Although originally slated to open in December of 2008, Star Trek (The Motion Picture, but really just a prequel to Star Trek, but we can't give it its own subtitle lest people think it's a direct sequel to the terrible Star Trek: Nemesis) come out on May 8th, 2009 instead (ie - the Speed Racer/Poseidon slot of doom). Had it come out when it was intended, 2008 would have been even more a rerun of summer 1989 (Indiana Jones, Batman, James Bond, Star Trek - all that's missing is Ghostbusters and Lethal Weapon).I have no idea if it'll be any good, but I have to question the logic. Paramount is spending $150 million on a series that has never topped $109 million and has averaged $75 million. Does anyone else think it's hilarious that Paramount is basically spending so much that it'll have to triple the highest-grossing Star Trek movie in order to just break even? Even if it grosses as much as JJ Abraham's previous picture, the slightly overrated Mission: Impossible III, it'll still struggle to stay in the black. That also cost $150 million, but topped out at $135 million and $398 million internationally, a solid hit but well below expectations and cost (although I assume Cruise won't be taking his zillion-percent of the gross cut on this one).
And, that's probably best case scenario. More likely we're looking at Cloverfield numbers, a boffo $40 million opening followed by a quick exodus of all non-geeks and non-fans to the final tune of $90 million. And remember, Star Trek doesn't do diddly overseas. At the end of the day, Star Trek is still Star Trek and the fan base is limited. To put this in perspective, the 1996 $30 million opening weekend of Star Trek: First Contact (the biggest opening in the series) was still $6 million less than the opening weekend for Star Wars: Special Edition, the 20th anniversary rerelease just three months later.
I always say that you should never spend more on a sequel than the original made domestically (comparitively, Live Free Or Die Hard cost $110 million, about $10 million less than part II grossed back in 1990). I guess I should make a new rule: never spend $150 million+ on a sequel/prequel to a series where the highest grossing, by far, of ten films was $109 million. Nothing would make me laugh harder if the film makes the same $90 million that Star Trek: First Contact made in 1996. It's one thing to take a risk and spend $150 million on an unproven property that you hope can break out (Lord Of The Rings, Transformers, The Golden Compass). It's quite another to spend $150 million on a series that you know doesn't have the track record to deliver on that investment. I like the franchise and I can't imagine the movie will be any worse than Nemesis, The Search For Spock, or The Final Frontier, but that doesn't mean Paramount should have spent Star Wars money on Star Trek.
Scott Mendelson
Note - the picture at the top was created by Slash Film.
