Agreed. That and Kirk's sacrifice and his struggles with feeling inferior in comparison to his dad is all good dramatic storytelling.
And the art design in the films are among my favorites in Trek.
Spoilers Picard News & Reviews from Outside Sources
- Thread starter The Old Mixer
- Start date
And the art design in the films are among my favorites in Trek.
Highly subjective to begin with.
Do we talk critics? They were acclaimed. Personal? Me like, you no. Awards? So many awards I can barely count them and I can count pretty high (at least to 100...I know you're impressed with my maths Skillz). Are they in the National Film Registry? Get back to me in 20 years.
Star Trek 2009 had a budget of 150 million, grossed 385 million. A return of 2.5
Into Darkness had a budget of (maximum) 190 million, grossed 467 million, a return of 2.45
First Contact had a budget of 45 million, grossed 146 million, a return of 3.2
Generations had a budget of 35 million, grossed 118 million, a return of 3.6
So yeah, First Contact and Generationsat least was far more profitable. However it is worth noting that when Generations and First Contact came out there was *no* real sci-fi competition at that time and Star Trek was concurrent with both TV and films. By the time ST09 and ID came out there was a lot more going on.
It's a quandary. The first two were loved by film goers, the 3rd one beloved by Trekkies. Paramount will take the money every time.
Can't please everyone right? Even ice cream is shunned by the lactose intolerant.
Imagine if they had just not done the Khan thing. It could have just been the story of John Harrison, rogue Section 31 operative turned terrorist. That could have been fine.
I will guarantee you with ancillaries counted that the newer movies made a profit much higher than the older ones.
Or that universe's Robert April, pissed that Enterprise wasn't given to him to command, so he went against Starfleet (kind of an adaptation of Heart of Darkness). There could have been a few ways they could have gone and it still would have been better than what they chose to do.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is plausible
I personally liked the idea that John Harrison was going to be one of Khans top commanders who was thawed and maintained his intense loyalty to Khan but was not Khan himself.
But ya know...can't change it now
I mean, how are we measuring "more profitable?" Are we measuring absolute dollars in profit or are we measuring return on investment?
Star Trek: Generations had a budget of $35 million and a total worldwide gross of about $118.07 million. The absolute profit was 83.07 million, and the ROI was 337.35%.
Star Trek: First Contact had a budget of $45 million (corrected) and a total worldwide gross of $146.03 million, for an absolute profit of $101.03 million (corrected) and an ROI of 324.51% (corrected).
Star Trek (2009) had a budget of $150 million, total worldwide gross of $385.68 million, an absolute profit of $235.68 million, and an ROI of 257.12%.
Star Trek Into Darkness had a budget of $190 million, total worldwide gross of $467.37 million, an absolute profit of $277.37 million, and an ROI of 245.98%.
All figures taken from Box Office Mojo.
So the ROI on the TNG movies was higher, but the absolute profits were much higher for the Kelvin films. And when your absolute numbers are that much higher, that matters at least as much as ROI.
Edited to add:
Also, none of these figures are adjusted for inflation.
Star Trek: Generations had a budget of $35 million and a total worldwide gross of about $118.07 million. The absolute profit was 83.07 million, and the ROI was 337.35%.
Star Trek: First Contact had a budget of $45 million (corrected) and a total worldwide gross of $146.03 million, for an absolute profit of $101.03 million (corrected) and an ROI of 324.51% (corrected).
Star Trek (2009) had a budget of $150 million, total worldwide gross of $385.68 million, an absolute profit of $235.68 million, and an ROI of 257.12%.
Star Trek Into Darkness had a budget of $190 million, total worldwide gross of $467.37 million, an absolute profit of $277.37 million, and an ROI of 245.98%.
All figures taken from Box Office Mojo.
So the ROI on the TNG movies was higher, but the absolute profits were much higher for the Kelvin films. And when your absolute numbers are that much higher, that matters at least as much as ROI.
Edited to add:
Also, none of these figures are adjusted for inflation.
Last edited:
One thing to keep in mind is the cinema keeps about half of ticket sales, and then you have publicity and advertising. Many film YouTube channels argue a film needs to make back 3X its budget to really make a profit with the current P&A costs.
ST09 was profitable. STID and STB would be near the breakeven or not line.
Honestly, I would just have Harrison be a genetically engineered expirement, in line with Khan, or inspired by the Eugenics Wars. Kind of a Winter Soldier-esque Starfleet response to the Klingons being bigger, faster and stronger.
I still like the movie but I would do one more pass on the script. Or go back to a version were Khan isn't in it.
According to Hollywood accounting, no movie is profitable
You can add up totals for the 3 Kelvin films, even with marketing counted they made a mint.
Honestly, I would just have Harrison be a genetically engineered expirement, in line with Khan, or inspired by the Eugenics Wars. Kind of a Winter Soldier-esque Starfleet response to the Klingons being bigger, faster and stronger.
I still like the movie but I would do one more pass on the script. Or go back to a version were Khan isn't in it.
According to Hollywood accounting, no movie is profitable
Being a follow on to the Enterprise augment storyline would have been fine also.
Andes or Altoids?
Inflation-Adjusted Box Office Info:
Star Trek: Generations (1994)
Budget: $71.25 million
Gross: $240.35 million
Profit: $169.10 million
ROI: 337.35%
Star Trek: First Contact
Budget: $87.01 million
Gross: $282.35 million
Profit: $195.34 million
ROI: 324.51%
Star Trek (2009)
Budget: $211.77 million
Gross: $544.50 million
Profit: $332.73 million
ROI: 257.12%
Star Trek Into Darkness
Budget: $245.61 million
Gross: $604.15 million
Profit: $358.55 million
ROI: 245.98%
Star Trek: Generations (1994)
Budget: $71.25 million
Gross: $240.35 million
Profit: $169.10 million
ROI: 337.35%
Star Trek: First Contact
Budget: $87.01 million
Gross: $282.35 million
Profit: $195.34 million
ROI: 324.51%
Star Trek (2009)
Budget: $211.77 million
Gross: $544.50 million
Profit: $332.73 million
ROI: 257.12%
Star Trek Into Darkness
Budget: $245.61 million
Gross: $604.15 million
Profit: $358.55 million
ROI: 245.98%
According to Hollywood accounting, no movie is profitable
Well, there you have it. Every movie is terrible!
It's usually less than half -- about 40% -- and it's not enough for the exhibitor to pay the bills. Movie theaters are elaborate traps to convince you to buy concessions on Friday and Saturday nights and Sunday afternoons, which is the thing that actually keeps the lights on. Source: I co-managed a movie theater for six years.
Similar threads
