000 you selected 1980 inflation number and not 1979. That is why you get $213.49 million. ST:TMP was released in 1979 and made bulk of its money in 1979.

 

[Jeri]

It's interesting to hear the views of Therin and Tulin on TMP. So, could I conclude that as a kid you preferred the monumental bigness of TMP to, say, the more mundane approachability (casual, normal) of Star Wars?

 

[VulcanJedi]

I am really tired of these inflation numbers game's.

Things have changed too much in 30 years, I really don't think they are relevant anymore. We have the advent of the home theater, huge HD TV's with awesome sound systems that are quite expensive and are purchased so that people don't have to go to the movies as much, or even ever anymore. DVD's & Blu-ray.

You have Star Trek online, a crappy picture but it's there.

Nope you may cling too that old inflation numbers game, but really too much has changed in thirty years for it to be relevant anymore. Maybe 10 years ago you could have made these statements, but not now.

STAR TREK [2009] is the new king of the hill in the Trek world anyway you slice it now.

I saw the TMP in theaters in 1979 when it came out, and no movie ever let me down as hard in my entire movie going experience as the TMP.

It flat out sucked, and it still does, Nemesis is better IMO.

It's unwatchable.

All this talk of TMP--TMP this and TMP that. What about another famously anticipated film with a similar acronym? TPM?

 

[Therin of Andor]

It's interesting to hear the views of Therin and Tulin on TMP. So, could I conclude that as a kid you preferred the monumental bigness of TMP to, say, the more mundane approachability (casual, normal) of Star Wars?

Funny you should say that. I remember the huge level of fuss about the coming of "Star Wars", the news reports of lines going around blocks outside any cinemas screening it, and even the sign that went up, reading "Our 14th big month!"

Ditto "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". And later, "ET: The Extraterrestrial".

For some reason, I avoided the SW due mainly to its hype, and yet I was attracted by publicity for other biggies like "Superman: The Movie", "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" (oh wow!!!!!) - and then "Superman II" (a full six months before it premiered in the US).

As a result of TMP, I also got hooked on the then-quite-fledgling "Starlog" magazine. After reading lots of related articles, I eagerly attended "The Empire Strikes Back" in first-run (without having seen "A New Hope"). A friend and I even attended "Return of the Jedi" as Andorians! What fun! Silly film, but the atmosphere of the opening night was great.

But the "Star Trek" films continued to be a favourite, and catching up on TOS was a great challenge.

What about another famously anticipated film with a similar acronym? TPM?

Ugh! I loathed it. From the opening banner scroll that mentioned politics and trade routes. Ick. "The Phantom Menace" was a mess!

 

[Blue_Trek]

It's interesting to hear the views of Therin and Tulin on TMP. So, could I conclude that as a kid you preferred the monumental bigness of TMP to, say, the more mundane approachability (casual, normal) of Star Wars?

Well I was 11 in 1979, and about only over a year ago I saw Star Wars for the third time at 10 years old, near to the time it closed out.

I guarantee if you show a 10 year old both movies that have never seen either, on the big screen, which they will like better. It was no contest then, and still isn't.

Still love Star Trek, I just despise TMP, tried to watch it a few months ago when it was on TV, to see if my opinion had changed, nope, still sucks, unwatchable. Compare that to Khan that I viewed again after many years and really enjoyed.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I guarantee if you show a 10 year old both movies that have never seen either, on the big screen, which they will like better. It was no contest then, and still isn't.

Except I was 21. TMP spoke to me. It was an all-immersing experience. "Star Wars" didn't speak to me. It was just a fun movie I eventually caught on TV.