Would Star Trek have been as successful if released at Christmas?

[ninjax]

As you all know Star Trek was planned to be released during Christmas 08

given the critical and financial success do you think it would have made as much had it been released during Christmas?


I believe it still would have been praised by fans and critics no matter when it was released but im not sure about box office figures.

would be good to get your thoughts?



seems like they knew what they were doing when they pushed the release date back

 

[TrekGuide.com]

I think movies released in the spring and summer make more money, for whatever reason. Maybe there's less traveling and holiday shopping going on then.

Paramount also made the gamble that "Trek's" competition, "Wolverine," "Terminator 4" and "Angels & Demons" would not be very good, and it turns out they were right.

I remember back in 1989 "Star Trek V" came out the same month as "Batman" and that turned out to be a box office disaster (plus the movie was not that popular).

And "Star Trek: Nemesis" opened in December, the same week as "Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter," I believe, so that bone-headed maneuver nearly killed the franchise.

So I think it's more about the quality of the movie and the competition at the box office, but summer movies also tend to make more money than winter movies.

 

[Borgminister]

I'd say May '11 is the perfect time for the next one.

Winter is too short for a movie to stretch it's legs, I'd venture.

 

[Devon]

And "Star Trek: Nemesis" opened in December, the same week as "Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter," I believe, so that bone-headed maneuver nearly killed the franchise.

Just a small correction, but Harry Potter had actually been out several weeks prior to Nemesis, and HP's box office intake that week wasn't exactly going to make a huge different to Nemesis' intake I don't think.

 

[scottydog]

Abrams has been quoted as saying that the 5 month delay in releasing the movie allowed more time for crucial editing and musical score decisions that greatly added to the movie's quality. So I'd say we got a more successful movie with the May release.

 

[Jeri]

Abrams has been quoted as saying that the 5 month delay in releasing the movie allowed more time for crucial editing and musical score decisions that greatly added to the movie's quality. So I'd say we got a more successful movie with the May release.

I was just going to mention that. He seems to have appreciated the extra time very much, from his interview. They really fine-tuned the sound and music, it sounds like.

 

[Warp Coil]

I think summer turned out to be the best time for this film. The marketing campaign for this film was very strong and very well done. The extra time certainly helped in this manner - releasing teaser trailers during popular fall movies, buying ad time during big events like the Super Bowl, and slowly building the hype of the movie over several months in the spring. Multiple trailers, magazine covers, screening footage for critics... it was all handled very well. I'm not sure that Paramount would have had as much time to carefully craft this film's marketing campaign had it been released in December.

 

[writergal]

It's a crap shoot. I remember about ten years ago there was a film that was going to be released during the summer, but got held back so the filmmakers could work on it some more. It was slated for a December release, and experts predicted it would fail miserably.

That film was "Titanic", currently the #1 box office champ of all time. (although 'Gone with the Wind' still holds that title if you adjust for inflation).

I think "Star Trek"'s quality was improved by the delay, but I'm not sure about the box office. I think it would have made about the same amount either way.

 

[Jax]

The summer move allowed for a better AD blitz and for me if the movie came out last Christmas we would of made a lot less.

 

[MvRojo]

I'd say May '11 is the perfect time for the next one.

Winter is too short for a movie to stretch it's legs, I'd venture.

The thing that scares me about May 2011 is Spider-man 4. Despite the less than great story of Spider-man 3, it still was the most successful of the franchise worldwide, making $900 million.

I'm not sure how a holiday release would have effected Star Trek. Assuming it was released at Christmas (hypothetically, with the same level of promotion), it probably would not have done as well. At this point, it would be late January. January being one of the least profitable months for movies would not provide the weekday numbers that Trek can enjoy by virtue of kids being out of school. Now how much school-age kids are adding to the box office is unknown, but everytime I've gone to a weekday show, there have been families.

 

[fresh]

NO

The extra 5 months allowed Paramount to ramp up marketing and word of mouth ... the international tour, while only partially successful, would not have had the audience if it was just thrown out there.
We got a whole extra trailer (the best one in my opinion) because the movie was pushed back. That trailer generated huge interest, much more than the other one or the teaser.

The summer release allowed buzz to build to a very high point, and the movie capitalized.
There would have been far less publicity if it had come out in the winter.

 

[Silversmok3]

IMO, I dont think it helped directly.

Movies sell on how good they are, not on when they come out.Abrams was able to use the extra time to tweak and finalize the movie better, and IMO it was worth the wait. Think for a moment-the original cut probably had plotlines invovling a trip to Rura Penthe, Jim Kirk's family problems with his uncle, AND the poignant and sad end to Vulcan. Such a movie would have been overload for the average fan, and its a personal theory of mine that those 5 months were spent deciding what would be cut, and making what was left look great.

Thats why the movie did well, especially against weak competiton from also rans like Wolverine and Terminator.

 

[TrekGuide.com]

And "Star Trek: Nemesis" opened in December, the same week as "Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter," I believe, so that bone-headed maneuver nearly killed the franchise.

Just a small correction, but Harry Potter had actually been out several weeks prior to Nemesis, and HP's box office intake that week wasn't exactly going to make a huge different to Nemesis' intake I don't think.

Well, if moviegoers have only a limited budget, and plan to see only one or two movies in a month, then if they already saw "Harry Potter," and were looking forward to "Lord of the Rings," then "Nemesis" would only appeal to the hard-core Trekkies (who were a dwindling breed at that point).

"Star Trek XI" might have faced a similar problem if "Wolverine" and "Terminator 4" were in the same league as "Potter" and "Rings," but fortunately for "Trek," they were not.

The next "Trek" movie could be just as good as this one, but its success depends on the quality of its competition. If Warner, Fox, Universal and Sony get their acts together and put out some decent movies in the same month, then "Trek" could be in trouble again.

 

[Jax]

Another thing is with all that Christmas shopping do people have the money to spend at the cinema too.

 

[Lumen]

No, I don't think so. It's mostly an action movie, and they generally fare better in the spring.

 

[Therin of Andor]

A December release in Australia coincides with the long (six-week) school vacation. US summer movies that open here simultaneously do so in winter. With a bit of luck ST will still be screening Down Under through the next term break (two-weeks long) in mid July.