Variety: Into Darkness Tracking For $85M Open + Budget Revealed + Film Gets PG-13 Rating |
jump to navigation

Variety: Into Darkness Tracking For $85M Open + Budget Revealed + Film Gets PG-13 Rating April 25, 2013

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

The producers of Star Trek Into Darkness always say it is a bigger movie (and that means budget too). So it is good news that today it is being reported the film is set for a franchise record-breaking opening weekend. Details on that below plus the movie has officially got its expected PG-13 rating, find out what the MPAA parental guidance says too.       


Variety: Into Darkness Set For $85M+ opening weekend

Today Variety is reporting that early insider tracking indicates that Star Trek Into Darkness is "gearing up for a stellar $85 million opening (weekend)." And that is actually a low end, the report goes on to say:

Analysts suggest the 3D actioner could exceed $90 million, depending on word of mouth. Pre-release buzz has been building steadily for the film starting as early as December when Paramount released the film’s first teaser trailer.

The 2009 Star Trek movie had a domestic opening of $70 million  and went on to make a total of $385 worldwide. As noted before here at TrekMovie, about two-thirds of the global total was from domestic sales. Paramount has been upping their international marketing for Into Darkness (as has been seen here at Variety also notes the international push, saying:

Despite its U.S. projection, one of “Star Trek’s” biggest hurdles will be overseas, where the first feature struggled to beam up audiences, earning just $125 million. Sequels usually fare better, however.

Variety is also reporting that the budget for Into Darkness was $185M, which is more than the $150 million for the 2009 movie but still below other summer tentpole movies. TrekMovie sources indicate that much of the additional money went to the 3D conversion and to shooting about a third of the movie in IMAX. 

If Into Darkness does open to an $85-90 million weekend, and international marketing efforts pay off, then this movie could break through past $500M. I suspect Paramount would be happy with anything exceeding the take from the 2009 movie.

Will "Into Darkness" set a new franchise record for opening weekend – Variety thinks so

Into Darkness Gets PG-13 Rating

Earlier this week the MPAA issued a number of ratings for summer movies, including Star Trek Into Darkness. As expected the movie received a PG-13 rating. Specifically the parental guidance notes the film contains "Intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence." The rating has also been added to the official website:

Since the introduction of the PG-13 rating in 1986, three of eight Star Trek releases held the PG-13 rating (First Contact, Nemesis and 2009’s Star Trek) rating. All the other films held a PG rating (and in fact in 1979 Star Trek: The Motion Picture was originally given a G rating, but that was later upgraded to PG for the director’s cut).

That being said PG-13 has become the new normal for Hollywood blockbusters. Every single 2012 live-action movie in the top 20 for box office performance was either PG-13 or R rated.

Star Trek Into Darkness’ parental guidance is also notable for how it differs from other summer 2013 movies (also rated PG-13). For example Iron Man 3’s parental guidance states "sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence throughout, and brief suggestive content." And R.I.P.D. gets "violence, sci-fi/fantasy action, some sensuality, and language including sex references." So apparently Into Darkness is not as sexy as some of the promos might suggest (at least relative to other summer 2013 movies).

"Into Darkness" gets warning for violence but a pass on sexual content

Thanks to Geri for tip



Comments for articles with spoilers allow discussion of spoilers in the comments section – but try to limit to spoilers discussed in the article.

Discussing potential spoilers not posted at and/or linking to other spoilers will result in deletion and instant ban.



1. freezejeans - April 25, 2013

How many times is everyone planning on seeing it? :D I’m going for at least 3.

2. Ahmed - April 25, 2013

I hope the movie will break box records of previous Trek movies. Guess it will depends on word of mouth & the reviews as well.

3. Ahmed - April 25, 2013

@1. I will see it maybe twice & if it was really good, then maybe two more times.

4. Diskhanbobulated - April 25, 2013

How expensive is 3D conversion? Can’t wait to see this in IMAX! “Oblivion” was amazing in that format as well.

5. Gaz@UK - April 25, 2013

#1 Imax 3d at least once and twice more in standard at different cinemas. Already booked in for #1 on 10 may.

6. Dalton Ammons - April 25, 2013

I am seeing it May 15 at one of the fan sneaks in IMAX 3D. That weekend I will see it again and then a few weeks later for a 3rd time and then one final time just before it has finished its theatrical run. A total of 4 times is my projection.

I really hope the foreign box office does better on this one that the 2009 film. I was shocked at how poorly it did but then I don’t think any Star Trek films have done good overseas. Hopefully the better job of marketing it combined with the exposure foreign audiences have had on DVD and Blu-ray to the 2009 film will help. I want it to do great so another film will be a no brainer.

7. Matt - April 25, 2013

#1. i’m seeing it twice.

8. RoobyDoo - April 25, 2013

I already have tix for 2 showings; may go 1 or 2 additional times if it’s super good.

9. Anthony Pascale - April 25, 2013

3D costs are more than just the conversion, there is extra time spent on set during production setting up shots and shooting special references for the 3D team. And production time is the most expensive time. Those teamsters eating doughnuts (plus , gaffers, etc) still get paid whether actors are being filmed or if they are shooting at tennis balls for reference points.

10. Darren Phillips - April 25, 2013

Maybe once the slimy old bean-counters get their 13 pieces of Silver, they’ll bloody wise up and put a new Trek series or 3 (TOS,TNG, and ENT era) back on the telly WHERE IT BELONGS!!!

11. Exverlobter - April 25, 2013

What!!! the Undiscovered Country (the best Star Trek film in my opinion) made less money than The final frontier, and is the second least profitable Trek-Film. That can’t be!
And it got a PG rating, while it was the only Trek-film with Gore? (Arm cut of with a phaser gun)
Strange world

12. Jonathan - April 25, 2013

@1. Got two tickets for IMAX one after another. 132min run time will probably mean I’ll be running out the exit and walking straight back in again!

13. Exverlobter - April 25, 2013

Oh wait, just have seen that the statistics is just about the opening weekend.

14. ScottC - April 25, 2013

I have tix to the 5/15 fan sneek and I’m sure I will see it at least twice, depends on how many time I can drag my other half to it!

15. Exverlobter - April 25, 2013

Well, i have seen this crapfest called Episode 1 four times, so to break that record i have to see Into Darkness(which probably deserves my money more than episode 1 did) for about 5 times.

16. martin - April 25, 2013

If spoilers really start hitting (especially after the Europe opening) – it could harm this movie. Same deal with any bad reviews (what I have read has been good) More and more I do not understand the marketing genius behind this release schedule. Why take any chances of Harrison’s ID or non-ID and just let the hype build and build until a global release day?

As for the number of showings, IM3, MoS and Trek right now I plan on very close to the same:
Viewing 1 (2D) – me.
Viewing 2 (3D) – me + daughter (if ok for her)
Almost sure that there will be 1 or 2 additional viewings of Trek to bridge the gap to the Blu-Ray release.

So far the wife has said she is in for Man of Steel, and she is non-committal for Trek, she is out for IM3.

17. Exverlobter - April 25, 2013

Let’s hope that The Fast and The Furious won’t kill the optimistic predictions for the Box Office of STID.

18. sean - April 25, 2013


First Contact was more violent though, with face-melting and necks being broken and such.

I could have sworn I had a Star Trek VI poster that said the movie was PG-13, but I must be wrong.

19. Classy M - April 25, 2013

The film was shown to press and cinema reps in the UK today and seems to have been well received. Tweets from those lucky enough to see it said,

“Just saw Star Trek Into Darkness. Not perfect, but huge amounts for both Trekkies and non Trekkies to enjoy. And Benedict C is superb.”

“At first Star Trek Into Darkness preview. It rocks. Benedict Cumberbatch fab villain. Great job by JJ Abrams. Gives me hope for Star Wars.”

“Star Trek Into Darkness! Marvellous. That is all.”

In addition, Total Film gave the film 4 stars.

That buzz seems positive so far. Long may it last.

20. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 25, 2013

I’ll be adding to the international market with tickets to see it (in 2D) with my husband in tow on 9 May. I’ll most likely go again to see it in 3D that weekend, again with my husband, if I can wrangle it. He’s not a trekkie, as a matter of principle. He’s a whovian instead. After that, it will depend on how much I liked the movie and how much I can put up with the condecension of my family as I trot off to repeat viewings…

STID still hasn’t got a rating here in Australia, but I’d be expecting an M classification. That’s what the 2009 Star Trek got, and it’s what IM3 has.

21. Exverlobter - April 25, 2013

“First Contact was more violent though, with face-melting and necks being broken and such.”

Not really. There was action, but it was mostly bloodless. There was a hell of a lot blood in The Undivscovered Country. I regarded the Face melting more as a special effect than real gore.

22. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 25, 2013

A21. Exverlobter

I’m not sure if this story is apocryphal or true, but I recall reading somewhere that the Klingon blood in ST:TUC was pink rather than Human red to enable it to get the lower classification.

23. Jeyl - April 25, 2013

I miss PG movies.

24. weeharry - April 25, 2013


that’s very promising to hear :-)


25. Aix - April 25, 2013

I hope it earns tons and tons of money!

26. Greg2600 - April 25, 2013

Back in the day, films were not marketed anywhere near they are now. Someone mentioned ST VI having a small opening, well, the promotional budget was non-existent. These days films are made by accountants for the benefit of stock brokers.

27. Exverlobter - April 25, 2013

“The Motion Picture was originally given a G rating, ”

How ironic, because this is the only film where you can see the actors penis (those costumes are too tight)

28. Exverlobter - April 25, 2013

“Back in the day, films were not marketed anywhere near they are now. Someone mentioned ST VI having a small opening, well, the promotional budget was non-existent. ”

NOt sure about this. Trek was during that time pushed by articles in the Time Magazine and so on.

29. swpinsent - April 25, 2013

@13 Trek VI may have taken in fewer tickets than V, but it made more money – the budget for the Final Frontier was nearly double than the budget of VI. VI made money at the box office – it was a struggle for V to break even.

30. NCC-73515 - April 25, 2013

Saw the last one 9 times on the big screen.
Unsure about this one… certainly twice.

31. Phil - April 25, 2013

Rose will be so disappointed that full frontal nudity is still evading Trek….

32. Phil - April 25, 2013

I’m assuming the 85 MM is domestic box office. Any estimates on foreign opening box office?

33. Ryan - April 25, 2013

You would think that after the last movie there would be a larger established audience. The last movie made $78 mil or so on the first weekend and many non-Trekkie type people were caught off guard how good it was leading to its long life in the theater. It’s interesting how this time around even with far more people aware of it that it would only make that much more.

34. Nony - April 25, 2013

Wow, good luck to it.

Also, there is a new Bones character poster out, released today on the Huffington Post entertainment site.

35. kmart - April 25, 2013

That story is total crap, and comes from Berman, who was not in a position to know. I interviewed Meyer and the ILM folks at the time and the blood color was a plot point, not a ratings issue. They would have needed some SERIOUS volume of blood in any color to have gotten anywhere near an R rating and everybody knew it, so that wasn’t ever a legit concern.

Violence in TUC is pretty low-key IMO anyway, with the zero-gee thing seeming more a novelty than a hard-hitting sequence … McCoy treating Gorkon is as close to ‘gut-wrenching’ as anything gets and even there they could have gone further.

36. bluejfk - April 25, 2013

Inflation adjusted figures are meaningless unless you also adjust for population grown…

37. AyanEva - April 25, 2013

Well, I’ll be helping the opening box office 3 or 4 times on opening weekend. If the film is good, which I expect it will be, I’ll keep right on going and buy more tickets. :) I have a personal record to beat anyway.

38. sean - April 25, 2013


Meyer, Denny Martin Flinn and Mark Altman have all told that story. I’ve heard Meyer tell it both ways (that it was a necessity for the rating and that it was a script idea).

39. Jack - April 25, 2013

I’ve read the few reviews online so-far (all spoiler-free and positive). I don’t think it’s a spoiler to say that they’ve been pretty favorable.

I’m not spilling any beans, I hope, but they seem to be saying, resoundingly, the opposite of what people here were worrying about. That this isn’t, despite dark moments, a dark, dystopian revenge flick — all the Trek optimism is ultimately there (and that’s a weakness, a couple of reviewers say) along with fan nods and in-jokes.

The consensus so far seems to be: very much a Star Trek movie.

We’ll see how it turns out.

40. sean - April 25, 2013


The only blood in TUC was pepto bismol. First Contact had the red stuff. It had Data snapping Borg necks, Worf chopping off Borg arms, Picard digging through assimilated crew member’s chests, the Queen’s face melt, etc. TUC has the assassination and that’s about it.

41. somethoughts - April 25, 2013

Mmmm alice eve :9 delicious, have my may 15 3d imax tickets in my safe

42. JohnRambo - April 25, 2013


43. Lurker - April 25, 2013

Gizmodo Australia reviewer calls Into Darkness best looking sci-fi of our time. You know that line will be on the promos.

44. kmart - April 25, 2013

To the best of my knowledge, Meyer started telling the story with that error-ridden memoir of his I’ve thumbed through in a bookstore but refuse to spend money on. Maybe he was leveraging off of old Flinn recollections (He has been dead for quite awhile now) or some print reference that traces to Flinn, who as I recall wasn’t wholly truthful or accurate about things in the CFQ coverage of TUC.

As for your third source …I’m flabbergasted that Altman or Ed Gross would have ever put something like that down on paper. I found most of their work in the 90s to be very reliable and largely free of spin (if you ignore the Berman quotes in the Altman articles, that is.)

The specific quote from the ILM VFX supe was something like ‘it was always about volume of blood, not color,’ and then a reference to the fact they weren’t ever going to try to do a WILD BUNCH Sam Peckinpah style bloodbath.

I don’t remember if any or all of that is in the finished article or not, there were about 4000 words cut from the article because Paramount didn’t supply more than a few pictures (everything else came from VFX vendors) and the mag had to maintain their image-to-text ratio. Anybody got a Cinefex 49 handy?

40, in the scooby doo version of TUC, you do see human blood when they pull the mask off the shooter and you see it is Col. West. So a lil bit of red there. Don’t recall if there is a trickle Kirk wipes off during his prison encounters (makes it sound like OZ, doesn’t it, yikes!)

45. Exverlobter - April 25, 2013

@35. kmart
“Violence in TUC is pretty low-key IMO anyway, with the zero-gee thing seeming more a novelty than a hard-hitting sequence … McCoy treating Gorkon is as close to ‘gut-wrenching’ as anything gets and even there they could have gone further.”

@ 40. sean
“TUC has the assassination and that’s about it.”

My parents would disagree. After the arm of the Klingon got cut off i had to turn off the TV when i first watched it, because the film was “too violent”
However, they had nothing against First Contact. The Neck-thing did not bother them, as the Borg are machines (well technically not, but you get the point). Parents were also not disgusted by the Thousands of Droids that got dismemberd in the Stars Wars Prequels.
However the Bloody Klingon Assasination was indeed a concern for them

46. JefferiesTuber - April 25, 2013

I have my IMAX 3D tickets, but I’ll see it 2D at least once. Visual effects always look 10x better in 2D.

47. kmart - April 25, 2013


The only REALLY SERIOUSLY disturbing thing I recall in any TREK (if I ignore the Abrams film and TUC’s virtual character assassination of Kirk, that is) was in the TMP novelization, which is a really hard ‘R’ in the transporter malfunction, which has organs materializing on the outside of the bodies. As excited as I was to read the thing, I just had to pull up, because I just couldn’t imagine how they’d get any of that on screen (and of course, they didn’t even try … not when you were delivering a “G” rated movie, that’s for sure.)

I think I’d also characterize Sisko and Dax in the catch-Eddington ep of DS9 as being very disturbing to me as well. Then again, if I had been running Trek during that era it would have been about The Maquis and privateers operating during that era, not the usual Federation stuff, especially since I was not on their side in terms of how they handled any of that.

48. Exverlobter - April 25, 2013

“was in the TMP novelization, which is a really hard ‘R’ in the transporter malfunction, which has organs materializing on the outside of the bodies.”

The funny thing is, that this was actually shown… on Galaxy Quest.

49. PEB - April 25, 2013

@1 I literally saw Trek 09 10 times in the theater. Yea, seriously…10 times. While I dont think I’ll be able to do that this time around, I’m sure I’ll see it way more than twice.

50. Josh B - April 25, 2013

I’ll be going at least three times as it stands right now, one of those being an early premiere showing May 15th @ 9:00pm!! If it is as good as I think it will be, then I’ll probably see it no less than 5 times. Even if it sucks (surely it won’t) at least I know my money will be going toward the next movie :)

Can’t wait to stand in line with my fellow Trekkers Wednesday night!!

51. AyanEva - April 25, 2013

#49 Ten times for me too. One short of my goal of 11 times (since it was the 11th movie). I’m determined to hit 12 times this go around, since this is the 12th movie, so I’m praying to the Trekkie gods that I actually LIKE the movie so I can meet my self-imposed challenge. lol

I’ve already bought five tickets (two for me, three for family) with another two promised (I’m taking my dad and he won’t go by himself) so it’s too late for me to back out now- I’m already up to seven tickets! ..I’m not sure how I ended up paying for ALL of the tickets though. :(

If it’s a really, really bad film, I won’t go quite so many times. I think I’ll enjoy it though.

52. Dunsel Report - April 25, 2013

Would love to know what they were thinking with the transporter horror from TMP. A reliable source told me that until the last minute, the story kept changing, with various main characters slated for merging with V’ger at the end, until it was settled that it would be Decker. I wonder if the transporter death guilt was supposed to set up the idea that Kirk needed redemption at the end by becoming one with the Creator. Otherwise it is hard to understand except as a pretty extreme way of establishing that Kirk doesn’t know his way around the new Enterprise.

53. The Sinfonian - April 25, 2013

@52 Exactly. “What we got back… didn’t live long.” That was one of the most horrifying moments in all of Trek. But they didn’t figure out how to rub out Commander Sonak so that they had an opening for Spock? Surely Sonak would have deferred to Spock. The callousness with which Kirk tells Decker, “Guess you’ll have to double as science officer, too.” is nuts. I think you’re right: at one point Kirk would have become the Star Child. (oops, sorry, wrong over-rated sci-fi film.)
Can you imagine what would have happened if Kirk was killed early in a TOS movie like TMP, or in TWOK rather than Spock???!!!! I mean, that would have been nuts! Who’d do that!

54. martin - April 25, 2013

@52, @53 – and whoever above remarked on the full frontal unitard.

The uniform was crazy, and that one shot of Decker early on, I still can’t figure out why that would have made the cut. I don’t think it is actually graphic, it just makes the uniform look awful, and Steven Collins in that thing commando? Sheesh.

But the main thing is the transporter death. I agree, it is one of the scariest/grotesque things in all of Trek, and it goes ON and ON. That it passed with a G rating is weird, unless they figured kids would be asleep by that point in the movie. But it was early on, the kiddos probably made it at least until the 3rd extended space sequence before they passed out.

Wasn’t this the same year that Superman the Movie had a full frontal of a little boy on the screen in a G rated movie?

55. Sherlock - April 25, 2013

I saw the last one 4 times in cinema and talked 13 of my star trek hating friends into joining me. All of them but one liked it.
I have tickets for the 8th (German opening) with my girlfriend and will decide after that whether it’s worthwhile to advertise it to anyone else.

56. Sherlock - April 25, 2013

@ 51
Did you see Nemesis 10 times then? Where was amnesty international when you need them??

57. Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire - April 25, 2013

I saw Trek 09 about 8 times. May be seeing this one about 10. My Record is 12 for The Wrath of Khan. That’s just on the Big Screen though. Lol.

58. Emperor Mike of the Alternate Empire - April 25, 2013

Hey Anthony Pascale. How many times did you see trek 09 on the big screen.

59. The Professor - April 25, 2013

When are we going to get a spoiler free review here? I am not going to google it because I do not want any surprises. But I would like to know if it is good or not.

60. Disinvited - April 25, 2013

I’d call a movie going from a G to PG a lot of things but “upgrade” isn’t one of them.

61. MC1701B - April 25, 2013

11. The Pepto-Bismol blood is what prevented the PG-13, or worse. Deliberate attempt to make it look cartoonish and non-realistic.

62. AyanEva - April 25, 2013

#56 Nemesis is the only Star Trek film that I did not see in theaters and still flat out refuse to watch at all. I found out Data died well in advance of the release and was so irritated with Insurrection that I just said, “No thanks.”

By now it’s just kind of an amusing game to see just how long I can go without ever watching it.

I didn’t start trying to match my number of theater screenings to the film number until the last film in 2009. My insanity in that area is fairly recent.

63. AyanEva - April 25, 2013

#56 I should clarify that previous statement. It’s the only TNG-era film that I didn’t see in theaters. I can’t count the TOS-era films because I was born in the early 80s so aside from the ones I missed completely by virtue of being born after they came out, I was too young to see the rest in the theaters. :(

My first Trek film in the theater was Generations.

64. Sunfell - April 25, 2013

I’ve got “Fan Sneak” tickets to see it on May 15, at our brand new RPX theater. It’ll be in 3D, which concerns me, since I can’t see it very well. But knowing that JJ shot it natively (rather than back-converted it, as is commonly done) is a bit of a comfort.

My real concern is that huge screen and JJ’s ‘shaky cam’ style. I hope my stomach can take it!

65. pg - April 25, 2013

Here’s a review for the best of both worlds event tonight…

66. Crone - April 25, 2013

Saw all but TFF and Nemesis multiple times in theaters. Have seen them all many times at home, of course. I assume I will see STID at least twice- most likely more. Is it May 15th yet?

67. - April 26, 2013

If I love it i will see it 6-8 times at the theatre.

If I don’t then once.

68. Buzz Cagney - April 26, 2013

$185m and yet only 25 bucks on the writers- plus 25cents for the envelope for them to write the story on the back of.

69. kmart - April 26, 2013

Dude, you are so off on that it ain’t funny. Deliberately cartoonish? They could have done that sequence with about 1/10th the computing power and time if they weren’t trying so hard to integrate the blood, which is why you have what for the time was pretty remarkable work in having the cg blood seeming to cast shadows on the assassins as they walk through.

And then you’ve also got the blood having to appear a different color under the red alert lighting than the practical physical blood looks when the power comes back on and the lighting goes back to normal. Even though it is nearly a decade earlier, I think this stuff looks better than the cg blood in MISSION TO MARS (then again, that is shot under very unforgiving bright light, which makes it much tougher.)

If you want to carp about effects, then at least pick the bad ones. Look at the ‘two Kirks’ stuff, where you’ve got one Kirk pointing about two stories higher than the other one is standing. Or the matte line the size of Frisco in the Starfleet / GG Bridge shot early on (well it may not be that bad in homevid, but it was awful in the theater.)

There’s a warp shot with the E-a coming straight to camera (I think this is before the Kirk/Spock in quarters scene) that is pretty awful too, it has a no-blur look that seems very TFF (it may actually be an unused shot intended for the end of TVH … I remember reading that for TVH ILM had a warp shot of the Enterprise where it went from a pinpoint to full-frame, and there sure isn’t anything like that in the actual movie.)

70. VOODOO - April 26, 2013

I read that Iron Man 3 is tracking for a $160 million dollar open. I thought Star Trek would do better than $85 million after all the good will that ST 09 earned.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Star Trek do somewhere in the mid to high $90 million range. The real test for this film is going to be the global box office. I’m somewhat surprised that a big name star wasn’t brought in on this film in an attempt to expand the global reach of the ST brand. This is exactly the type of film one would think would appeal to the foreign audience which has traditionally been lukewarm to the more thought provoking less action oriented original…I don’t mean that last statement as a put down in any way. The new ST films are what audiences want and after all this is a business.

71. Unwanted - April 26, 2013

I almost never go to a movie more than once, theater prices are nuts and I can wait for dvd, I usually only go to one or two movies a year, this year its STID and Man of Steel, possibly TH: Desolation of Smaug as well. I will also watch the Marvel films this year, but only on home video, I don’t have a money tree after all.

STID is likely to get at least one repeat viewing from me, ST09 got three, and despite what Buzz Killington (Cagney) keeps saying this one looks like its going to be fantastic to me, and yeah, I read the spoiler reviews, they didn’t affect my opinion at all, reminded me of some TOS episodes though.

Come on May 17th!

72. Unwanted - April 26, 2013

@70. I read an article a week ago that said Forbes was predicting STID to be a possible billion dollar movie. Checking around with google searches shows this is not an isolated idea, and in fact quite a few people out there believe its possible.

If that happens I guarantee we get a new TV series by the 50th anniversary, just sayin.

73. smike - April 26, 2013

“”Into Darkness” gets warning for violence but a pass on sexual content”

Wearing bikinis / underwear is NOT what I’d call “sexual content”… Americans need to relax… Beautiful women and hot clothes don’t kill anyone…weapons do. In Germany, most R-Rated films that have received the rating for “sexual dialogue” or topless scenes are fit for viewing by “12” or under whereas excessive violence often leads to cuts and censorship even for adults… Not even sexually explicit scenes automatically qualify as p*rn. I know it’s different in the US but that Alice Eve scene might be nothing more but a decon scene aka ENT… It might not even have any sexual connotation (though the trailer suggest otherwise)…

74. - April 26, 2013

Opening weekend will be the U.S obviously. Will those figures include the previous take from countries that open a week earlier?

Or is the 80 million projection just for the U.S?

75. Maj. Commotion - April 26, 2013

If it is opening on a Wednesday for early shows as opposed to a traditional Friday opening, doesn’t that gives it an additional 1+ days of box office receipts for the “Weekend” ?

I hope the movie is good, I could care less about how much money is made at the box office.

A number of tent-pole movies come and go every year. They earn big bucks and then disappear. Trek has survived because of its fan base and their willingness to spend cash on licensed product. I am not sure the new-Trek inspires that fervor. Like a number of big summer action movies, it seems content to take your ticket money and then fade away for two years.

76. - April 26, 2013

I would love to see Trek take a billion but i’m not so sure.

Perhaps if the stakes were the entire world being taken over. So a borg invasion where you saw them making headway into significant parts of the planet.. Where you saw new york totally assimilated then the building. destroyed to make way for Borg architecture.

77. Anthony Pascale - April 26, 2013

Saw ST2009 (counting press events and some screenings we did in LA) a total of six times between April 2009 and July 2010

78. Marja - April 26, 2013

I do hope STiD will do well. I have a feeling I will very much enjoy the character-oriented parts of the movie [having read spoilers] and will see it multiple times in theatre; not sure I will see it 15 times as I did ST2009, but wotthehell if I love it, I’ll see it as many times as my wallet will bear. Why not? It’ll be way better than most action movies out there!


79. DavenetSoo - April 26, 2013

Box Office is always hard to predict specially sequels. If they could increase foreign ticket sales say by 50% I’m sure the studio would be happy.
That would put foreign box office at about 190-195 million. Star Trek made $257 domestic they should easily top that with a higher opening, 3D ticket sales & hopefully strong word of mouth. Wouldn’t be surprised if it grossed about $280-$290 domestic. Again box office projections are a crap shoot for sure. I’d say it might top out at about $500 million globally. I’m going to say domestically it will gross $92 million from Wed-Mon.

80. Diskhanbobulated - April 26, 2013

@9. Thanks for the conversion info, Anthony!

81. Theatre Historian - April 26, 2013

I definately think the right choice was made releasing Into Darkness domesticly on the 3rd week of May.
Iron Man 3 is a great movie (Saw it last night we co-hosted the L.A. premiere) that will certainly have legs theatrically, and had Into Darkness opened a week after IronMan 3, it would have certainly split the potential audiences for both.

Sure Trek would have still had a great opening on the 10th but not nearly as big as its going to have with that extra week between IronMan3 and Into Darkness.

So personally I think May 15th/17th was a great choice for release dates.

82. Mark Lynch - April 26, 2013

Even adjusting for inflation, I have always thought it a bit odd to base a films popularity on monetary takings.
Why not just use actual ticket sales instead? That way there is no need to adjust for inflation.

X amount of people saw that film, Y amount of people saw this film. Real easy to see which is the most popular then.

83. K-7 - April 26, 2013

Looks like “they listened” to those of us who complained about the menage a trios post-coital scene with Kirk and the two catwomen. Obviously, this scene is no longer in the movie of the warning would have referenced it.

Thanks for listening, Paramount! This scene was just bad Star Trek.

84. Kev - April 26, 2013

PG -13 Intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, parents strongly cautioned, really?

Silly rating system, Violence is for kids lol

but anyways my joking at how used to violence people are nowadays with TV and movies why is it that if all of these films had such great openings and that ST 5 actually got more money opening week than Nemesis.

as I thought ST 5 basically damn near killed the franchise back then and badly hurt ST 6’s budget

85. Theatre Historian - April 26, 2013

82) Mark,
Showing tickets sold, would make it very obvious that across the board Movies are watched in the theatre by fewer people than they were in years past.

Think about this even though the Avatar , Titanic and Avengers are the highest grossing movies of all time, but are still very shy of the number of tickets that Gone with the Wind, Star Wars, E.T. and Sound of Music have sold. (even factoring in the number or re releases that GOW, SW,and E.T. have had over the years)

86. Toby - April 26, 2013

Can’t believe no-one has mentioned the violence in WoK, the Ceti Eels, people being driven to suicide, strung up with their throats slit, no Trek movie has got even close to being as disturbing, it’s one of the reasons WoK will always be THE standout film in the franchise – in the UK the film at one point earned a ’15’ certificate (before the advent of the ’12’ which it now has) which I believe is the equivalent of an ‘R’ in the USA

For the record I believe all this talk of STID going billion dollar to be ridiculous, if it does 500 mil that will be a massive achievement for a Trek movie, either way, cannot wait!

87. Exverlobter - April 26, 2013

Ok, lets talk about the Top 3 most violent Star Trek moments.

Nr. 3:
Khan tortures Chekov with the Ceti Eel. Later it leaves his ear and Kirk shoots it with a phaser.(Star Trek 2)
Arm of a Klingon gets cut of with a Phaser (from Star Trek 6)
Picard and Riker fire at the guy with the chestbuster like Alien creature. His head explodes!! Then his chest explodes! The Alien bursts out of the body. Picard and Riker desintegrate the Alien. A torso of a body with a visible vertebrae remains. (from TNG: Conspiracy)

88. KirksLove - April 26, 2013

Erm… No sexual content? Have they seen Cumberbatch in those tight leather trousers, talking with THAT voice?

89. Commander K - April 26, 2013

First major publisher review: Total Film give it 4 stars!

90. Flake - April 26, 2013

NEEDs over $100m in OW to ensure it matches or passes the $257m of ST09 due to increased competition.

91. Commander K - April 26, 2013

Empire Magazine also give it 4 stars…

92. Aix - April 26, 2013

@91 Really? I thought they were going to publish it on Monday (UK time of course).

I love their dig on TotalFilm’s review
“we are resisting the impulse to hack out a review just to get our star rating out there and have opted instead to take our time and make sure we give this film the review it richly deserves”…

That actually led to some people saying Paramount is still in bribing-mode with Empire. Hahah!

93. porthoses bitch - April 26, 2013

On its inital release STTMP was rated G current video releases rate it as PG.
And yes the shot of Stephen Collins in the corrodor is abit…ummm…..overexposed.

On a sidenote the current blu ray release of the iindidual TOS films are the ones from 4 years featuring commentaries from 4 years ago. I belive this is the first release of STTMP in widescreen with commentary. I had never heard that there were thoughts at Paramount that they couldnt afford Shatner for the full run of Phase II. Currently at Best Buy for 19.99 and I wouldnt doubt that they discount during premeire week.

94. Commander K - April 26, 2013

@92 Insider info from the bowels of Empire…It’ll be 4 stars as well! :)

95. Mad Mann - April 26, 2013

I will see STiD once in theaters. I saw the 2009 one twice, but my finanical situation has dwindled since then. I now see very few movies in theaters.

I am surprised that it’s tracking at $85-$90 mill. Big movies tend to do three times their opening weekend, so I guess STiD could bring in up to $270 million. That’s about $20 mill more than the 2009 movie (domestic). I do not think that’s all that impressive. I mean, that added bump of 3D and of course inflation should give STiD a MUCH higher take that just $20 million more than its previous installment. At $270 mill, that might be LESS ticket sales than the 2009 movie.

96. Aix - April 26, 2013

@94 Awesome!!!

97. me - April 26, 2013

already got my ticket- 8pm, wed, may 15th, IMAX 3D, center seat!

98. Commander K - April 26, 2013

I seen Star Trek 2009 at the London premiere, twice in imax and once in regular cinema…

This one i’m just seeing at imax, 2 weeks today! EXCITING

99. Moputo Jones - April 26, 2013

#87: I still fast forward during the first Ceti eel scene everytime I watch TWOK. And I love “Conspiracy” – I laugh everytime I see the Remmick exploding scene!

100. crazydaystrom - April 26, 2013

Saw ST09 ten times which was way more than any other movie for me. Had an IMAX theater a bike ride away and loved the movie and wanted to support my decades old love (fan since the ’60s) so I made a little ritual of it and saw it every Sunday afternoon for over two months, with friends or alone. Loved it!

The most I’ve seen any other movie at the theater is twice. Except for 2001: A Space Odyssey which I’ve been lucky enough to see four times at theater over the years (OMG!!!)

Let’s see what STID inspires me to do.

101. Dennis Bailey - April 26, 2013

Well, the MPAA doesn’t base their ratings on what trekkies find “disturbing” as subject matter.

102. Connon - April 26, 2013

I predict “Star Trek: Into Darkness” will get between $60-$65 million. It might match “Star Trek 2009’s” success due to foreign sales.

103. Dennis C - April 26, 2013

Of course a lot of this take will benefit from inflated ticket prices for 3D presentations which cost anywhere from 40% – 60% more than regular ticket prices. Paramount doesn’t get a penny of that so the numbers tend to be a bit skewed (factor in the 3D take for last summer’s “The Amazing Spider-Man” and it underperformed Spider-Man 3 by an even wider margin than the numbers suggest).

So, STID will do very well and will likely outperform 2009 but 2009 earned the bulk of its take from standard theater presentations without its gross benefiting from the 3D crutch.

104. Dennis C - April 26, 2013

@28 Yup, lots of free publicity for Star Trek VI since it was being marketed as the last movie with the original cast. Time did entire feature on it and it was well received by (most) critics at the time. I was at a Star Trek movie marathon which featured the first official look at the trailer and the audience was on its feet cheering at the end.

I miss those days.

Anyway, domestically (despite what Box Office mojo reports) it grossed around $92 million (I used to track each week in Variety and other magazines and papers). That’s a $90 million take on a movie with a $25 million budget and ticket prices at roughly $7.50 at the time. That’s an impressive take

105. Janice - April 26, 2013

I’ll be seeing STID once and depending on how they treat Pike, I’ll see it several times. It all depends on Pike.

I loved ST 2009 and saw it more times than I care to mention. Pike was so great in it! And I STILL watch it whenever it’s on TV.

106. Connor - April 26, 2013

@ 103. Dennis C,

You do not think domestic sales will drop?

107. meow meow - April 26, 2013

$85 million opening worries me a bit, especially with Iron Man 3 tracking almost 150 for next weekend. Then with Hangover 3 and Man of Steel around the corner, Into Darkness will have to make there money fast to make a profit, hopefully it will have staying power.

108. Dennis C - April 26, 2013

@106 I don’t think they’ll drop but the final numbers will be inflated by 3D ticket prices (and there’s also a slight adjustment as well for higher ticket prices in general).

I think Paramount will be taking a much closer look at the international take than the domestic.

109. Paul - April 26, 2013

The Problem STID has is international box office. ST09 only made $125m which is pitiful so STID needs to make a lot more internationally I do not see it doing terrific business especially now the plot points have been leaked those are attracting some negative coverage & even though its only a movie it affects box office in Europe especially. For sure STID will do better than $385m overall but its unlikely to do mega business even though its a much better movie than Iron Man 3 (which is pretty poor & overhyped to compensate & try to attract the audience). I think STID will perhaps make $550-600m which is probably not much more than break even point (only half of it goes back to Paramount as the theatres get the other half) they really need $300m+ US then another $350-400m international for it to be considered a mega hit & worth another big budget for the next movie. Time will tell but historically ST movies have never ever been popular outside US STMP is still the highest grossing ST movie internationally!!

110. Check the Circuit - April 26, 2013

@108 Dennis C

I’m more optimistic. Iron Man 3 will have made its biggest chunk of $$$ in the two weeks prior to STID’s release. Fanboys will be ready of something new. Gatsby isn’t going to be much of a threat. (When’s the last time Leo DiCaprio was in movie that was a HUGE blockbuster?) STID is on its own the weekend of May 17th. Yes, there are some big movies coming out on Memorial Day weekend…but STID will also be rolling right into that big 3-day weekend too. I expect (hope) for a really strong second weekend. Dropping off less than 35% of opening the weekend.

111. Curious Cadet - April 26, 2013

@72. Unwanted,
“Forbes was predicting STID to be a possible billion dollar movie…If that happens I guarantee we get a new TV series by the 50th anniversary”

Because we’ve seen the successful Titanic series, Avatar series, Harry Potter, Batman, Transformers,Spider-Man, Pirates of the Caribbean, etc …?

No Star Trek lives in the feature film world for this run, as do the rest of these franchises, no matter how much they make. When Abrams and this cast move on, they might consider producing a TV series while they figure out what’s going to happen with the film franchise (do they re-cast Kirk and Spock, or do something completely different?), but I can’t imagine CBS is salivating to get back into the episodic Trek business just because the movies are doing well. Over exposure was a primary reason cited for the franchise’s previous demise.

@109 Paul,
“they really need $300m+ US then another $350-400m international for it to be considered a mega hit & worth another big budget for the next movie.”

If that were true they would have already dropped the budget for this film, rather than increase it. I seriously doubt if the film does not do as well as you suggest that Paramount would mount another Trek film for any less than they have spent on this one. As long as STID makes more money than the last film, they will continue to invest similarly going forward. If it loses money, they might well not even make another one.

112. Total-Trekkie2 - April 26, 2013

I’ve read the spoilers, and it seems to be a great movie. You just need to look past the obvious, and see what they’re really saying. The movie won’t be perfect, but it sure sounds like a good Trek film.

113. Disinvited - April 26, 2013

#109. Paul – April 26, 2013

Paramount stands to make a nice chunk of change from IRON MAN 3. I’m sure they want a win-win with both franchises, but I doubt they do anything to impinge on their IM3 lucre. It’ll be interesting to see if they manage to shore up both domestically when their runs overlap. Then again, maybe that’s why their concentrating on Trek’s international? It’ll be interesting to see how they choose to market domestically after the international opening weekend.

One thing is certain, I think the current Trek domestic marketing is going well. I’m hearing from a disinterested relative who’s seen the trailers and he never bothered mentioning 2009’s trailers to me. What remains to be seen is whether IM3/Disney’s continuing marketing blows all that away or whether their advance ticket sales gum-up blows up in their face. I expect Disney to wisely play up the long lines big time for advertising but will those in the lines get fed up and see another picture?

114. martin - April 26, 2013

Sorry, for all the other violent/gross/painful moments in Trek – I won’t back off the transporter malfunction.

The idea that these two are screaming as they turn into steaming piles of goo – that is worse than the eel going into gigantic big fake ear, but the ceti eel is a close second.

But the point also was that TMP was G rated with that too.

As for the most violent moment? Don’t involve a fist or phaser – It is Spock’s mind meld with Valeris on ST6. Nimoy and Cattaral were fantastic in that scene.

115. pg - April 26, 2013

All TMP needed was one extra dose of the Klingons showing up at the very end, firing on the Enterprise.. One mini space battle to cap off the film, maybe even a Klingon or two trying to board the Enterprise and having Kirk and Spock beat them silly in the transporter room…

It started out well, the Klingon attack, the fly by, the transporter malfunction, the worm hole, going to high warp speed with Spocks help, the initial attack on the Enterprise from Vejur, but then went flat for too long.. It was obvious they were rewriting that thing till the end because the third act sucked.

116. Dennis C - April 26, 2013

@110 I’m optimistic, too but never trust the folks in PR at any movie studio. It’ll do very well but expect a bit of spin on the box office take.

As for being a billion dollar movie, I think Forbes is WAY off base. Star Trek is a billion dollar franchise collectively but a billion dollar takes seems unlikely for this movie (we’re talking Batman Begins territory). Lots of cash but not Batman Begins kind of cash.

117. NuFan - April 26, 2013

I love the new Star Trek more than anyone, but I find it hard to beleive a Star Trek movie is capable of a 85 million opening. That would be amazing.

118. bleezlebob - April 26, 2013

The ship that crashed into the San Fran Bay is the USS Vengeance….John Harrisons ship

119. Elias Javalis - April 26, 2013

I am confident it ll surpass the 100 mil mark..I red somewhere it ll make 125 mil the first three days..I think it was

120. PaulB - April 26, 2013

70 “I’m somewhat surprised that a big name star wasn’t brought in on this film in an attempt to expand the global reach of the ST brand. This is exactly the type of film one would think would appeal to the foreign audience…”

Um…did you miss the bit about the casting of this film? The villain? Played by international star Benedict Cumberbatch? Hugely popular in Europe, Asia–you know, the international markets?

I guess you missed the part about them doing EXACTLY what you said for EXACTLY the reasons you said.

121. Exverlobter - April 26, 2013

“Um…did you miss the bit about the casting of this film? The villain? Played by international star Benedict Cumberbatch? Hugely popular in Europe, Asia–you know, the international markets?”

If it would have been Benicio del Toro as originally planed, what you say would be true. However before Cumberbatch was announced as the villain, i actually never heard of him.
Just after having a look at his IMDB page i saw, that i actually knew just one film of him.
Starter for 10.
And although that film was good, it was far from being a blockbuster.

122. Disinvited - April 26, 2013

#120. PaulB – April 26, 2013

While BC has a high Q, he is not a proven big box office draw star that VOODOO was clearly referring to. At this stage he’s a bit of a gamble, still a good bet but not the name VOODOO’s pondering about. However, we could have note that Weller, fills the bill.

123. PaulB - April 26, 2013

#121 & 122 — The reactions to Cumberbatch in foreign markets supports my comments about him being the big-name international star needed to make STID big in foreign markets.

-Exverlobter, YOUR lack of knowledge about him before this announcement doesn’t mean anything about the international markets.

124. Disinvited - April 26, 2013

#109. Paul – April 26, 2013

Tried to post WSJ update on Disney Ticket kerfuffle but site may have copyright issues with them. It got blocked. May pop up.

125. Exverlobter - April 26, 2013

@123 PaulB
“Exverlobter, YOUR lack of knowledge about him before this announcement doesn’t mean anything about the international markets.”

Yes, thats true, but i read on this site here from many other people, that they actually did not knew who he was.
And even if he is a well-known actor. What is according to your opinion a “star”?
Well, when i think about a “star” names like Tom Cruise or Will Smith come to my mind.
Benedict Cumberbatch is obviously NOT in that league.

126. Disinvited - April 26, 2013

#123. PaulB – April 26, 2013

Simple solution: Name one BC film that equaled or bested 2009’s STAR TREK world-wide gross.

127. EM - April 26, 2013

Off Topic –

I just saw an article on the Blastr website about the restoration of the Galileo 7 shuttle. There is a great video with Gene Windfield describing the building of the shuttle and some great photos, too.
Check it out.

128. Exverlobter - April 26, 2013

However , i am actually glad that guys like Tom Cruise or Will Smith are not in Star Trek. That would be awkward.
Star Trek was always sort of a ensemble show and does not need huge Stars. Furthermore they would be too distractful and actually would not fit well into a Trek film.

129. Disinvited - April 26, 2013

#123. PaulB – April 26, 2013

Also, I’ve known him from his SHERLOCK which airs regularly. That is why I said he was a good bet but still a gamble, i.e. at the box office.

Now, if WAR HORSE had gone blockbuster then you could talk.

130. The Professor - April 26, 2013

Thank you. That was just what I was looking for. Two and a half more weeks. I know it will go quickly.

131. EM - April 26, 2013

Bendict Cumberbatch is currently a HUGE star! Much more well known the Benicio Del Toro. I like Benicio, too, though. He’s just not currently as well known. And don’t forget, There are a lot more people outside of North America than in!

132. Disinvited - April 26, 2013

#131. EM – April 26, 2013

Not really debating that. That is why I mentioned his Q. But as of yet he is still not a proven B.O. draw.

133. Exverlobter - April 26, 2013

” Much more well known the Benicio Del Toro”

Are you kidding? Cumberbatch has just one recent Hit-Show while Del Toro for over a decade has build up a decent reputation and name recoginition.

134. Adam Bomb 1701 - April 26, 2013

A “PG-13″ is what I expected. By the way, the “PG-13″ rating was introduced in 1984, not 1986. That was a response to the ratings of “Gremlins” and “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”. Both of which received “PG” ratings. Criticism over their violent content followed; which was deemed excessive for the “PG” rating. The first movie to get the “PG-13″ rating was “The Flamingo Kid”, which was released at Christmastime of ’84. The first movie that was released with that rating was “The Woman in Red”, which opened in August, 1984.

135. Adam Bomb 1701 - April 26, 2013

#54 – “Superman” opened in December 1978, a year before “ST-TMP”. It got a “PG” rating, despite the full frontal nudity of the boy. I understand that the producers got some heat for that.

136. Slornie - April 26, 2013

Considering how much of a premium there is for 3D tickets over standard 2D tickets it would be embarrassing if STID didn’t make more money than ST09..

137. EM - April 26, 2013

@ 133. Exverlobter

I did say currently. Del Toro is a wonderful and respected actor. But what has he done since Sin City on 2005?
He was in Che in 2008 and Wolfman in 2010. He has done a few other things and has some projects in the works. Nothing that anyone has really heard about.
I haven’t done any research on it, but I’d wager that War Horse has done better than most of Benicos latest offerings.
I don’t mean to disrespect Mr. Del Toro or anyone else. But, the reality of it is that BC is currently more well known and popular.

138. PaulB - April 26, 2013

#126 “Simple solution: Name one BC film that equaled or bested 2009′s STAR TREK world-wide gross.”

What a stupid challenge! Since I didn’t say that BC’s been in such a high-grossing film, why would I need to support that with evidence?

Seriously, if you don’t think BC is huge international draw, then you haven’t paid attention to any reports about him in Japan, etc. doing publicity this past year.

139. Yanks - April 26, 2013

BC was a great choice!!

My prediction is 150+ million overseas & 400+ domestic.

…and I’m stickin to it


140. Pastor Neil - April 26, 2013

Into Darkness looks badass!!!!, I got my girlfriend, into Star Trek now , ever since I took her to our first date back when Star Trek 09 was released, she has loved it, yesterday, I took her to see The Best of Both Worlds at the theater, and she was in awe, I got her through the first 11 feature films, the complete TOS series, and now up to TBOB on TNG.
Weird thing is, I think she is more excited about Into Darkness than I am!

141. Shannon Nutt - April 26, 2013

Those numbers on the graph are incorrect, this is the correct order, adjusted for inflation (source: Box Office Mojo):

Star Trek (2009) – $274 million
Star Trek: The Motion Picture – $260 million
Star Trek IV – $229 million
Star Trek II – $213 million
Star Trek III – $180 million
Star Trek: First Contact – $164 million
Star Trek: Generations – $143 million
Star Trek VI – $142 million
Star Trek: Insurrection – $116 million
Star Trek V – $104 million
Star Trek: Nemesis – $58 million

142. David Oakes - April 26, 2013

@ 1

I’m planning on seeing it at least three times.


2.Regular 3D

3.Regular 2D

143. PaulB - April 26, 2013

#141 – You didn’t actually read the graph, did you? It clearly says those are “OPENING WEEKEND” figures. What you posted are the box office totals, not the opening weekend amounts that the graph is referencing.

144. Bamasi - April 26, 2013

141 – the graph is correct – it is opening weekend numbers, not total domestic gross

“You are in error.”

145. Shannon Nutt - April 26, 2013

^ Yes, you’re right… I read it wrong, and immediately realized the mistake after posting. Too bad we can’t edit posts around here. :)

146. Pastor Neil - April 26, 2013

how many went and saw TBOB in theaters yesterday?

147. BH - April 26, 2013

Variety’s graph is OFF.

TMP opening weekend was 11.9 million in 1979. Inflation adjustor shows that to be a 37.3 million take after adjustment.

That’s ten percent off right there, on the oldest film in the franchise. It took me 45 seconds to check that. What slop.

I won’t go over the rest, but they’re probably all off as well.

Interesting note: after inflation TMP took in $225Million, making it #2 in total box office for the franchise, beaten only by 2009.

148. DiscoSpock - April 26, 2013

#83 “Looks like “they listened” to those of us who complained about the menage a trios post-coital scene with Kirk and the two catwomen. Obviously, this scene is no longer in the movie or the warning would have referenced it. Thanks for listening, Paramount! This scene was just bad Star Trek.”

I agree. Obviously, the fan reaction here and elsewhere was so overwhelmingly negative towards that scene, that is no longer in the movie — or else, like you said, the PG-13 warning would have covered that.

149. Unwanted - April 26, 2013

@11. Um Batman and Spider-Man have been on TV for decades, and still are right now, so I am not sure why you included them.

As for the others you mentioned, Titanic was schlock to begin with and since the entire setting of the movie was gone by the end a series would have been just a bit hard to manage, don’t you think.

Several of the other properties you mention also already have TV series going on right now, so I am a little confused about your “point”. Besides it is no secret that Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman have been involved in trying to get Star Trek back on TV for several years now.

There were reports 2 to 4 months ago that negotiations to get a new Trek series on the air were getting serious, and so on. If STID does what no Trek has ever done and breaks the Billion dollar ceiling then obviously it will add to the incentive to get a show going, and they have already been talking about doing something special for the Anniversary.

It’s called logic.

150. zperk - April 26, 2013

“”Into Darkness” gets warning for violence but a pass on sexual content”

Unless she’s taking off her clothes to engage in a sexual act, there’s nothing sexual about her being seen in her underwear.

151. Disinvited - April 26, 2013

#138. PaulB – April 26, 2013

Then you aren’t arguing against anything I said and just arguing a strawman because I pointed out “he is not a proven big box office draw star”. Note the word “proven”.

152. Curious Cadet - April 26, 2013

@149 Unwanted,
“It’s called logic.”

Then try using it.

Rumors about a series are just that. Hollywood talks about this stuff all the time, the fact is it’s a huge commitment and not to be entered into lightly, and success in one medium does not guarantee success in another.

And please do tell me about the live action Batman and Spiderman series on TV currently. Not sure why you brought up the point they have been on TV for decades — so has Star Trek. The point is about series on the air following the franchise’s first billion dollar movie.

Your personal feelings about Titanic are beside the point, it could be turned into a weekly soap opera if someone felt it could make money based on the fact it made over a billion dollars at the box office. I could think of several ways it could work.

And please do also tell me about the live action TV series being produced for Avatar, Harry Potter, Transformers, and Pirates of the Caribbean. I’d like to see them.

As to the viability of producing a new live action series for Star Trek while the Abrams movies are still being produced … well you have your opinion, I have mine. Mine just happens to be supported by a lack of other billion dollar franchises having any live-action product on TV.

153. Unwanted - April 26, 2013

@152. There is more to TV than live action, you personal feelings on the point not withstanding. Many animated shows over the years have won multiple awards in many areas and better than half of the franchises you mention are represented by animated series right now, including Bob and Alex’s Transformers: Prime, which has won several awards already. Batman and Spider-Man have had a constant animated presence for the last decade.

The franchise owners in all of these cases are making significant amounts of money, this is a business after all. You say your opinion is supported by a lack of TV version of billion dollar franchises, I say you aren’t looking, oh BTW, this fall Executive Producer Joss Whedon is bringing us “Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” a live action spin-off of the Marvel Cinematic Universe movie franchise family, focusing the first episode on the resurrection of Agent Phil Coulson, killed in The Avengers, a Billion dollar movie, Clark Gregg who plays Coulson, is part of the core cast so it’s not just a one time appearance.

The way I see it, the so called “support” your opinion has is simply part of your opinion.

154. Disinvited - April 26, 2013

#147. BH – April 26, 2013

According to an article in this issue:

“I created the role on
TV and look forward to another feature.
After all, Star Trek — The Motion Picture has
grossed over $170 million to date when it has
not even been reissued yet, and has a world-
wide following as well.” – William Shatner, STARLOG, MAY 1981, Number 46, STAR TREK BACK ON THE TV TRACK

Not a misprint because figure’s quoted here too in March of the same year:,254265

Nimoy gave an interview to the LA TIMES where he said TMP’s domestic was $90 million.

According to this:,6312780

“The first installment (TMP) grossed a record $17 million its first week of release.” – The News and Courier – Jun 20, 1986, page 8, “STAR TREK mission: save the whales” by Glenn Lovell

155. PaulB - April 26, 2013

#151 “Then you aren’t arguing against anything I said and just arguing a strawman because I pointed out “he is not a proven big box office draw star”. Note the word “proven”.”
WTF are you smoking? I didn’t argue any straw man here. I didn’t respond to you at all until YOU started responding to ME about it. There is no straw man fallacy involved in me saying that my comment to VOODOO and subsequent comments to me are unrelated.

I replied to VOODOO. YOU replied to me, starting the exchange we’ve had. YOU asked me to offer evidence of a claim I never made. (That’s as close to the straw man fallacy as we’ve been in this exchange–you misrepresenting what *I* had said.)

If you’re incapable of coherent conversation, don’t bother replying to me again. Your last two comments to me have been a pointless question and a baseless accusation, so I don’t see any value in trying to converse with you.

156. Disinvited - April 26, 2013

Correction Gooogle says its the 20th but print shows:

“The first installment (TMP) grossed a record $17 million its first week of release.” – The News and Courier – Jun 21, 1986, page 8, “STAR TREK mission: save the whales” by Glenn Lovell

it’s actually the 21st and part of its ENTERTAINMENT section.

157. BH - April 26, 2013

I’m going off of Box Office Mojo, then adjusting for inflation using Inflation Adjustor (not using the adjustment at mojo).

I’ll also note that Shatner is discussing total international take with his $170 mil to date line. That’s an international figure that is being discussed, Variety’s graph is domestic only.

And you’ve further confused the Lovell numbers: he is clearly talking about FIRST WEEK, which has 4 extra days, which explains the bigger number he cites. So, you’re still off within what is being disccussed by Variety, just like Variety. Opening Domestic Weekends, not total international cume. TMP had 12 mil by end of Sunday night. From Mon-Thurs it added another 6 or so, but that isn’t the weekend.

158. Disinvited - April 26, 2013

#155. PaulB – April 26, 2013

Odd thing is I think we agree BC a name star. I get it now. You think my observations don’t apply twixt you and VOODOO. Go in peace.

159. Disinvited - April 26, 2013

#157. BH – April 26, 2013

Thanks for the explanation. How are you accounting for the greater population as bluejfk pointed out?

For reference sake, you are using an ap?

Not that it applies to Variety but over a million dollars a day for 4 weekdays in 1979 impresses me.

160. Curious Cadet - April 26, 2013

@153 Unwanted,

Star Trek is a live action series. That’s what’s being discussed.

Cartoons are in large part produced for children, awards notwithstanding. And for the most part have been on TV long before there were even movies. Whether they make money or not isn’t the issue, but whether a billion dollar movie is enough to guarantee a network will invest the kind of money it would take to launch a live-action series.

Joss Whedon’s S.H.I.E.L.D. series is only one example of something that is actually NOT the Avengers as Whedon has said it will be autonomous and not made for Marvel fans, and moreover, Disney has been trying to develop a Marvel series for TV since they bought them. So there may or may not be a direct correlation — but I’ll give that one to you. Any others?

And if you’re talking about a cartoon Trek, then I wouldn’t get too excited there either. That’s the least proven area of Star Trek and last I checked there wasn’t a lot of interest in the toys from the last movie, which sort of negates the target audience of a cartoon. And into Darkness seems to have a very adult-themed plot which may not resonate with the under 13 crowd.

But just to clarify, if STID hits the billion mark and CBS commits to producing a new Star Trek TV series as you guarantee, will that be an animated, or live action series?

161. Disinvited - April 26, 2013

FWIW Nimoy’s $90M:

inflation adjusted via CPI:

$288,561,570.20 in 2013 dollars domestic for TMP

$279,637,497.00 in 2013 dollars domestic for 2009 STAR TREK.

It’s debatable. Close enough to call it a tie in my book when other factors are taken into account.

162. BH - April 26, 2013

@159 – population is wholly irrelevant unless we’re talking about % of tickets sold out of the population. So I don’t consider that a valid point to this debate. Who cares? Should Gone with the Wind have an asterisk next to it as highest grossing film after adjusting for inflation since it was released before TV and 70% of the population went to one movie a week back then (approx)? Of course not.

Inflation adjustor is a website, google it and it allows you to enter dollars and the year for conversion to this year (in my case I left it at 2012).

Yeah, adding another 50% between opening and second weekend is pretty heavy. I was 9 at the time so all I can say is that hype for this film was HUGE and I’m guessing opening weekend sellouts brought people back during the week to see it before the following weekend. Just a guess, but people do forget this was a major deal at the time, with Star Wars in 77, then Superman in 78.

163. Matias 47 - April 26, 2013

@109 — Theaters don’t get 50% of the ticket price, nothing like it, until about the 4th week of release, The first few weeks they get between 10 and 25%, depending on the movie and the deal they’ve made. For the Star Wars prequels, the theaters got nothing out of ticket sales for the first month.

Theaters make most of their money from the concessions. Before I got into effects, I used to work in theaters — my best friend’s Dad owned a few.

@9 — Anthony — let’s not just pick on the Teamsters — at any given moment on the set of a film or TV show I’d say 70% of the crew is sitting around doing nothing. I’ve been on 16 hour a day shoots where I actually worked 5 hours or less. And, trust me, on a big budget show, we’re eating a heck of a lot more than doughnuts:)

164. Anthony Pascale - April 26, 2013

Matias I mean no disrespect to the Teamsters, one of my best friends is one. My point is that even when you dont use 3d cameras, you still spend more time on set and that costs money.

And you are correct about the theater cut thing. As I understand it, deals are complex sliding scales reducing the studio cut week by week…by the end I do think the theater gets over 50% but at that point its small change

165. Paul - April 26, 2013

Overall the Studio take is an average around 50-55%. I know they get a bigger % on the opening & it can be as high as 95% depends on the franchise) but it goes down on a sliding scale & outside US the theatre chains have different deals (they are also completely different companies running them) few are family run like some chains in the US.

A rough guide for the entire box office the studio will get is around 50-55% the theatres get the rest all depends on the movie & studio deal. Then you have the advertising budget which can be well over $100m if its an expected megahit perhaps as much as $200m for TV & other printed media so that has to go ontop of the budget which means a movie has to generate around 2.5 times what it cost to make just to break even!! So STID with advertising is probably close to $300m so will need to generate $600m ish to break even (studios also charge themselves interest on that $300m to creatively avoid tax ……).

Bluray/DVD/TV Rights is where studios make serious money & few of the players who made the movie get to share that nowadays!!

166. Unwanted - April 26, 2013

@160. I was the one who started the discussion of a billion dollar STID and it leading to a new Trek show and I NEVER specified live action, so that was not in fact what was being discussed.

BTW I am almost 40 years old and I watch ALL Batman and Spider-Man series, and that is far from the only animation I watch, your idea that most animated shows are made for children is around 30 years out of date as well, a significant percentage of them are made for adults and late adolescents, and that percentage grows every year.

Frankly I don’t care if we get a new live action Trek or an animated one, the better this movie does the quicker it will happen, period.

That there should be Trek on is probably the only thing we will agree on so lets just go with that, ok.

167. ironhyde - April 27, 2013

@146 – saw it. Enjoyed it a lot. I really hated that they showed the extra feature reel before and essentially revealed every moment of the episode prior to the actual run. I brought some people who had never seen it before and it basically spoiled the end. Really bad move. Really poorly thought out as far as a movie experience. But still a great episode.

Additionally, I didn’t like how the cliffhanger was handled. I think the cut from Riker saying “Mr. Worf. Fire.” was too quick. I would have liked to see a fade to black at least before the shot, or something. It didn’t even give the audience time to breathe.

I’m glad I went. Good writing, smart production, I miss smart Trek.

168. Son of Jello - April 27, 2013

Kirk sleeping with cats

Kirk kittens would have been a good marketing product. If you gave him a pat he would purrrrrr. It would be called a “tickle me kirk”.

Or maybe like a Mr Potato head type thing it would be a collection of alien parts and you could assemble different aliens by spinning a wheel and assembling the parts to create the alien baby based an the alien Kirk slept with. I would love to see the box art for that.

169. Johnny Ice - April 27, 2013

#154 & 161.

Thanks for this info. Clearly there seems to discrepancies about what ST:TMP actually grossed in 1979-80 that really need to be dressed. Also noteworthy about its budget. Paramount clamied that the budget was close to $45-50 millon however it has been downgraded to $35 million on many sites. In one of commentary made by Wise himself, he says the budget for TMP was only half that was reported in 1980s.
Also we look at overseas market % wise: TMP grossed 40% but TVH & TWOK didnt break 20%. It is huge gap between these films in overseas market..

170. steve - April 27, 2013

That graph sure points out why Paramount never gave a crap about making a really great Star Trek movie. Whether it was a great film like WOK, or a lousy one like FF, it pretty much grabbed the same box office on opening weekend. Thank God JJ finally came along and made Trek mainstream.

171. Phil - April 27, 2013

From Box Office Mojo…if the estimate of 85MM opening weekend holds up, STID probably won’t have the legs it did last time. We need to hope the foreign market gets interested, with flat domestic numbers…

Star Trek Into Darkness (May 17): The 2009 Star Trek reboot was a surprise hit with $257.7 million, and maintains a very strong reputation four years later (it has a spot in IMDb’s Top 250). Usually this would mean that the sequel would noticeably outperform its predecessor: unfortunately, the movie seems to be having a tough time standing out amidst the crowded May schedule, and early word indicates that it isn’t a leap forward in quality. Even if it does wind up around the same level domestically as the first movie, though, four years of strong word-of-mouth and the addition of 3D will at least translate in to significantly higher foreign grosses. (Domestic: $250 million, Foreign: $400 million)

172. Red Dead Ryan - April 27, 2013

I think that Paramount is looking for a $600 million haul at the box office, worldwide. I think that they also want to make at least $250 million overseas. Which isn’t unreasonable. There is much more hype surrounding the sequel than the first one, with the international press going crazy over Benedict Cumberbatch.

I think if STID makes less than $500 million, Paramount would consider it a mild disappointment.

173. Disinvited - April 27, 2013

This is the only article I can get to post on IM3 advanced tickets:,0,2762804.story

“It’s not clear whether Disney also has settled its differences with Regal Entertainment and Cinemark, both of which were not selling advance tickets for the movie as of Wednesday.

Earlier this week, Regal pulled marketing materials for the film because of objections to Disney’s efforts to gain a larger share of ticket sales.” – By Richard Verrier, LA TIMES, April 25, 2013

The other article that can not be posted had Regal saying they had Fandango working overtime to get their IM3 tickets up after settling with Disney.

174. BH - April 27, 2013

@172 – ain’t happening. An 85 mil opening weekend means they’re LUCKY to hit 200 million, REALLY lucky. They should hit that number international but that will be the bigger number of the two.

600 isn’t in the cards. They’re lucky to hit 450, and that’d be fine with them: 1/4 short of your guesstimate.

175. Disinvited - April 27, 2013

I’m not sure that chart is sourced from Variety or uses its numbers?

176. kmart - April 27, 2013

On the TMP box office … the 175 mil worldwide figure was VERY commonly bandied about from 1981 and 1982. David Gerrold cited it in his column when talking about what it took in order to make it worthwhile to risk ANY money on a sequel.

Also remember that this is when Paramount was cooking the books to avoid paying any net profits (this went on till about TVH, when Shat & others got together with accountants and demanded an audit of Par’s books, at which point miraculously the net profits started existing.) So if anything they’d’ve been lowballing with the 175 figure, even though in the last 10-15 years I’ve seen more stuff indicating 125 worldwide, which smacks of some kind of revisionism to me.

Also, VARIETY back then went more on box office RENTALS than the GROSSES; TMP made 55 mil in domestic (US/Canada) rentals, 39 of which came in 1979. Gen’l rule was multiply rentals by 2.5 to get the gross total, which ballparks you at around 125 just domestic. So again, with international figured in, you’re around at least 165, maybe as high as 180.

Even with the surcharges applied to TMP’s budget (which drive it up to 44 mil from 32-35 spent on the actual film), that still is close to four times cost (maybe three times cost with prints and advertising), with general breakeven at 2.5 to 3x. So TMP generated a profit on theatrical revenues alone.

Of course, I’m of the opinion that if GR and Par had gotten their shit together in 1975 or 1976, when the phenomena was in full swing with bestselling tech manual and blueprints and gigantic conventions, then maybe we get a timeline where STAR WARS only does CLOSE ENCOUNTERS biz because TREK gets out the gate first and cleans up, instead of just priming the pump for STAR WARS to catch fire with.

177. Toby - April 27, 2013

@174, I’m afraid I agree 100% percent with you, there’s no-one more than myself that wants STID to go all mega-blockbuster on us all and for one of the loves of my life to have it’s day in the spotlight it so truly deserves, but all this talk of 500 mil plus worldwide is preposterous…

178. Phil - April 27, 2013

250MM foreign and domestic (500MM total) would probably thrill Paramount. That should be do-able. Anything above that would be icing on the cake. One thing is for sure, we will be seeing Paramount tow a harder line on budget next time out. The only way we see a 200MM budget for the third installment is if box office is in the three quarters of a billion range.

Don’t forget that ST09 did north of 100MM on sales and rentals as well.

179. Son of Jello - April 27, 2013

No matter how much money it makes paramount will chalk it up as loosing money with the usual jiggery pokery that accountants love to BS people with.

180. Unwanted - April 27, 2013

@174, 177. Right like you guys know more about this than the people who do this for a living, your funny.

181. BH - April 28, 2013

@180 – If there’s a 85 million opening, it won’t hit 200 domestic. That’s looking at HISTORY. What person that does “this for a living” said an 85 mil opening would lead to 200? Links please, or YOU’RE the one talking out of your butt.

And history shows that with few exceptions (Titanic being a good one) each week is 50% of the preceding week. A crowded summer and STID is doing a 5 million weekend after 6 weeks. That’s 170 total. Figure it out, it isn’t going to run another 2 months after that.

182. Unwanted - April 28, 2013

@181. Variety and Forbes, Variety is visible in the article right here that you obviously did not read. There is a link to the Forbes article in one of my other posts, other than that I have personally seen movies upen for less than 80 million and take well over 200 million when all is said and done in just the last decade. But he go ahead and keep hoping for Trek to die, just shows what a doughbaggy troll you are.

183. Unwanted - April 28, 2013

@181. Forbes, for one, and I’ll trust them over you without even pausing to think about it. There is a link to the Forbes article in one of my other posts, other than that just hit up google and search for “box office predictions Star Trek into Darkness, lots of big name industry publications are predicting well past 200 million. But hey go ahead and keep hoping for Trek to die, just shows what a doughbaggy troll you are. I’m done with you now.

184. Unwanted - April 28, 2013

One last bit, the 2009 movie had a 75 million opening weekend and totaled 275 million domestic gross, which completely disproves your so called “history” of movie box office figures all by itself.

185. Star Trek: Nemesis blows, is the point - April 28, 2013


I saw Star Trek seven times in theaters. I took it as an opportunity to see it as many times as I could because a) I liked it and b) while logically, I knew it was going to do well, it was the first Trek movie in the better part of a decade. I also had the free time to see the movie a whole bunch of times.

I doubt I’ll see Into Darkness that many times, mostly because I’m busier now than I was in 2009. I plan to see it at least 3 times, though not in 3D/IMAX unless reviews say it’s worth it.

186. BH - April 28, 2013

@unwanted… you can say that again.

Gee, Oz just had an 80million opening weekend and hit 220.

I’m responding to a guy who thinks it’ll hit 600 worldwide. I don’t agree so I’m a troll? Grow up and drop the name calling when you don’t like what someone else says.

Get over yourself and look past one film. How was the competition back in 2009? Answer: not strong. Night at the Museum a few weeks later. Up, a week or two after that. No demo competition. You are ignoring context.

2013: Fast and Furious a week later. A Dicaprio film the week before. It’s called realism. It’s a competitive summer.

Let’s bet: it won’t hit 510 worldwide. You’re so sure put it where your mouth is. I say international beats out domestic this time, not like last time, but the total MIGHT squeak past 500 million.

187. Toby - April 28, 2013

^ Exactly, Iron Man 3 will still be relatively strong in a few weeks too, I’m not trolling, I’m actually getting anxious about STID’s box office take – I’d be absolutely over the moon if it does really well, it needs to match 09’s take at the minimum, anything less i think will be considered a failure given the 185mil budget of this one. Fingers crossed…

188. salt - April 28, 2013

trek commercial success will depend on the films strong word of mouth,

189. tim - April 28, 2013

Seeing this one zero times as are several people I saw the last one with. It’s only loosely based on Star Trek. I enjoyed the first one initially but the more I thought about it critically, the more I realized it wasn’t a good Trek film at all. It’s like one of those soundtracks full of music inspired by a movie but not actually in the movie.
Into Darkness will probably do about the same as the last one, maybe a little more but it will be far from a blockbuster. These movies aren’t cerebral and have really lowered the bar to the least common denominator movie goer. It’s very dumbed down.
I would never tell anyone not to see it, it’s just not the type of movie that will be satisfying for me. The trailers have actually convinced me to not go.
Iron Man 3, on the other hand, looks awesome…but that’s likely because I don’t go to those expecting more than what they are which is just a lot of awesome action scenes, funny lines and good music.
I expect better from Star Trek, You should too.

190. Red Dead Ryan - April 28, 2013


“I expect better from Star Trek, You should too.”

Well, we are getting better “Star Trek”. It’s really too bad you can’t see that, but I guess you’ve got the anti-Abrams blinders on.

191. Disinvited - April 28, 2013

#176. kmart – April 27, 2013

Don’t forget Paramount put the theater owners through a blind-bid auction which netted them 20-30 million dollars before they even shot one frame of film as I recall.

This auction was why TMP didn’t take more time to deal with its many delays. Paramount wasn’t going to miss the deadline for delivery and have to return all that dough.

192. Disinvited - April 28, 2013

#176. kmart – April 27, 2013

Also, recall Shatner said it hadn’t been reissued yet. It was very common to give such a film a second run, usually to shore up a weaker film in a double bill. I remember looking at the studio accounting in double bill takes and it was something hinky. Something like credit the newest picture with the ticket sale and then siphon off a percentage of that as a marketing “expense” to pay the second feature?

193. Disinvited - April 28, 2013

IRON MAN 3 took in $195 million overseas. Will a rising tide raise the Trek boat?

194. Gary Makin - April 28, 2013

Re: BH – people in 2009 said that the likes of Wolverine, Terminator, and Angels and Demons would overshadow Star Trek domestically, and they didn’t.

Into Darkness is going make 90 million-plus in its opening weekend and 300 million in total (domestically).

195. Disinvited - April 28, 2013

#194. Gary Makin – April 28, 2013

But $195 million overseas is more than AVENGERS did. You aren’t being realistic if you’re expecting IM3 to not overshadow STID domestically. And I might add it’s not in Paramount’s best interest to incur the extra expense that it would take to try and make that overshadow not happen.

196. kmart - April 28, 2013

192, Wonder if that was the case when they had TMP and TWOK playing on a double bill late in 82.

190, if there were such a thing as anti-Abrrams blinders, it would make it a lot more palatable to watch the damned movies. There really ought to be a law against destroying the image the way he does. It is its own awful trend now, with SCOTT PILGRIM a couple years back and now the Seth Rogan end of the world thing is trying to put flares in everywhere.

197. BH - April 28, 2013

@ Gary – I’m just going on the 85mil projection and basing from there.

Also, only Terminator was really competition: Tom Hanks’ film really wasn’t and sorry, but I guess you forgot about Wolverine being leaked a few months early which killed that film’s word of mouth before release. Very much an outlier, but I don’t recall ANYONE in the wake of the film leak saying it was good or that it would have legs, much less be competition for ST2009.

198. Bob - April 29, 2013

Box Office Mojo put up their summer forecast and put Star Trek at #5 with the total predicted as follows.

(Domestic: $250 million, Foreign: $400 million)

199. Phil - April 29, 2013

I suspect the domestic box office will be a bit higher with more sales of IMAX and 3D, but 400 MM foreign is pretty optimistic. My guess, (D), 300MM, (F), 225MM…give or take a bit. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.