Star Trek Movies from 1979 to 2016. Domestic Box Office; actual and adjusted for inflation
- Thread starter Char Kais
- Start date
So if I am reading this correctly, amount longer the green/blue would be than the red line is profitability, making the TOS Movies much more profitable than their counterparts?
Also interesting here is that it seems to support a phenomenon that I had heard about on some special features that I am still not sure I want to accept, that is, that the cheaper films in the franchise were actually more profitable.
Also, I cannot end this comment without noting that it has been said that the cost of developing Phase II was added to TMP's budget since the sets and more were the same but upgraded. If one were able to separate the cost of making TMP's sets/props/upgrades alone as distinct from what was built for Phase II, then this chart could have it as making the most dollars of the entire movie franchise, which I would never have expected.
Lastly, this chart seems to suggest that bigger budgets have made movies different, not better.
Also interesting here is that it seems to support a phenomenon that I had heard about on some special features that I am still not sure I want to accept, that is, that the cheaper films in the franchise were actually more profitable.
Also, I cannot end this comment without noting that it has been said that the cost of developing Phase II was added to TMP's budget since the sets and more were the same but upgraded. If one were able to separate the cost of making TMP's sets/props/upgrades alone as distinct from what was built for Phase II, then this chart could have it as making the most dollars of the entire movie franchise, which I would never have expected.
Lastly, this chart seems to suggest that bigger budgets have made movies different, not better.
It might be worthy of its own thread, but what film looks/seems cheapest to you? It does not seem to be TWOK.My takeaway is that the one which is most often cited as the best Trek film was actually the cheapest to make.
It does indeed seem to be TWOK. You may be reading the chart wrongly. (Hint: it's the red.)
Do you mean which film visually just looks cheaply made? I'm a bit of a Star Trek 5 apologist, but I'd say it's the cheapest looking one. Those bargain-basement VFX really hurt it.
Yeah, I meant the one with the cheapest-looking/seeming finished product, not the one that actually was cheapest to make.
Last edited:
Doing so might burst a few pre-conceived bubbles, though. Moreover, just as movie-making in the 1980s was a very different business than in the 1950s, so too have things changed dramatically between the 1980s and the 2010s. A simple comparison of inflation-adjusted figures does not offer nearly the insights people imagine it might.
That's quite so, but therefore a simple comparison of nominal (i.e. non-inflation-adjusted) figures offers even fewer insights than people imagine it does. So, what to do?
If understand the chart correctly, the blue lines are inflation adjustments; so TMP really made an amount comparable to Star Trek 2009 when adjusted for inflation.
It certainly did, it's budget in adjusted dollars comes out at 165m today though, which again, is comparable to 2009.
Aspects of TWOK are pretty cheap, it just hides it well. For instance there isn't really a new effects shot until Carol's Genesis presentation it's all reused footage from TMP, no matte paintings of future San Francisco, very few new sets built, etc.
I always quite liked the set of kirks apartment too.
There's Reliant footage. But, yeah, a lot of TMP footage.
That's not VFX, it's just a backdrop (or, if not literally a backdrop, then something analogous too it: a background painted on some surface) with some models. If you pay attention, you can perceive that the camera movements inside the apartment are carefully executed to maintain the forced perspective illusion.
I've always liked it.
so it was a matte painting?That's not VFX, it's just a backdrop (or, if not literally a backdrop, then something analogous too it: a background painted on some surface) with some models. If you pay attention, you can perceive that the camera movements inside the apartment are carefully executed to maintain the forced perspective illusion.
I've always liked it.
There are three things I take away from these stats.
1. The spectacle of seeing something new seems to be a driving force for all of the highest drawing Trek movies.
TMP: the first ever Star Trek movie.
FC: the debut of the Ent-E & movie debut of the Borg .
ST ’09: Star Trek reboot/relaunch
2. Even though there was a drop off after TVH after inflation is accounted for, the films drew more or less the same amount of money between TFF and INS. Then NEM came along and underperformed by virtually every metric.
3. And while appeal for the films remained more or less consistent between TMP and TVH, and then between TFF and INS, the Kelvin films have been losing appeal with every film release despite making the most money.
1. The spectacle of seeing something new seems to be a driving force for all of the highest drawing Trek movies.
TMP: the first ever Star Trek movie.
FC: the debut of the Ent-E & movie debut of the Borg .
ST ’09: Star Trek reboot/relaunch
2. Even though there was a drop off after TVH after inflation is accounted for, the films drew more or less the same amount of money between TFF and INS. Then NEM came along and underperformed by virtually every metric.
3. And while appeal for the films remained more or less consistent between TMP and TVH, and then between TFF and INS, the Kelvin films have been losing appeal with every film release despite making the most money.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
