Since that was also released late in 2008, I’m not sure if that can be called “the most profitable of 2009″ or not, but it’s certainly one of the biggest film successes, profit-wise, of the past year. I’m not going to bother crunching numbers, but I’d be curious to know how that movie actually profited compared to last year’s box office champ: The Dark Knight.

Just ask WB about Superman Returns. It probably ended up making a very modest profit in the end, but it was one of the most expensive movies ever made (some say THE most expensive) and its take of just over $200 million in the U.S. (which would seem like a lot of money) was seen as a big disappointment because of what it cost to make SR, not to mention the marketing costs (which are not included a film’s production costs). Batman Begins grossed only a few million more, but it was seen as a success given the much smaller budget (and much higher acclaim). It was a lot more profitable than SR.

With the reported costs of the making of the new Trek movie, and given that the studio splits the gross with the theatre owners (roughly 55% goes to the studio), you really can’t talk about Trek’s profit just yet… I’m looking at Box Office Mojo right now and I’m going to venture a guess that the most profitable film of 2009, thus far, is Paul Blart: Mall Cop. Estimated budget: $26 million, total gross to date (still playing, in budget theatres I’d guess): Over $146 million. Similarly, Clint Eastwood’s Gran Torino is also still playing in some theatres, and it’s grossed over $147 million while the budget was $33 million. Trek has easily outgrossed Blart and Gran Torino already, but given the much smaller budget for those other two films, they are much more profitable right now and may very well end up that way for the entire year.

Anal enough? Yeah, probably. LOL… I’m not taking into account that Gran Torino opened (in limited fashion) late in 2008, or that Trek has merchandising streams that Paul Blart or Gran Torino don’t (I haven’t seen any Blart action figures). Then there’s DVD, and I’d guess Trek will have the advantage there too. But getting into all that would REALLY be anal!

Why yes, actually, I *do* know something about it. After all, every Trek film, afaik, has been profitable. But the fact that a film makes X dollars *gross* does not guarantee that is X dollars *profit*.

Whether there’s a sequel is irrelevant. Being accurate on the terms presented with box office figures IS relevant.

I think Harry Potter will give Trek a better battle for the crwon than you David suggests. The last movie came out (I think) the same weekend as the final book, didn’t it? So how can you judge Harry’s film popularity based on the book series ending? This is the first film in the series without new books on the way.

HP’s popularity doesn’t seem to be dying down much, if at all, and there’s a lot of enthusiasm for Half-Blood Prince. The trailers look awesome, and this has the potential to be the best of the bunch. Given little other competition this summer, Transformers aside (which has never been the cultural phenomenon HP is), my guess is that Harry will win the summer and possibly the year, with Trek finishing second.

But don’t count Pixar’s UP out of the race either. The reviews have been astoundingly good (no surprise), and it looks like a film the whole family can enjoy. I have a feeling UP might hold grown-ups attention better than the kids, but it will still rake in over $200 million easily enough. Being offered in 3D should only add to the movie’s appeal.