Entertainment is a funny thing.
For those of you who have been keeping score, the Wolverine film opened to mostly negative reviews as well as having a mostly completed workprint of the film released nearly a month before opening day. Meanwhile, J.J. Abrams’ reboot of the Star Trek franchise had been overwhelmingly praised both by the general reviewer community (and, full disclosure, by yours truly).
But look at the weekend openings: Wolverine earned more than $85 million, while Star Trek only netted $75 million.
It kinda makes you wonder: are reviewers just screaming into the wind? Is piracy meaningless? Or is Wolverine simply the best there is at what he does? Well, I’ve got some speculation of my own on that note.
First and foremost, let’s look at what Wolverine has in its favor that Star Trek doesn’t. First and foremost, Wolverine has that most coveted of demographics: women. Our very own Sarah Jaffe opined that the film was very pretty-boy heavy, and let me tell you, at my theatre there was a lot of catcalling at shirtless and/or nude Wolverine. But Hugh Jackman is a suave guy — winning People Magazine’s Sexiest Man Alive last year — and Ryan Reynolds, Taylor Kitsch, and even Liev Schreiber don’t exactly ugly up the picture.
Star Trek, despite its many virtues, doesn’t quite have that edge. Star Trek, despite its prominence in the national imagination, doesn’t have a tried and tested audience for the 20-something crowd. Even with the spectacular reviews, Zachary Qunto’s mini-bowl cut and the hordes of Klingon linguists out there make Star Trek a film that some geeks have to drag their significant others to. The women probably won’t regret it — and I would be remiss to not say that there are certainly female Trekkies out there in similar plights with their clueless boyfriends — but all the same, Star Trek’s targeted demographic isn’t as broad (no pun intended).
Anyway, so there’s the sex factor. For the fellas, there’s also the high-octane action side of it: the same people who are going to thrill to Live Free or Die Hard, just to give an example, are going to be fine with the simple action value. In other words: the stigma of comics being “one-dimensional” or “not something that’ll make you think” worked out in this film’s favor — even if that doesn’t exactly advance the plight of comics as a whole. That said, I think that that means that Wolverine is playing the short game with its numbers — while it’s continuing to rake in cash, I’m wondering how long that will last, with the fan culture having to deal not just with Star Trek, but Transformers, G.I. Joe, Terminator: Salvation…
But what about the piracy? We’ve already reported that Fox stated 4 million people downloaded the workprint. Well, you have to look at it like this: (A) at least some percentage wasn’t going to see the film (or at least pay for it) anyway; (B) some of these are outside the U.S.; and, most importantly (C) it was an unfinished print. With missing scenes and comically unfinished special effects, I don’t think the piracy was nearly as damaging as people thought. On the contrary, I think the workprint actually provided some immense cover for Wolverine, as people resolved NOT to review an unfinished copy of an action movie. By the time reviewers started feeling comfortable getting reviews out, I think many people unconsciously stayed away from them, keeping the negative buzz down about the film. In other words: everyone knew Wolverine was coming, but not much more.
That’s actually not too different than Star Trek. The film pulled a late marketing blitz, but obviously not equal to the video games/comics/FX marathons/iPhone apps/Papa Johns pizza deals that Wolverine had. It also had to contend with the image of J.J. Abrams — there are so many people out there who are burned out by Lost (either trying to pick it up, or simply displeased with how the current season is going) that despite the true accessibility of the film (at least to a non-Trekkie like myself) as well as great reviews, some people may equate Star Trek to a convoluted continuity beast like Lost.
Finally, I think the last part has simply to do with timing. While Star Trek opened to compete with Wolverine, Wolverine opened almost completely unopposed, save for Ghosts of Girlfriends Past and Battle for Terra — two films which, as I explained above, basically lost their target audiences to the Ol’ Canucklehead. Combine that with it being the first film of the summer season, and you have a recipe for huge box office gross. The real question is whether or not Wolverine will take a dive once initial interest runs out, a la Watchmen. (Considering Wolverine has already experienced a 68 percent drop between its first and second week, I’m not sure his healing factor will ride out the summer.)
With all the spectacular reviews as well as late-breaking PR (including a stint on SNL this weekend), I’m predicting that Star Trek will be playing the long game, soaking up box office dollars for months and months like Iron Man before it. But with a bunch of other genre heavyweights in tow for this summer — including the sixth Harry Potter film — only time will tell exactly how this will all shake up.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Also, it must be taken into account that Wolverine actually had more prints in theatres. The one I work at has 5 Wolverines, and only 4 Treks. That has an effect on box office take, as more prints = more showtimes = more $$.
All that said, Trek took in about $20 mill more than expected, while Wolverine dropped almost 70% from the week before. In this case, I think opening weekend is going to be slightly less important than overall box office.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:22 am
I think your thesis might be flawed. Most of the women I know, including myself, have been talking about how hot and awesome Spock is, David. You might be confusing the kind of thing that is sexy to men (though women will welcome a shirtless Hugh Jackman!) and what is sexy to men. Just Google spock + hot, and you’ll see.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Personally, I think the second weekend will be quite good. I think a lot of people were waiting to see if the film was as good as they’d heard, as opposed to the people who saw Wolverine who patently didn’t care what other people thought of it. I think it’s going to have a surprising second weekend. I can’t imagine it going UP, but I think it’s going to have ess of a drop than some think
May 12th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Argh, that should read “You might be confusing the kind of thing that is sexy to men (though women will welcome a shirtless Hugh Jackman!) and what is sexy to women.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
@nicholas: That’s a really good point that I hadn’t considered. But I agree on the total gross vs. opening weekend — I think Star Trek has the former covered.
@Jennifer: “Dammit, Kirk, I’m a blogger, not a hair style analyst!”
In all seriousness, according to Variety, women made up 47% of Wolverine’s opening weekend, whereas HuffPo reports that Star Trek only had 40%. (I also say that based on a lot of the beefcake promoted in the Wolverine trailers, as well as the hunk-oriented reviews I’ve seen on the blogosphere.) Fox even said part of their success was from the female support they got.
Of course, I certainly could be off-base, but I’m operating under the evidence I’ve seen. And btw, I’m not saying that Spock doesn’t have his fans, it’s just to say — at least in my opinion — they aren’t as widespread or as specifically targeted as a movie starring the Sexiest Man Alive.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Another factor is that Wolverine was only on it’s second week when Star Trek came out. Regardless of the bad hype, there was still enough buzz, and enough people not willing to deal with the crowds of the opening weekend, to still go the second weekend.
Same actually holds for Star Trek. I’m sure there’s a fairly large group of people who would rather wait until the second weekend to watch it.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
this was a good analysis. i saw the numbers and was curious, although i don’t care about the numbers since i’m not getting a piece. anyway, ST was about a zillion times better movie than wolvie.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
As Nicholas already suggested, the number of screens makes a big difference.
I suspect that part of Wolverine’s strong debut (and perhaps a reason for it appearing on more screens) is related to the character and actor having recently appeared in three fairly successful X-Men films, while Star Trek’s been dormant for a while and a critical/commercial flop in its last few feature film incarnations.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I disagree on why Wolverine did better. Unfortunately, the Star Trek franchise was failing. The last movie did horrible. The last TV show lingered on too long. The market probably had too much of a tired thing. While I think the X-Men series is getting worn out, it does pander to what they think is the teen, male audience: loud, violent movie (with a bad storyline and no plot). Just watch Transformers- fun but utterly stupid and easily forgettable.
As for sex appeal, I see nothing sexy about Wolverine. I don’t think Hugh Jackman is ugly but I don’t see any appeal. There are plenty of shirtless males that have better faces and bodies out there. Women look at things differently. I found the men in Star Trek far more appealing including Leonard Nimoy.
I went to see Star Trek because of the buzz and trying to see if they could reboot them. They did. While I thought Zachary Quinto was oddly sexy and attractive, I had no idea of the smoldering and sexy beast that would be unleashed. He alone is reason enough for me to want to see it again and to buy the DVD. Yes, he did an awesome job with the part. The movie was good even though some parts weren’t logical. I was so enamored with the way he showed not only a strong, cool side but a passionate and sweet side. Great acting on his part made me want to trade places with Zoe in the film.
For me, it just boils down to Star Trek having this geeky and campy rep that no one wanted to be associated with. The movie and its actors took us all by surprise while Wolverine just delivered the same thing.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
No love for Chekov? For shame.
But yeah, I agree with NonTrekkie Girl– part of Star Trek’s cultural baggage is the virgin-in-his-mom’s-basement image that not even comic book geeks can touch. That alone would probably be enough to keep away the kind of people who are only casually interested in genre movies. Not to mention, Wolverine can trade on the Marvel brand, Star Trek has only got itself.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
“It also had to contend with the image of J.J. Abrams — there are so many people out there who are burned out by Lost (either trying to pick it up, or simply displeased with how the current season is going) that despite the true accessibility of the film (at least to a non-Trekkie like myself) as well as great reviews, some people may equate Star Trek to a convoluted continuity beast like Lost.”
I think this is an overstatement. I don’t know anyone who is displeased with this season of Lost. I think it’s better than last season. It might be that your projecting your thoughts on to the larger audience. I wouldn’t recommend speaking for “so many people.” (This probably sounds way harsher than I intended)
May 12th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
I wanted to add that I am more likely to see Star Trek because of Abrams and Lost, and I suspect that there are others like me.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Dog of Thunder@”I wanted to add that I am more likely to see Star Trek because of Abrams and Lost, and I suspect that there are others like me.
I agree.
Not being a Trek fan, Abrams involvement with this film was a selling point for me.
David Pepose@”some people may equate Star Trek to a convoluted continuity beast like Lost.”
While I couldn’t disagree more with your “convoluted continuity” description of Lost, If that’s a reason you’re using, why people may stay away from Abrams’ Star Trek, well… you can’t get more continuity entangled then the X-Men books over the last decade! Hell, if “inbred-mass confused continuity” was the case then any film with the word “X-Men” in the title would be greeted with an empty theater.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
“I think this is an overstatement. I don’t know anyone who is displeased with this season of Lost. I think it’s better than last season.”
Oh heck no… I LOVE Lost, and I’m in it ’til the end (I’m dreading the eight-month hiatus after tomorrow night, but I’m eagerly awaiting the finale), but this season hasn’t been as good as season four. Season four is probably my favorite, though the show’s first season is still right up there (but they’ve all been good).
Season five has seemed rushed at times, and there have been a number of mistakes by the writers (Young Charlotte in 1974, when it was previously said she was born in ’79, being an example), and it’s been at the expense of the rich character work usually associated with the show. The time-travel stuff has rocked, but I hope Lindelof & Cuse don’t drop the ball. They’ve come close at times.
May 12th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
“Season five has seemed rushed at times, and there have been a number of mistakes by the writers (Young Charlotte in 1974, when it was previously said she was born in ‘79, being an example), and it’s been at the expense of the rich character work usually associated with the show. The time-travel stuff has rocked, but I hope Lindelof & Cuse don’t drop the ball. They’ve come close at times.”
All valid points, but last season still seemed more rushed to me. Regardless, a bad episode of Lost is better than most of television!
May 13th, 2009 at 2:34 am
I’m an X-Men fan and a Trekkie, so I saw both. I’m really surprised that Wolverine did better (it’s a crappy movie) but I’m wondering where you got your figures on female moviegoers? The Star Trek showing was 90% women, the Wolverine showing about 50%.
May 13th, 2009 at 8:20 am
@lilacsigil: I got the 40% information from here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-silverstein/star-treks-gender-problem_b_202066.html), and Wolverine’s 47% here (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118003126.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&nid=2564).
Star Trek having an opening audience of 90% women seems ludicrously high to me — if that was indeed true, I’m pretty sure Paramount would be crowing that from the highest building in Hollywood.