Thoughts on box office results

[Eddie Roth]

I recently used an inflation calculator on the box office numbers of the ST movies, just to see how they measure up in relation to each other (we all know who inflation distorts the numbers.) And I came upon some interesting things there. So I'll share:

Star Trek: The Motion Picture $245.587.696 BO
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan $170.921.637 BO
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock $149.235.666 BO
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home $198.148.207 BO
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier $85.802.702 BO
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country $111.419.955 BO
Star Trek: Generations $101.843.608 BO
Star Trek: First Contact $117.774.435 BO
Star Trek: Insurrection $85.750.004 BO
Star Trek: Nemesis $48.208.695 BO

All that's adjusted for inflation. Now it's interesting that box office grosses dropped steeply between TVH and TFF and (while posting solid numbers when compared with the films budgets) never again reached the heights that TMP, TWOK, TSFS and TVH climbed financially. And what happened between TVH and TFF? TNG premiered on television. So is it possible that a large number of potential moviegoers just stayed home because they thought "Why would I pay to see Star Trek if it's on TV for free?"

Also, when INS made only a very small profit in 1998 ($85m with a $71m budget), it was the second (though considerably less-well-received) ST film that opened when TWO ST series were on the air - that also attracted a considerably smaller audience than TNG had in its day.

Finally, NEM bombed completely (and even posted a loss for Paramount) when the equally unsuccesful ENT was on TV. So:

- Is a Star Trek film less appealing to a mass audience when a Star Trek series (albeit with a different cast) is currently in TV?
- Can we see a connection here between the success of the film in question and the ST TV series on the air at the time?
- How much does repeat viewing by hardcore fans figure into those numbers? Did e.g. people see TVH two or three times because they loved it and were then satisfied with seeing TFF only once because they didn't like it?

I wonder what these factors mean for how well Star Trek (2008) does at the box office....

 

[CaptainJon]

TMP was riding the "Star Wars" wave. Studios were trying to duplicate the massive success Star Wars had. Sci-Fi movies were actually being looked at as something with some staying power. So when TMP opened, it wasn't just Trek fans flocking to the theater, it was the general audience as well looking for that next Star Wars.

The numbers for TWoK ('82) TSFS ('84) were still up, but not at the levels of TMP. At the very least, TWoK was still riding that same wave, if not as much because TMP was not very well-received, so the general public may not have been as anxious to flock to the theaters. TVH ('86) was the most "general public friendly" Trek film, which added to its success. It wasn't ladden with Trek-fare, but was basically a "fish out of water" (no pun intended) story which allowed for more chemistry and comedy then the previous movies.

TNG debuted in the fall of '87. Did this impact the earnings for TFF ('89)? Yes and no. There may have been people who just didn't feel the need to see something in a theater that they could see on TV, unless it was something really, really good. Hence, TFF's failure because critically it bombed. Word-of-mouth got around that it really just wasn't a good movie. TNG was just wrapping up its second season when TFF opened. So why bother seeing it if you see something on TV that was getting better?

TUC ('91) was still suffering from the failure of TFF. While it was a better movie and celebrated Trek's 25th anniversary, as well as being TOS' swan song, it was just hard to completely recover from TFF, especially when TNG had become such a hit. Once again, why see something in the theater when you could see something potentially better for free? While TUC is an excellent Trek film, the Golden Age for Trek pictures was over.

1994. TNG has wrapped up a successful 7-year run. DS9 is in its third season, and VOY is right around the corner. Generations marks the meeting of Capt. Kirk & Capt. Picard in what is supposed to be an epic adventure. Unfortunately, the epic adventure is nothing more than a 2-hour episode. While it was more true to the TNG-spirit then the rest of the TNG movies, it was filled with plotholes and just not overly well-received by Trek fans nor the public in general. FC had more appeal to the general public then its three predecessors, but at the same time came out when Trek wasn't as cool as it once was, and why 2 series were on TV.

I could go on about the dwindling quality of Trek and the storytelling in the subsequent movies, but I'll sum up my little run here.

I feel that it's not just about over-saturation, but also about appeal to the general public. TMP through TSFS appealed to the general public because of the success of Star Wars, and SciFi was cool. TVH had enough of its own charm and wit to stand on its own have its own public appeal to be the hit that it was. But unfortunately, Star Trek has not appealed to the general public in a long time because it has gradually become more and more "nerdy" with the technobabble. Add to that, many Trek fans are just tired of "the same old, same old" because Trek has played it safe for years, and have gradually just stopped caring. "Another Trek movie? Oh, okay. Whatever." Some "fans" boycotted the movies just because of who was making it. How can Trek appeal to the mainstream public when it has trouble appealing to its own fanbase? That's why the numbers kept dropping, especially during the last ten years. Fans were alienated by the series, so they gave up on the movies.

I hope some of this made sense. I tried putting my thoughts into a coherent pattern. But I think that the results are because of a) The Star Wars wave of appeal and b) Trek lost its ability to appeal on its own to the general audience.

 

[Therin of Andor]

CaptainJon said:
So when TMP opened, it wasn't just Trek fans flocking to the theater, it was the general audience as well looking for that next Star Wars.

Roddenberry also told Paramount to pull TOS from syndication a few months before TMP, so the fans were extra hungry for new ST. TMP ran for a very long time in cinemas, with some fans going back week after week.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

I think the problems with INS and NEM were that... they tried too hard...
The boobs joke... has to be up there with "I hate sand..."

 

[cardinal biggles]

The difference being that I laughed at both the first time I heard them, but only one was meant to be funny.

 

[Flake]

I think the new movie will be a totally different story financially. Everything points to a big-budget tentpole, whereas the last half dozen movies have been budgeted for the fanbase to see. Trek XI is attempting to breakout beyond what is left of the fanbase and make a movie for everyone.

Add to that the novelty of the originals being recast, the potential of having an A-Lister or two in a cameo or leading role, the buzz of having TOS remade, the buzz of having one of Hollywoods hottest properties producing/directing. It all adds up to potentially having TMP/TWOK/TSFS/TVH adjusted numbers.

Trek is jumping on the big-budget franchise bandwagon. Batman, Superman, Potter, LOTR, Bond, POTC, Spiderman etc etc - History may be repeating, because TMP jumped on a similar bandwagon 30 years ago.

 

[Sec31Mike]

I don't think this film is going to be a profitable venture box office wise. I think they are going to spend way too much, and in the process of alienating a lot of fans are going to lose out on the people that would normally go see a Trek film repeatedly in the theaters.

 

[cardinal biggles]

You mean like all those fans who saw Nemesis repeatedly in the theaters?

People on the internet can bluster all they want, we won't truly know whether the casual Trekkies and Joe Public are willing to accept a revamped version of the classic series until Star Trek opens next Christmas.

 

[Csalem]

I must confess I saw Nemesis twice in the cinema

 

[cardinal biggles]

Nothing personal, just trying to point out to Sec31Mike that the number of people he claims will be lost because Abrams is revisiting TOS is probably lower than he thinks.

 

[CaptainJon]

I, too, was one of those who saw Nemesis twice in the theater. The first on opening Sunday, the second the following Wednesday.

BTW, cardinal biggles, I love the avatar! I remember Mr. Messy! In fact, my nickname in first grade was Mr. Messy!

 

[cardinal biggles]

I think it would be interesting to start a poll, then, and see what percentage of people who paid to see the last few Trek movies more than once are feeling alienated by Abrams' plans for the new film.

 

[Jack Bauer]

I saw Nemesis twice in the theaters. Can't wait for Abrams's movie!

 

[WalkinMan]

If one does a comparison with the James Bond films and inflation, IIRC the James Bond films also had much more of a peak in the early films 1-5, then declines but perhaps not as precipitious?

 

[DBR]

Eddie Roth said:

Star Trek: The Motion Picture $245.587.696

How many of those people demanded their money back?!

Kidding aside, that number totally wows me! I had no idea that movie was so successful!

 

[Duane]

ST: TMP did very well overseas, and that number is reflected in the total (I think.) No other Star Trek movie came close when it comes to overseas revenue. I must have paid to see it 15 times.

 

[cardinal biggles]

^No, that's just the inflation-adjusted total for TMP's domestic take.

 

[Noname Given]

DBR said:

Eddie Roth said:

Star Trek: The Motion Picture $245.587.696

How many of those people demanded their money back?!

Kidding aside, that number totally wows me! I had no idea that movie was so successful!

You have to understand the situation:

1) The first filmed Star Trek in 10 years.

2) The fans had been lobbying for such a film for years.

3) No VCRs; or other ways to fully watch Star Trek on TV rather than ut your butt in the seat for 60 minutes.

4) Yes, the film had faults, but visually (for it's day) the effects were beautiful.

5) Fans figured if this one was successful, there may be more - remember in 1979, Star Wars sequels were doing well, so why not a Star Trek film series? (Again, don't look at this with what we know happened since 1979. In 1979 - ST:TMP was the one hope for a continued Star Trek revival with the original cast).

I personally paid to see the film 10 times over 6 months (it was in various theatres fopr quite some time).

 

[destructive]

visually it STILL holds up

 

[Therin of Andor]

Noname Given said:
remember in 1979, Star Wars sequels were doing well

Huh? In December 1979, when TMP premiered, "The Empire Strikes Back" was still in post-production.