Well, last week at this time, I wrote of my disappointment over Wolverine's opening gross. The mutant couldn't even claw up a $100 million weekend. Which surprised me, considering the popularity of the X-Men brand. To me, Trek pretty much did the same thing. It completely disappointed.

Now, just as with Wolverine, I am going to note that all the news reports I've read so far are positive on this $72 million estimated opening. I couldn't disagree more.

This movie had one of the best collection of reviews I've ever seen. Seriously, the celebration around this particular piece of celluloid seemed more appropriate for the Second Coming!

And considering that expensive tentpole flicks released in the month of May usually are expected to earn over $100 million in their first three days of release since ticket prices are getting more expensive as the years go by, I just don't see how executives can even possibly spin this gross as anything less than a moderate failure.

I'm not blaming Viacom for the quality of the product. I don't think quality is the salient issue.I haven't seen the film, but from what I've read and heard, this is a good piece of entertainment.

But here's the thing: Viacom invested a lot of money in the updated version of the classic sci-fi television series -- a budget reportedly around $140 million. The marketing costs are said to be close to the same amount, maybe a little more. That's nearly $300 million put behind the project. I don't know if there were any complicated risk-mitigation techniques employed (foreign-rights sales, tax-shelter financing, etc.). I do know, however, that an investment that big demanded a larger box-office debut. And let's not forget that Viacom's movie operations did not do well at all in the first quarter.

Now, I've read quite a bit of analysis that argues that a $72 million opening for a Trek entry is actually something of a substantial success. It's true in one sense. If you research the Trek franchise, you will see that, on an absolute basis, $72 million isn't bad. But like I've noted earlier, you have to take into account the effects of inflation and what it means to be a summer blockbuster in 2009.

Plus, I would counter argue that the current J. J. Abrams version of the franchise cannot be evaluated on the same terms that one would use to evaluate some of the other iterations. The current incarnation has based its brand equity, its mindshare value, on fresh DNA. As some have said, you don't need to be a Trekkie (Trekker?) to enjoy this one. It's supposed to be, in its own simple yet robust way, its own man.

The film is an exercise in action-packed, kinetic sci-fi, infused with an appropriate blend of intellect, testosterone, and tasteful, never ostentatious, special effects. Even if the original series never existed and you knew nothing about a captain named Kirk, you theoretically could have been seduced by the marketing campaign.

But the powers that be had better not become too self-congratulatory if the Abrams Trek grosses more than the fourth picture in the series (that was the one with the whales, I think). They better hope it grosses a lot more than that one did. You see, spending $300 million for a $72 million opening during a time when DVD sales are stalling is not a good business model. Now, if Viacom had spent $100 million, then the company might have been onto something. As it stands now, I'm not sure that shareholders should be too happy.

Disclosure: I don't own any company mentioned; positions can change without notice.