The top 10 Trek movies by ticket sales!

[RAMA]

I think they did a good job melding the story and FX, and it led to the best franchise box office. I had wished for years to see bigger scale Trek films and finally the Kelvin films answered the call.

Would a mid-sized, $110-120 million budget film help the profit ratio? Sure.

RAMA

Which if the studios are smart....and not too greedy they put out lost of movies not just the big budget ones, because the longer the covid//corona virus disrupts things the more people will want distractions. Nothin will beat movies in the theater if only for all of those with home theaters we just cant match the screen scale, audio as well as the group experience.

Nothing can beat watching STtVH in tuscon AZ for me. Az used to be a Star Trek fandom area because of the military basing lost of teck stuff training here.....as well as DLI in monterey California. If you coughed or slurped too loud you were aggressively shushed. I'm h been in college exams that had more noise. It was like every one was trying to absorb the film as well as watch it. Unfortunately even having friends watching parties isn't the same. Watching any of the start trek movies at a base theater was the best thing ever with every seat packed....and the audiences could only be more supportive if it was a Con.

I do think they should look to the british SciFi to see how stories triumph over just Effects anyday. I still remember seeing Blakes 7 broadcast on silicon valley' s PBS and seeing how it was addictive stores with minimal practical effects....and how its still influencing all science fiction today at least as much as all star trek and no one hardly knows it because ti was never released in any USA format.

I trained in CGI graphics and story trumps splashy effects any day for all that they are pretty. Maybe part of the problem is fewere people read text, so the current entertainment style leans to all visual storytelling with less actual story and allowing the actors to act, and not exposition/monologue to a cgi effect thats too perfect and a cheat to how we really see and experience the world.

While small screen Trek is fun, you run into problems like I have. I live in a rural area for heath reasons, while I am 50ft from a T1 fiber line, the only connections for residential is intermittent wifi from cell towers. The infrastructure is just not good enough to handle dedicated online only media outside of cities....and with covid/corona psych studies show its already causing urban flight from cities and even suburbs. I think this trend is going to hold because of the fracturing of society from the virus as well as political dissonance, and social unrest will change the profit ratio as incomes fall as well.

Basicly film/movies are better on the big screen and you can get a bigger profit with teh right marketing and holding the inflated budgets down. We actually don't need to see everything visually, as out brains cannot process information like a camera, its both basic psych and biology. They are wasting their money and I hate its putting my favorite series at risk.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Still it's odd that they lost half the audience from TMP to WOK, and WOK is thought to be the best by most people

TMP ran in some places for over eight months. Many fans went over and over again.

I bet a lot of people didn't want to watch Spock die over and over. I knew quite a few who watched it only once.

 

[NCC-73515]

That's a good point, people probably found it way too sad and upsetting before SFS came out

 

[XCV330]

While it had two weeks head start, TMP was up against Disney's The Black Hole for the majority of the holiday season in 1979. Still not as much competition as June 1982, but I recall that for my elementary school class I was the only kid with an interest in TMP, everyone else wanted to see The Black Hole.

Our family couldnt get in the door to see TMP, the lines were so long, so we went to see The Black Hole instead. Went to see TMP later. Think I fell asleep in the theater.

 

[Qonundrum]

I do think they should look to the british SciFi to see how stories triumph over just Effects anyday. I still remember seeing Blakes 7 broadcast on silicon valley' s PBS and seeing how it was addictive stores with minimal practical effects....and how its still influencing all science fiction today at least as much as all star trek and no one hardly knows it because ti was never released in any USA format.

I trained in CGI graphics and story trumps splashy effects any day for all that they are pretty. Maybe part of the problem is fewere people read text, so the current entertainment style leans to all visual storytelling with less actual story and allowing the actors to act, and not exposition/monologue to a cgi effect thats too perfect and a cheat to how we really see and experience the world.

B7 and DW both had producers saying they wanted to do bigger effects, but still made stories that needed big effects. TOS, which had a budget back in the day, still suffered with limited available technology for the cost. That's why those old stories could get new effects and still be engaging. Or in some cases, given new effects that go so over the top it's now laughable no matter how photorealistic. TOS-R did it right...

Visual storytelling has a place and point but having some meat to the story and actors to help sell it since it's way too easy to watch something and go "This is such a nonstory that they need the loud music and gratuitous visual effects to sell it?"

 

[AmbreP]

B7 and DW both had producers saying they wanted to do bigger effects, but still made stories that needed big effects. TOS, which had a budget back in the day, still suffered with limited available technology for the cost. That's why those old stories could get new effects and still be engaging. Or in some cases, given new effects that go so over the top it's now laughable no matter how photorealistic. TOS-R did it right...

Visual storytelling has a place and point but having some meat to the story and actors to help sell it since it's way too easy to watch something and go "This is such a nonstory that they need the loud music and gratuitous visual effects to sell it?"

Agreed.

The new movies, including non-trek are relying on the new digital effects, even when practical would be better and cheaper to film as well as kinder for the actors. I love visuals, but you need story or its just hollow expensive nonsense. I really wonder if the big studios are like business (and publishing) where only opening sales really count and over time sales are meaningless even if you make more money over time with better product. I remember reading somewhere that firefly over time has been the biggest return in investment because its the most commonly owned franchise by science ficton fans.Then they also do not count oveseas sales just north america, so when counting oversea the kelve stories even adjusted for inflation are 3 of the 4 top makes of profit for the entire franchise....

But remember while the studio has cancelled the movie proposals we know about.....they officially reserved (payed for) space in theaters for and unnamed star trek movie 2022, with only the kelvin timeline reviewing scripts.


Edited to repair broken quote tag & improve readability - M'

 

[sonak]

They should've released Star Trek Into Darkness in 2011, then rolled out Star Trek Beyond in 2013, with as much advertising as they did for the first two new movies. Then Beyond probably would've made about as much money as Into Darkness.

Then they would've had a trilogy, the Star Trek name would've been firmly established in the Big League and it could've had the potential to begin to compete with Marvel or Star Wars, and they could've had Star Trek 4 for the 50th Anniversary in 2016.

The Star Wars brand has been diluted by coming out with a new movie every year from 2015 to 2019. I liked the Sequel Trilogy, even though I'm not really a Star Wars fan, but becoming more commonplace has taken the Event feel out of them.

If the new Star Trek movies were every two years from 2009 to 2013, then switched to every three years afterwards, and they kept up the advertising, a fifth new Star Trek movie in 2019 would've been in the perfect position to take on a weakened Star Wars. Star Trek 5 still wouldn't have made as much money as Star Wars Episode IX, but it could've been close if they'd handled it right.

Bottom line: they botched the marketing of these movies and they took too long to make them. No one's denying the last three movies did better than the first 10 (excluding TMP), but that wasn't the real competition. It wasn't about New Trek vs. Old Trek. It was about Star Trek vs. Star Wars and Marvel.

It's easy to say "look at how much better we did than the Old Trek movies!" Yeah, that's great. But how are you doing against your competition today in the here and now?

I don't think for a second that there won't ever be another Star Trek movie but, when they come back, they need to have budgets that are friendlier to the box-offices they'll make... or we'll be right back here again.

I'm not too concerned about it right now, though. For me, Star Trek on TV is where it's at. On balance, I thought the Kelvin Movies were okay; but Discovery and Picard are what I'm a fan of.

I agree that the long gap between Star Trek XI and STID really hurt the momentum of the new movies. I also agree that ST: Beyond had a baffling marketing strategy. It should have been a big deal with the 50th anniversary involved, but I don’t remember seeing much attention given to the release. It was a disappointing drop off in box office performance.

 

[Smellmet]

I agree that the long gap between Star Trek XI and STID really hurt the momentum of the new movies. I also agree that ST: Beyond had a baffling marketing strategy. It should have been a big deal with the 50th anniversary involved, but I don’t remember seeing much attention given to the release. It was a disappointing drop off in box office performance.

It wasn't just the marketing, it was the release date, right in the middle of blockbuster season.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

It wasn't just the marketing, it was the release date, right in the middle of blockbuster season.

And it was a remarkably bad year, even for the blockbusters.

 

[ChallengerHK]

Still it's odd that they lost half the audience from TMP to WOK, and WOK is thought to be the best by most people

Speaking from the past :-) I can say that when TMP appeared there was tremendous pent-up demand. Fans had been waiting for ten years for new Trek. (As much as I personally enjoy TAS, and as much as I don't think it deserves the "kiddie show" reputation that is heaped on it, it was hard to tell a meaningful story in 22 minutes.) Coupled with the fact that TMP was heavily hyped, and the surrounding "big sf" that had appeared (Star Wars, Close Encounters, etc.), people were literally waiting in line TMP.

When TWOK hit...let's just say that TMP was a disappointment to huge numbers of the fan base. Whether or not it was objectively "good" (and whatever that means), fans' expectations had been for character stories like the original series. Reams of fanzines did not tell stories about special effects or humanity-dwarfing machines; they told stories about the relationships between the crew, very often without any galactic-scale threat at all. For many reasons, TMP was not that. Many fans were not motivated to see TWOK in light of what had been done with TMP. I myself had to talk two friends into seeing the film, and these friends were fans for about a decade and frequent convention goers. TMP had just turned them off to Trek. Once they saw TWOK, they were delighted with it.

 

[Vger23]

Speaking from the past :-) I can say that when TMP appeared there was tremendous pent-up demand. Fans had been waiting for ten years for new Trek. (As much as I personally enjoy TAS, and as much as I don't think it deserves the "kiddie show" reputation that is heaped on it, it was hard to tell a meaningful story in 22 minutes.) Coupled with the fact that TMP was heavily hyped, and the surrounding "big sf" that had appeared (Star Wars, Close Encounters, etc.), people were literally waiting in line TMP.

When TWOK hit...let's just say that TMP was a disappointment to huge numbers of the fan base. Whether or not it was objectively "good" (and whatever that means), fans' expectations had been for character stories like the original series. Reams of fanzines did not tell stories about special effects or humanity-dwarfing machines; they told stories about the relationships between the crew, very often without any galactic-scale threat at all. For many reasons, TMP was not that. Many fans were not motivated to see TWOK in light of what had been done with TMP. I myself had to talk two friends into seeing the film, and these friends were fans for about a decade and frequent convention goers. TMP had just turned them off to Trek. Once they saw TWOK, they were delighted with it.

I also think "repeat viewing" factored into TMP's success. As you said, the film may have been a shock to the system of some Trek fans, but I think there were also many who went to see that first film multiple times due to the decade-long wait. When TWOK premiered, there were other sci-fi/fantasy options at the box office (ET, Firefox, Poltergeist, Blade Runner, Secret of NIHM, etc) that movie goers were probably interested in spending their money on.

 

[ChallengerHK]

I also think "repeat viewing" factored into TMP's success. As you said, the film may have been a shock to the system of some Trek fans, but I think there were also many who went to see that first film multiple times due to the decade-long wait. When TWOK premiered, there were other sci-fi/fantasy options at the box office (ET, Firefox, Poltergeist, Blade Runner, Secret of NIHM, etc) that movie goers were probably interested in spending their money on.

I concur, especially with the last part. There had been a lot of sf/f films up to 1982, and then 82 itself was a banner year. For the casual fan there was a lot of competition to TWOK.

 

[AmbreP]

I concur, especially with the last part. There had been a lot of sf/f films up to 1982, and then 82 itself was a banner year. For the casual fan there was a lot of competition to TWOK.

I agree too. That appears to be a golden time for for SF movies. The closest thing I see to the trek phenomenon on TV right now is supernatural, and with how they ended the series I cant see how they could transition to movies or further Tv shows like ST did. If you want to be scared look up convention pricing for supernatural, and you will see the money is in conventions not the actual entertainment. I really hop this isn't the future for all SF or we will be going to a really dark period for SF and all entertainment. I saw a documentary about the spanish flu epidemic in the early 1900s and how it created Hollywood and modern entertainment, and I am now even more concerned that covid/corona will be the start of the death knell for Tv and movies. Since most rural people like me only have wifi and no possibility of fiber line connection without USA government mandate in the USA, anyone outside of a city is not going to participate at all in new media viewership/ streaming services will also reduce the markets and margins.

I am a frequent reviewer of my favorite franchises, all but one is SF (and its a paranormal Sf genre.....ok supernatural tv show) and the companies that service rural areas are breaking all the contract, between all the people using bandwidth as well as teh change to 5K. My own are went from 7 services (all wifi even if only 100ft from a T! and T3 fiber lines) down to 3 which are At&t wifi, and 2 companies that contracted from them. At&t announces two weeks ago they are breaking all the contracts, and changing the data rates from $45 for .30G @70-130 MbpS to either $85 for 7G @60-70MbPs or $100 for 50G @2MbPs which makes streaming impossible, starting Dec1st. With movies moving to streaming only, this is going to cut out huge portions of the market...because yes SF fans also live in rural areas, limiting viewership and the markets and thereby funding even more in a time where home viewership is skyrocketing as people will become more desperate for distraction and entertainment. Its going to take movies a lot longer (maybe a year or more) to ramp up production again after covid becomes manageable with vaccination. so box office and viewership will drop so studios will shift into other, shall we say other cheaper genre to produce.

 

[publiusr]

While it had two weeks head start, TMP was up against Disney's The Black Hole for the majority of the holiday season in 1979. Still not as much competition as June 1982, but I recall that for my elementary school class I was the only kid with an interest in TMP, everyone else wanted to see The Black Hole.

1979 was THE year for space movies. Moonraker, ALIEN, etc.

1979-1982 was the heyday of SF/ Space Opera films.

By the mid-80s, there was a different feel what with Terminator, Back To The Future, etc. Fantasy rose.

In some respects, there was a certain falling away in 1983, with ROTJ.

TWOK was an example of the perfect storm...a clash of cultures. Star Wars pushed effects...Horror was big, and with THE THING and ALIEN, space was no longer safe.

Everything came together perfectly

 

[Khan 2.0]

1979 was THE year for space movies. Moonraker, ALIEN, etc.

1979-1982 was the heyday of SF/ Space Opera films.

By the mid-80s, there was a different feel what with Terminator, Back To The Future, etc. Fantasy rose.

In some respects, there was a certain falling away in 1983, with ROTJ.

TWOK was an example of the perfect storm...a clash of cultures. Star Wars pushed effects...Horror was big, and with THE THING and ALIEN, space was no longer safe.

Everything came together perfectly

Yes you are right in 77 -SW & CE3K and then the immediate aftermath with studios tripping over themselves to do space set SF which all came to a head in 79 (Disney/Black Hole, Fox/Alien, Paramount/TMP, UA/Moonraker) and continued into 80-82 (ESB, Superman II, Flash, Battle Beyond Stars, Saturn 3, Outland, TWOK, ET) with some of that dark horror stuff influenced by Alien & Body Snatchers like The Thing and even creeping into Star Trek II (and there was dark horroresque dystopian earth based scifi going on with Blade Runner, Escape from NY, Mad Max etc and a sub 'sword & sorcery' genre attempts at a 'star wars on land' Hawk the Slayer, Clash of Titans, Conan, Beastmaster, Krull). then once SW finished in 83 it seemed it was more real world earth based action fantasy type scifi Ghostbusters, Gremlins, Superman III (no space stuff), Temple of Doom, Thunderdome, BTTF, Terminator, Predator, Robocop (with pretty much just Star Trek, 2010, and Aliens continuing with the space scifi) up until 89 with was like a crescendo of al things 80s SF/Fantasy (Indy, Batman, Star Trek, Bond, GB, BTTF)

 

[AmbreP]

They has so much less money , and smaller budgets even allowing for inflation....where did it all go? I know I'm biased as a second gen fan, but I just dont get it with the popularity of SciFi/fantasy in general as well as the rise of gamers (lots of sf fans there). as well as increasing amounts of female fans and the acceptance if not glorification of the "nerd" in pop culture, did it kill the run of SF? Its very confusing and an intriguing oddity, even if I wasn't a fan.

 

[publiusr]

Well, in 1979, the year 2001 was still the future. A goal ever since A Space Odyssey.

But we got 9/11 instead

 

[AmbreP]

And communicators/cell phones/pocket mini computers. I still prefer my laptop bu I trained in computer graphics/animation. As long as we don't get a eugenics war its all good.

 

[Tim Thomason]

Why was TVH thought to be so successful when it sold less tickets than TMP or even WOK?

Financially, in terms of gross earnings, Star Trek IV was the most successful of the pre-Abrams films, being the only one to gross over $100 million in theaters. When adjusted for inflation, Star Trek IV's $109 million becomes $260 Million, making it the second highest earning Star Trek film, behind only Star Trek '09 ($257M, adjusted to $312M), and ahead of Into Darkness ($228M, adj. $255M) and Beyond ($158M, adj. $172M).

Star Trek IV released in 1956 theaters, less than all films except for Star Treks I (1002) and II (1621). The Kelvin films all released in about 4000 theaters, with '09 topping the charts at 4053. If you average out the lifetime gross with the max number of theaters, Star Trek IV earned $56,091 per theater, behind Star Trek I ($82,094), '09 ($63,590) and Into Darkness ($58,556). Adjusting for inflation, Star Trek IV earns about $133,180 per theater, far outpacing even Star Trek '09 at $77,133... but far behind the all-time best average per theater (adjusted for inflation), which is Star Trek: The Motion Picture at $294,260.

The average ticket price in 1986 was $3.71 (adj. $8.81), less than the $7.50 (adj. $9.10) from 2009 and $7.93 (adj. $9.17) from 2011 and $8.65 (adj. $9.38) from 2016. Ticket prices in 1979 were $2.52 (adj. $9.03), so it's not like there was a major upcharge in ticket prices between 1979 and 1986. People were paying less in 1986 (adjusted for inflation) than they ever did before or since.

 

[arch101]

Yet TMP trounced the black hole at the box office.

The Black Hole seemed to get uniformly bad reviews while Star Trek had the advantage of an enthusiastic built-in audience and that the critics were split- many panned it but many applauded it.
Completely agree with those who think that the Kelvin films were spaced too far apart, a fact that I believe led to what seems to be their demise. I found it frustrating that Paramount would seem to wait until right on the edge of the "attention span" before bringing another one out. They really needed to strike while the iron was hot when the '09 film hit it big. I think Beyond especially suffered from too long a wait (and atrocious marketing that tried to make it look like a "cool rocker flick")