Abrams’ ‘Star Trek’ Goes Where No ‘Trek’ Has Gone Before! $33M in 29 Hours & Almost $77M Possible by Monday!
by Steve MasonRebooting Bond with Daniel Craig was Bold. Christopher Nolan’s Reinvention of Batman was genius. But some thought it was overly-ambitious, even audacious, to attempt to restart the Star Trek franchise. It has begun to pay off already for Paramount Pictures, and there will dividends for years to come.
A shiny new Enterprise is luring in a new generation of STAR TREK fans
J.J. Abrams is officially the Lazarus of movie directors as his all-new Star Trek has gone “Boldly Gone Where No Star Trek Movie has Gone Before.” With a cast of relative unknowns, the 42-year-old has resurrected a franchise that had been killed by insular “nerdyness” and timid imagination. The Gene Rodenberry creation didn’t so much bomb as it died slowly over a period of years. First, the 2002 movie Star Trek: Nemesis starring the Next Generation cast disappointed with a meager $43.3M domestic. Then, the final TV series Enterprise, which starred Scott Bakula, was not embraced by core fans or broader audiences and was canceled after four seasons, ending May 13, 2005.
Director J.J. Abrams will definitely "Live long and prosper"
Now riding a staggering 96% Fresh score on Rotten Tomatoes – that’s 96% of America’s movie critics issuing positive reviews – The Enterprise is riding high again thanks to the creator of TV hits Alias and Lost. Try getting 96% of any group to agree on anything. It’s no small feat. Compare Star Trek’s RT score against the ratings for the last 5 Best Picture winners.
STAR TREK has better reviews than Oscars darling SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
ROTTEN TOMATOES SCORES FOR THE LAST 5 OSCAR WINNERS
2004 – Million Dollar Baby – 91% Fresh
2005 – Crash – 75% Fresh
2006 – The Departed – 92% Fresh
2007 – No Country For Old Men – 94% Fresh
2008 – Slumdog Millionaire – 94% Fresh
The original STAR TREK cast (above) with the next generation of franchise stars
With the ringing endorsement of tough-to-please critics, Star Trek hit warp speed at the box office last night with lightly-promoted preview screenings starting at 7pm. The impeccably-reviewed feature film seized an estimated $7M or so in Thursday night ticket sales. The idea may have been to get some of the hardcore Trekkies and Trekkers out of the way, clearing multiplexes for mainstream movie audiences today, and they have showed up in massive numbers.
William Shatner (left) with Captain Kirk 2.0 Chris Pine
With Chris Pine (Bottle Shock) in the legendary role of Captain Kirk and Zachary Quinto (NBC’s Heroes) wearing the pointy ears made famous by Leonard Nimoy, Star Trek has soared to a history-making $26M on its official opening day according to multiple studio execs, double the previous-best opening day for any movie in the franchise. That means in the first 29 hours of general release, the re-imagined sci-fi blockbuster has delivered an estimated $33M.
STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT had the previous-best opening day in franchise history
ALL-TIME TOP 5 OPENING DAYS FOR STAR TREK MOVIES
1. Star Trek (2009) – $26M [$33M in its first 29 hours]
2. Star Trek: First Contact (1996) – $13M
3. Star Trek: Generations (1994) – $9.7M
4. Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) – $9.5M
5. Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) – $7.7M
How will the weekend play out? The Thursday night preview screenings will probably make Star Trek a bit less front-loaded. In fact, I’m guessing that, based on word-of-mouth and its family-friendly PG-13 rating, my sources believe that the movie could get a 5% boost on Saturday to a possible $27.3M, followed by an aggressive Mother’s Day drop of 40% on Sunday. That would mean a 4-day gross of almost $77M or so.
The great news for Paramount and Abrams and Pine and Quinto and the rest of the cast is that Star Trek will almost certainly have the best legs of any of this summer’s major tent-pole movies. Rank-and-file moviegoers are likely to discover Star Trek for the first time in coming weeks or, now that Trek is cool again, it may rekindle interest with core fans who rejected the most recent incarnations.
STAR TREK could have "legs" like BATMAN BEGINS
It will not be a surprise to see Star Trek sail past $200M. After all, 2005’s Batman Begins performed that way. The Christopher Nolan Batman reboot opened on a Wednesday with $15M and had banked $72.9M in 5 days. Based on that movie’s Friday-thru-Sunday of $48.7M, the first Batman movie in 8 years reached its $205M domestic total at a 4.2 multiple (4.2 X $48.7 got Nolan’s original to $205M). Anticipating a 4.2 multiple for Star Trek is probably overreaching, but a 3.4-3.5 multiple is possible. That would propel Abrams and company to well past $200M.
Competing studio execs tell me that X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Fox) took a big tumble as expected. The Hugh Jackman X-Men spin-off only mustered $9.15M or so on its second Friday, but it will still likely top $27.95M for the weekend, down about 67%. Meanwhile, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (Warner Bros) coaxed about $3M to start the frame, and it will likely be helped by Mother’s Day, grabbing a possible $10M, down a mere 35% from last weekend.
Beyonce continues to sell tickets in OBSESSED
Obsessed, the low budget sizzler from Sony Screen Gems, continues to outperform its low expectations with $2M on Friday, which pushes the Beyonce catfight flick past $50M. The thriller should finish the 3-day with about $6.25M and a spectacular $55.89M by Monday.
The urban-geared comedy Next Day Air (Summit) got off to a disappointing start with just $1.25M (likely #5 for the day), and it will drift down the top ten to #6 for the weekend with a meager $4.1M or so from its thousand or so playdates.
The Zac Efron comedy 17 Again (Warner Bros) will likely spend another weekend in the top five with about $1.15M on Friday and about $4.5M for 3 days. That will give the Efron vehicle a new domestic cume of about $54.26M.
EXCLUSIVE STEVE MASON EARLY FRIDAY ESTIMATES
1. NEW – Star Trek (Paramount) – $26M, $6,755 PTA, $33M
2. X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Fox) – $9.15M, $2,231 PTA, $111.77M cume
3. Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (Warner Bros) – $3.05M, $961 PTA, $22.84M
4. Obsessed (Sony) – $2M, $769 PTA, $51.64M cume
5. NEW – Next Day Air (Summit) – $1.25M, $1,098 PTA, $1.25M cume
6. 17 Again (Warner Bros) – $1.15M, $396 PTA, $50.91M cume
7. The Soloist (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $1M, $478 PTA, $20.89M cume
8. Monsters vs. Aliens (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $847,000, $388 PTA, $184.36M cume
9. Earth (Disney) – $697,000, $389 PTA, $24.29M cume
10. Hannah Montana: The Movie (Disney) – $690,000, $300 PTA, $72.35M cume
EXCLUSIVE STEVE MASON EARLY 3-DAY ESTIMATES
1. NEW – Star Trek (Paramount) – $69.68M, $18,103 PTA, $76.68M
2. X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Fox) – $27.95M, $6,814 PTA, $130.57M cume
3. Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (Warner Bros) – $10.06M, $3,170 PTA, $29.86M
4. Obsessed (Sony) – $6.25M, $2,402 PTA, $55.89M cume
5. 17 Again (Warner Bros) – $4.5M, $1,550 PTA, $54.26M cume
6. NEW – Next Day Air (Summit) – $4.1M, $3,603 PTA, $4.1M cume
7. The Soloist (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $3.6M, $1,722 PTA, $23.49M cume
8. Monsters vs. Aliens (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $3.55M, $1,625 PTA, $187.06M cume
9. Hannah Montana: The Movie (Disney) – $2.62M, $1,140 PTA, $74.29M cume
10. Earth (Disney) – $2.44M, $1,361 PTA, $26.03M cume
Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter@LAMase.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
62 Comments
May the force be with them ; )
I've always dreamed of being the first poster and now my dream has come to fruition. So now I must double up on this moment in my life history and realize my desire to also be at least the second poster. If I really work my cards right I could be the third post as well but I really don't want to over reach on this one.
I've done it I've managed to procure 1st 2nd and 3rd. I guess the main point to all of this is that no one cares how much money the movie or past movies made. It's not important nor is it worth writing an article about. All this Star Trek hubbub is slightly annoying to be honest with you. This movie plays on many grown adults child hood fantasies just like Star Wars. I'm just glad to hear that they didn't destroy a perfectly good plot like they did in Star Wars.
I feel as though I've entered the proverbial echo chamber with myself. Which is kind of nice because if you can't agree with yourself who can you agree with? No one U2Dave you're totally right, man.
WOOT WOOT a Trifecta of posts
I'm sorry Steve I know what it's like to write something and then not have anyone respond to it. You could have done an article that was Star Trek in it's focus but really pin down this Hollywood sensation of late, to tell the original story. How all the great characters or heros developed into these positions of post Hollywood legend and infamy. All of these movies and series that were great to begin with but were tarnished with the over exposure of after thought.
Don't get me wrong all these origin films are like double edged swords I like some of them but sometimes it ruins it as well.
[...] 5/9/2009 1:45AM Steve Mason’s estimates are slightly higher than those that Nikkie Finke is reporting. Mason Star Trek’s Friday [...]
Looks like my $75M prediction on thursday wasn't as optimistic as "the experts" thought…
Sportstalk and movies, Mase is the man
We went to see Star Trek this afternoon at the multiplex in our small community outside of Nashville. This is the first time I've EVER seen the theatre crowded on a Friday afternoon. Also, the audience applauded after the show, and that rarely happens here outside of a midnight showing.
I like these posts. I think the reason they don't get a lot of comments is because there isn't much to discuss. Numbers are numbers. What's there to talk about?
Now if the weekend's big blockbuster starred Janeane Garafolo…
With this result, I'm confident it can break $250 million total. Word-of-mouth will carry it after a $74 million opening.
Scary stuff: This movie demonstrates how many geeks there are in America (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
That's a good point. Did you hear what she said about Star Trek?
Steve, we love ya! Keep us up to date!
Actually, the numbers matter quite a bit. Maybe not to everyone, but certainly to the movers and shakers in Hollywood, because it tells them that this was a good business endeavor. That's what it's going to come down to: ROI (how much of a return they're getting for the investment they put in). That's what helps determine what's coming to the big screen next. Good stories and good acting are only a tiny part of the equation (unfortunately). A great concept and stellar acting mean nothing if no one pays to see it. Yes, it's entertainment, but it's also a business and has to be treated like a business.
If Abrams has such a knack for reviving a franchise, I suggest he try to bring back Sword & Sorcery.
How about a Conan movie starring Josh Holloway? That should be right up his alley.
I can't argue with the substance of your statement, but I really do think that lately Hollywood has been all too willing to sacrifice profits for the sake of activism. Witness the slew of anti-Iraq, anti-Bush celluloid screeds and the neverending advertisements for leftist ideology that have been a parade of flops (how many people actually saw "W") for the past few years. The studios can't be that clueless, so I can only expect that their politics have become more important than their profits.
On another note Shelia, I have to thank you for stirring up some wonderful memories. I've only known one other person to spell your name that way. She was the most wonderful thing in my life.
[...] Big Hollywood put an intriguing blog post on Abramsâ [...]
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to harsh anyone's buzz, but I have noticed in the past week that practically all the headlines have been about this new Star Trek movie. Is this movie that important to warrant such a fuss? I mean, I liked the original Star Trek and all that, I get a real boot out of Shatner, and I really liked the ones with the whales and Ricardo Montalban, but come on, people! What am I missing here? Trekkies, Trekkers, Trekkians, whatever…help me out!
[...] Big Hollywood placed an interesting blog post on Abramsâ [...]
I'm sorry, but I see A LOT wrong with that!
I say bring back the Bowery Boys! Maybe Sean Penn could play Sach…after all, if he can be Larry Fine…
You have gone where no man has gone before.
Re: "W"…you're absolutely right…except even ultra-leftist hollywood wouldn't fund such a sure box-office bomb—Stone actually had to get funding the same place the Clintons did—red China. Yes…no kidding…"W" was financed directly (this was not even hidden) by red China investments, i.e. the politburo.
I totally agree with you, Sheila! That is why I am extremely happy to see that the movie is doing so great at the box office!
Good point OL.
Yes, this movie does warrant such a buzz. I am extremely impressed by what Abrams has done with ST and I don't think just anyone could have pulled it off. The movie was either going to tank badly or be a huge success, and the entertainment media knew that either way–it was a story worth following.
[...] Big Hollywood placed an observative post today on Abramsâ [...]
[...] Big Hollywood has reported that the new Star Trek film, which opened on Thursday evening, took in $7 million on its opening night and another $26 million yesterday, putting it well on course to be the biggest Star Trek opener ever. That distinction was previously held by Star Trek: First Contact, which took in $30.7 million on its opening weekend back in 1996. [...]
Boldly, I might add.
What I notice through the years with all these re-makes, is the changing view of what is considered to be the 'good looking' actor. I think the men have become more feminine looking and the woman more muscular and strong.
What I notice through the years with all these re-makes, is the changing view of what is considered to be the 'good looking' actor. I think the men have become more feminine looking and the woman more muscular and strong.
Mr. Mason writes:
"With a cast of relative unknowns, the 42-year-old has resurrected a franchise that had been killed by insular “nerdyness” and timid imagination."
If you look at the biggest movie franchises of the past 10-20 years from LOTR, Harry Potter, etc they were not "star driven." What they have in common is taking beloved source material, and making a entertaining movies out of it. JJ Abrams has done the same with his reboot of Star Trek.
One aspect of the Star Trek I really enjoyed was the retro look of many of the sets and how it avoided the smugness of TNG. The engineering sets of the starships looked like real working spaces instead of the antiseptic look expecially in TNG and beyond. Also the people in the Star Trek are much more flawed realistic humans instead of the ubermensch populating the TNG, etc. I did not notice crew members acting in Shakespears plays or playing Mozart.
I noticed that Chris Pine doesn't even FIT in the captain's chair in the photo included in the article. He looks like he is waiting in the office for his father to arrive.
Enterprise, with Scott Bakula had potential but… why is it that Scott Bakula used to loud whisper his lines all the time? It was annoying hearing him speak.
J.J. Abrams said he didn't care about continuity and boy did he mean it. He screwed Star Trek all the way to the other side of the galaxy and back again. What's sad is that he made a very visually appealing movie, the effects were great, and the acting was spot on. I didn't even mind the exterior redo of the Enterprise; although the interior was overdone. If someone who appreciated Trek had been in charge this could have been a fantastic beginning of a new series of movies – but unless they plan on correcting the errors in a future installment (most horrifically the death of one of the central and most beloved characters in the series and the destruction of a very important place) I won't be seeing another of his abominations.
Look at this objectively…Abrams didn't just say to hell with continuity, he changed it in a legitimate way. This is something that has been done for years within fan fiction. If the interior of the Enterprise hadn't been modernized, it would have been farcical. Look how Abrams adapted/used the costumes from the original show? Brilliant! I was saddened about the death of that character and the destruction you refer to. However, I can see the potential within and the cleverness behind this incarnation of Star Trek.
I think that he did the right thing by changing the timeline. Otherwise all future movies would have be forced into ever more rigid guidelines of what could or could not happen as we would know that eventually they would reach the point where the original series began. Actually, you couldn't even really get the crew all together on the Enterprise before the beginning of TOS in the old timeline. So given the constraints of needing to be relatively faithful to the characters and history while at the same time giving a great but stale franchise a badly needed makeover, I think Abrahms did a fantastic job.
I love how the supernova ties to canon right now in the Trek universe,someone at Paramount better get me a new tv series,now!I've played Elite Forces II about 40 times now to stave off withdrawals.
That's the cancer of leftists ideology.Libtards are deathly afraid of tall,strong,white,blonde/red haired,blue-eyed men.They created what is known as western civiliztion.Hence the screams of communists,libtards,and people of the southern hemisphere.
You raise a good point that it's rare to see a masculine White hero. Recent superhero flicks like Iron Man and Dark Knight buck this trend.
By contrast, masculine heroes who look like me (I'n black) are more visible. Think Denzel Washington, Sam Jackson, and Idris Elba (Obsessed). Heck, the nearly middle aged Will Smith is looking more macho than his White counterparts.
I think it's no accident that this feminized White hero trend parallel more metrosexual White men in real life.
Well said!
[...] Big Hollywood put an intriguing blog post on Abramsâ Permalink Comments [0] [...]
[...] officially the Lazarus of movie directors as his all-new Star Trek has gone “Boldly Gone Where No click for more var gaJsHost = ((”https:” == document.location.protocol) ? “https://ssl.” : [...]
I get so tired of hearing how much a movie grosses and how it surpasses others and sets new records. They never take into consideration ticket prices vs. 10-20-30-40 years ago. There is also more population now than in the 70's.
The only real way to measure a movie in comparison to previous movies is by the percentage of the current population that bought tickets vs. the same for a movie 40 years ago.
As I said, I didn't really have a problem with the updates of the Enterprise – just that the interior was way over done. It was whiter than bleached wonderbread. Also, I still haven't figured out how imploding V—-n "breathes" new life into the franchise. As for future movies, let's remember that Abrams has a reputation for starting off like a roman candle and then fizzling on the follow through like a wet firecracker.
[...] Big Hollywood added an interesting post today on Abramsâ Permalink Comments [0] [...]
Very interesting post Fred2! I had not noticed the differences in regard to the heroes and their races, but what you said is true!
I loved the movie! But the Enterprise shown in the picture at the top of this article is *not* the Enterprise from the movie.
Imploding V—-n doesn't do that. I am sure I am wasting my time with this…but did you realize that the future/continuity/time-line was altered by the incident at the beginning of the movie?
I didn't hear what she said…
I for one am glad to see more heroes of color. Seems to me that such role models are needed today for everyone–if they are presented as moral role-models, that is.
Yep, I realize Abrams was attempting to be creative by starting his own private Star Trek universe. Good for him; hope he has fun. I'll stick with actual Star Trek, not AbramStar Trek.
Glad to see they dumped that strangely designed grotesque "starship" they used in TNG.
Even with all the hype and great reviews Wolverine opened up higher then Star Trek.
I watched Wolverine and Star Trek on the same day (we hardly ever get babysitters so we maxed out on our opportunity). Wolverine was pretty good, and quite unexpected. Star Trek pretty much blew me away.
This movie blew chunks. Totally over-rated.
No, sorry, I was being facetious. As far as I know, she hasn't made any statement about it.
No, sorry, I was being facetious. As far as I know, she hasn't made any statement about it.
[...] Review: ‘Star Trek’ is Slick Fun – Nothing Wrong With That Steve Mason, Big Hollywood: Abrams’ ‘Star Trek’ Goes Where No ‘Trek’ Has Gone Before! $33M in 29 Hours & Almost $… Fog City Journal: Star Trek Movie Review: The Ties that [...]
hola zac efron solo quiero decirte que cada pelicula que haces lo haces super magnifico espero algun dia poderte conocer el dia que te conosca me cae que me voy a morir de tanta alegria si pidiera un deceo ceria poder ver a un super gran actor como tu eres lo que le da vida a este mundo por que si tu no estuvieras me cae que este mundo ya hubiera desaparesido tu eres mi dios zachary david alexander efron eres lo mejor que hay zakitos te mando un saludo de aqui hasta holly wood att.. alex
Ñîâðåìåííàÿ ÑÒÎ ýôôåêòèâíî è êà÷åñòâåííî âûïîëíÿåò ñâîè ôóíêöèè ïðè ïîìîùè ðàçëè÷íîãî âèäà îáîðóäîâàíèÿ…
àâòîðåìîíò…
Øèðîêèé ñïåêòð ñîâðåìåííîãî øàõòíîãî è ãîðíîîáîãàòèòåëüíîãî îáîðóäîâàíèÿ íàñ÷èòûâàåò áîëåå 100 íàèìåíîâàíèé…
âèáðàòîðû, ãðîõîòû, æåëåçîîòäåëèòåëè…
àñôàëüòîóêëàä÷èêè, àâòîêðàíû, áóëüäîçåðû, ãðåéäåðû, êàòêè, ïîãðóç÷èêè, ýêñêàâàòîðû…
Ïîãðóç÷èêè èñïîëüçóþòñÿ äëÿ çàñûïêè, ðàñêîïêè, âûðàâíèâàíèè è äðóãèõ ðàáîò ñ ðàçëè÷íûìè ìàòåðèàëàìè…
Êàê çàðàáîòàòü â èíòåðíåòå…
èíñòðóêöèè ïî çàðàáîòêó â ñåòè…
Ïÿòèçâåçäî÷íûå îòåëè Åãèïòà…
Åãèïåò – æåì÷óæèíà ìèðîâîé êóëüòóðû…
You must be logged in to post a comment.