UPDATE: Into Darkness Projected To End Weekend With $164M+ Worldwide | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

UPDATE: Into Darkness Projected To End Weekend With $164M+ Worldwide May 18, 2013

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

SUNDAY UPDATE: Star Trek Into Darkness domestic ticket sales picked up over the weekend, plus strong international sales have boosted the total estimated box office to over $164M. More detailed look at the box office below.

 

SUNDAY UPDATE: Into Darkness Projected To End Wkd w/ $164.5M

Star Trek Into Darkness has been the number one movie domestically since Thursday and after a sluggish Friday, sales rallied on Saturday with an estimated $27.5M (a bit ahead of the 2009 Star Trek film). Sunday is also estimated to bring in another $21M with a three-day weekend total of $70.5M and a cumulative total of $84.1M, or about $4M ahead of where the 2009 Star Trek movie was on its first Sunday. 

While $84M is short of Paramount’s $100M predictions from last week, it is actually in line with predictions they were making three weeks ago before they moved the release date up one day to Thursday May 16th. In the end it looks like the last minute release date change didn’t really give them the box office boost they were hoping for. However, the numbers are still fairly solid with the third best domestic opening of 2013 and it beat all but six films from 2012.

The news for Paramount is even better when it comes to international sales. Into Darkness brought in another $40M around the world, opening in an additional 33 markets. The film continues to significantly outperform the 2009 Star Trek movie in international markets. For example in Russia the new movie made $8M this weekend, whereas the 2009 Star Trek only made $4M during its entire run. Paramount Vice Chairman Rob Moore tells Variety that Into Darkness could double the $129M international sales of 2009′s Star Trek. So even if Into Darkness doesn’t end up matching Star Trek domestically, it looks like the international sales will more than ensure Into Darkness has a higher total global gross.

Currently the estimated global gross of Into Darkness is $164.5M.

TrekMovie will have more detailed analysis once the final numbers come in for the weekend.

original article

Into Darkness underperforming Star Trek 2009 Domestically

Star Trek Into Darkness brought in $11.5 on its opening day on Thursday making it the #1 domestic movie, but below expectations. Box office watchers feel that many movie-goers weren’t aware Paramount moved the release date up one day, which was only done a week ahead. Yesterday analyst estimates for Into Darkness  had it headed for a $27M Friday and a $85M opening weekend (Fri/Sat/Sun), boosted by a "A" CinemaScore rating and strong reviews. These projections had the film hitting a $100M cumulative target by Sunday (meeting earlier predictions).

However, by Saturday morning Friday’s results were revised to an estimated $22M. Paramount is now projecting $70M for the weekend. Analysts and rival studios think the weekend number could be less, as low as $56M (according to Deadline). BoxOffice.com is estimating $68M. So it looks like Star Trek Into Darkness will underperform the opening domestic weekend of the 2009 Star Trek movie, despite getting a boost from higher-priced 3D ticket sales.

If Paramount’s projection holds, then Into Darkness will end the weekend with a cumulative total of around $83M. With the benefit of having opened a day earlier, Into Darkness would be slightly ahead of the cumulative total for the 2009 Star Trek movie (see table below).   

STAR TREK VS. INTO DARKNESS

Domestic $M Star Trek
2009
Into Darkness
(estimates*)
Wednesday - $2.0**
Thursday $4** $11.5
Friday $26.9 $22.0
Saturday $27.2 $48.0
(Sat & Sun)
Sunday $21.0
Open Wkd Total. $75.2 $70.0
Cumulative $79.2 $83.5
*Estimates based on Paramount projection **limited release

A $65-$70M opening weekend would make Into Darkness the third highest grossing opening weekend of 2013 so far (behind Iron Man 3 and Oz: The Great and Powerful) and would rank it in 7th or 8th place if it were a 2012 release. The 2009 Star Trek movie had the 6th best opening weekend of the year.

Into Darkness overperforming 2009 Star Trek Overseas

Paramount tells Variety, Into Darkness is "currently orbiting $75M for the weekend in 33 territories." We don’t have country by country details yet, but so far wherever there has been data, it has shown Into Darkness significantly overperforming the 2009 Star Trek film in each territory. Overall the film has been doing round 60-70% better than the previous film internationally, but it is still early to see if that trend continues.

Right now most of the above is based on estimates and projections. In the next couple of days we will have more concrete details on how Into Darkness is performing both domestically and internationally.

Comments

1. ados - May 18, 2013

my show was about 3/4 full…Friday….numbers look about right..

2. Erik - May 18, 2013

So disappointing. I think IM3 is to blame.

3. Nat - May 18, 2013

This is disappointing. Was really hoping that 100M+ estimate would hold especially since it will have to face a juggernaut of two films next week in The Hangover and FF6, two movies that probably many non-trek fans will pick over a Star Trek film anyday due to its genre.

What’s sad is that it seems like people are getting dum… less sophisticated. While I am a huge fan of anything Marvel, what bothers me is that a movie like Iron Man 3, which was entertaining but lacking in many areas can easily defeat a film like STID which has a GREAT story, excellent character development, a menacing villain, a message of hope (and fear)–much like our world today, and many other great qualities.

Here’s to hoping that STID pulls out a much better than expected Saturday+Sunday and a better than expected week considering this week is a precursor to a holiday weekend.

4. NX01 - May 18, 2013

I hope this does not mean the end again for Star Trek.
This poor performance might have something to do with the fact they waited 4 long years, and just assumed regular people would be stick around and be interested.
To quote Gladiator “The mob is Fickle.” Back in 2009 there was a lot of hype because this was something new. The Mob was excited then!
The Mob of people might have just forgoten and moved on.

That Being said I loved this movie, I will see it again in Imax. I also hope that they make another one soon!

5. opcode - May 18, 2013

@2 Erik

It might be. But if that is the case, wouldn’t the new movie show some legs?
I mean, if people are skipping ST to go see IM3, isn’t it possible that they will watch ST on a later date (because of the good WOM), so we get a soft start but a smaller than usual drop by week 2?
Problem is, FF6 and HO3 are coming next week….

6. Elias Javalis - May 18, 2013

Foreign market is key this time…i suppose!

7. Elrond L - May 18, 2013

Paramount really blew it by moving it up a day early with only a week’s notice — heck, some of the ads still said “opening May 17.” We saw it on the 16th, but most people we know either saw it yesterday or are going this weekend. I hope the great word-of-mouth gives it stronger legs.

8. Erik - May 18, 2013

@5 opcode

I’m hoping that is the case, for sure! This is starting to be “Lord of the Rings” all over again, except this time it’s a good Trek movie as opposed to “Nemesis”

9. Randall Flagg - May 18, 2013

I think some blame has to be put on JJ’s mystery box and the identity of the villain. People like to know who the good guys are going to be fighting. Plus, these summer movies are so packed together, they should have released it a month or two ago when nothing was out.

10. Nat - May 18, 2013

Does anyone think that this move by Paramount to open one day earlier one week prior to original date was a failed marketing decision?

I would guess it was their intent to make non Trek fans think that Friday was going to be extremely popular so that to keep up with “demand” they would move it up by a day.

I would also guess that the plan backfired because now there is this:

1. The Trek fans who were not able to see the fan preview purchased, long ago, tickets for a midnight showing or later Friday showing. Now being Trek fans, instead of waiting until Friday, they went ahead and exchanged/purchased new tickets to the Thursday screenings; thus, leaving the Friday theaters emptier than it would have been.

2. Because of theaters not being full on what most perceived as the opening day (Fri), perhaps they got the impression that the movie was not popular and they would be less inclined to spread the word that the movie was awesome.

3. I would also guess that most people generally don’t really read any reviews of films, particularly in niche genres like Star Trek.

::sigh:: I hope this doens’t mean the death of Star Trek.

11. Elias Javalis - May 18, 2013

I dont know much about the box office business but from what i understand numbers are healthy! Dont understand why is everyone panicking..They ll rise and more theaters will be added next week!

12. Josh C. - May 18, 2013

I think there were just a lot of things wrong with the movie and the marketing:

1) Why hide Khan? If he’s your villain, advertise it.

2) I know a lot of people (Star Trek fans but perhaps not ones so crazy that they come here) who have decided to skip Into Darkness or wait for it on DVD because of Khan, magic blood, etc.

3) It seems that this movie is a hit among people who would go to the theater to see it once, but a mix bag for those who might normally go see it 5 times or something.

I think it’ll probably do good enough to get a 3rd movie, though they may be less likely to take chances making it

13. opcode - May 18, 2013

@4 NX01

It could be a number of reason: the 4 years wait (really too long), the whole J J mystery box again (in this case the villain’s true identity), IM3, or a combination of these.

14. Josh C. - May 18, 2013

10 – I think the move to move it up to Thursday was based on the perception that it would hit or pass $100 million. But it was done so late that a lot of people didn’t know about it, it

15. Blake powers - May 18, 2013

If you were to blame anything it would have to be the length between the two movies. People were very excited after 2009 but nowadays people have a shorter attention span.
I think paramount acknowledges this.

16. Creed - May 18, 2013

I am surprised it is performing so poorly (relatively) as all I’ve heard is people talking about it and how good it is. I’d have thought word of mouth alone would drive a great weekend for this film let alone the very good reviews and scores it has been enjoying. Weird.

17. Allenburch - May 18, 2013

Paramount estimated an $80 million weekend opener, so I’d say we’re right on track.

18. Randall Flagg - May 18, 2013

I have nothing against JJ, he’s a good director, but they need new writers. Maybe someone who isn’t a Star Trek fan and just wants to tell a good story. Meyer and Bennet weren’t fans and they made some great films. The best parts of the movie are the character stuff, there just wasn’t enough of it becuase you gotta get to the next action scene.

19. HubcapDave - May 18, 2013

I think that opening Thursday sucked in the fanboy rush. It’ll be interesting to see the weekend estimates.

20. Tony - May 18, 2013

I went to one of the local cinemas here in Limerick Ireland and they still had IM3 on all the big screens and STID on the smaller screen. They were also only alternating 2D and 3D. I said “screw this” and went to the other cinema who were giving STID the main billing.

21. D D - May 18, 2013

I hate to say this, but as much as I enjoyed it, I felt a bit underwhelmed by it because it did not feel original due to the similarities to the Wrath of Khan. A few non trekkie friends will not see it because of this (i.e, it is unoriginal film) and of the mixed reviews it has had. I think if they had called it “Khan” from the outset, it might have been more popular. Paramount should have played on that and perhaps released it earlier, it might have been more successful.

22. Vger23 - May 18, 2013

The big fear is that 2009 was a box office fluke, and that people went to see it for the novelty of the recast, because JJs name was attached to it, etc. If that’s true it’s a real shame because this was a great movie and a very good Star Trek movie. And it would also prove that, great reviews or not, Star Trek is not going to be the big hitte we’d like.

I hope it’s not true…but that would be the fear.

I for one thought it was excellent, and better than the last film (which was very good in its own right).

23. Snugglepuff - May 18, 2013

A bit surprised at the numbers. Wednesday night was packed and saw it again on Friday afternoon with my office and it was packed as well.

24. Timncc1701 - May 18, 2013

I think the whole retread of Khan in the way it was cast and the writing (or cut and paste) of the death scene will hurt repeat screenings and word of mouth. Who knows unless someone does a poll and releases the results.

25. Nate - May 18, 2013

The story stole emotional iconic scenes from Wrath of Kahn and I found big flaws in the story not to mention some aspects feeling not like Trek. Especially them walking around in those awful nazis grey uniforms and those hats are just stupid. Really didn’t like other scenes especially those in London and it felt more like Dr Who! It’s a shame as its a great cast and the acting was awesome. Music score was also disappointing compared to 2009 reboot.

26. penhall - May 18, 2013

I think the big problem was Paramount opening it a day early (on a non holiday weekend) and waiting FOUR years since the last one. Trek was rebooted in 2009 and was a huge hit. Instead of striking while the iron was hot, they waited until it all faded away. A huge mistake, IMO.

But in the end, I think Into Darkness will have strong legs and make a fortune at the box office, probably more than the last film. Unfortunately, the opening weekend headlines are all studios seem to care about anymore.

27. Josh C. - May 18, 2013

I’m just not buying the “4 year gap” thing. That doesn’t explain why the hype and expectations kept increasing over the past 2 weeks to a month and then fell flat.

Either people were horribly misreading things in the past 2 weeks that suddenly made them think it was going to make $100m+ opening weekend, or something happened after the international release that deflated the bubble

28. bjdcharlie - May 18, 2013

Heck – in Chicago – as is likely among large population centers, STID opened May 15th. (IMAX 3D only, of course, but still)

Star Trek really needs to calm down and get back on track as a television series. Even though I was upset by the careless writing/storytelling in STID, IT WAS A GOOD SHOW!!

29. Brevard - May 18, 2013

I’m not the least bit surprised that it is under performing. Newsflash to Paramount–you can’t wait 4 years to open a sequel and expect the general public to care about it. Plus, it doesn’t seem that as many folks are seeing this one more than once. That’s got to hurt. I saw ST2009 a total of 5 times in the theater–3 times on opening weekend. That movie excited me so much that I just wanted to see it again and again. STID left me cold. I wasn’t excited when the movie ended. I was just “meh.” It saddens me that this movie will under perform. I blame the poor decisions by Paramount, including a silly script.

30. TonyD - May 18, 2013

STID’s apparent underperformance in the US market can be attributed to any number of factors but personally I think Abram’s almost fetishistic need for secrecy during the production, and then having the movie premiere overseas weeks ahead of the US and subsequent flooding of clips and spoilers served to diminish interest.

I also think waiting four years between movies robbed this iteration of any traction it might have had built with the moviegoing public. It was out of the public eye for too long and that aforesaid need to hide every aspect of the production for so long didn’t help either.

That, and the fact that it was an utterly unoriginal story that could only manage to borrow events and characters from other movies in the series and mash them together into a big, shiny but ultimately hollow film.

31. Jason - May 18, 2013

maybe it’s because the movie came two year too late and failed to capitalize on the momentum of the success of the first one.

32. Amorican - May 18, 2013

I haven’t bought my Sunday tickets yet. I haven’t gone yet even though I’ve been stupid enough to read spoilers.
So add about $25-30 to those numbers.

33. Ahmed - May 18, 2013

@ 30. Brevard – May 18, 2013

“I saw ST2009 a total of 5 times in the theater–3 times on opening weekend. That movie excited me so much that I just wanted to see it again and again. STID left me cold. I wasn’t excited when the movie ended. I was just “meh.””

Yep, that is how I felt too. I watched ST09 like 3 times in the first week. I was excited about it, but with STID I didn’t feel the same way. I just seen it once & not going a second time.

34. WyoTrek - May 18, 2013

Long time reader, first time commenter here. I’ve seen the movie twice now and have a couple of minor quibbles with why the b.o. may not be as strong as everyone would like…

1. The writing really nose-dived in the second half of the movie beginning with the revelation of Khan and yet another deranged admiral. The reactor scene, while it did show Kirk redeeming himself, was just unnecessary. Nimoy’s cameo was also a bit of a wasted opportunity. In short, I feel that as people see it, they might tell others to just watch Star Trek II or wait for the blu-ray.
2. In my area of the U.S., we’re finally seeing nice weather after recovering from 4 blizzards in April. Maybe people just want to be out and about while it’s nice outside?
3. I don’t want this to be political, but the economy is still a mixed bag right now. People may just not have the extra cash or might just see one movie a month (with IM3 being the opening draw of May). Perhaps as STID goes on throughout summer, people can maybe see it at a cheap theater or morning/matinee time. I even kind of feel guilty for going a second time with prices and such.
4. IMHO there was a bit too much marketing. Several articles on Yahoo! over the past few days have been Trek heavy. Commenters there are a little tired of it. I’ve seen it advertised extensively on ESPN and places where people just don’t want to be bugged with movie promos.
5. The studio execs messed it up by releasing the film overseas. If there’s a third film, simultaneously release it everywhere and please stop spilling out 1 minute clips. Give it some sense of mystery if that’s at all possible in the Internet Age.

A solid film overall. The first half was really great. I would’ve personally preferred more scenes/time on the alien planet at the beginning. The writing just wasn’t that great in the second half unfortunately.

35. Buzz Cagney - May 18, 2013

Well I was indifferent to meh about it (whilst recognising it does have many good qualities) but even I’ve seen it twice! I’ve done my bit to help i along.
I hope the numbers pick up a little. I’m sure i’ll do fine in the longer run. A couple of days isn’t long enough.
Good to see International doing better this time.

36. AngryTree - May 18, 2013

The four year wait was a big mistake. The days of Star Wars with three years between sequels is over. Now, franchises come out with movies on a yearly basis. Lord of the Rings/Hobbit, Harry Potter, Twilight were all done yearly. Disney is putting out 2 Marvel movies a year now, and that doesn’t count the non-Disney Marvel movies. The upcoming Star Wars sequels will be every other year, but will have spin off movies in-between to keep up interest.

Sadly, Paramount/JJ missed the boat on this one. For us to get Trek 3 next year is impossible, since they’d have to be filming now for a 2014 release, and the window on 2015 is closing quickly too.

37. JimJ - May 18, 2013

the movie was awesome, give it time

38. Josh C. - May 18, 2013

30, 33 – yeah, pretty much. I had plans to see it midnight Wednesday, Thursday afternoon, and again this weekend. I passed on the Thursday afternoon and may pass on watching it again this weekend

39. just a guy - May 18, 2013

Of all the fans I know, only 1 liked it, and will see it one other time more. The others do not like it at all, trek was never about fights, and now we have 2 fight movies.
So I think it is the fans not liking it, not the 4 year gap.
Some of them, me including, will not go and see it.
The number of people commenting here, is also decreasing.

40. Xavier_Storma - May 18, 2013

In fact ID is the much better film. But it will face of some really though competition next week.

Fast 6 is going to be huge… that franchise is somehow completely against the Hollywood trent, making more and more money and gaining more and more pupularity with every outing.

And do not forget Hangover III which (as a trilogy closer) will probably make as much money or even outperform part II.

And in two weeks people are getting another Sci-Fi space themed film with the Smith’s After Earth outing.

Though competition. At least ID should break even at the domestic BO 190 million budget. Considering the heavy promotion add another 40 – 50 million. If the film makes at least 150 million internationally it can be considered a slight success.

41. The Sky's the Limit - May 18, 2013

The last minute domestic release of the movie from Friday, 5/17 to Thursday, 5/16 was a good move, but the decision was made too late for it to be a fully effective marketing adjustment. The move was poorly timed to garner the full benefit. Many people weren’t aware of the change and didn’t get to the theaters until Friday, 5/17 the original release date.

42. Ahmed - May 18, 2013

SATURDAY 8:30 AM, 5TH UPDATE:

Friday domestic numbers for for Star Trek Into Darkness from Paramount Pictures, Skydance Productions, and director J.J. Abrams‘ Bad Robot diverged wildly last night as did estimates for the 3-day weekend and 4 1/2-day cume. Heck, they’re still over the place.

One thing I can say for sure: despite the passage of 4 years and the addition of 3D and IMAX for ticket premiums, Star Trek Into Darkness even though its release began Wednesday night will not beat 2009′s Star Trek opening 3-day weekend.

The new film’s 4 1/2 day number may not even gross bigger than 2009′s $75.2M. Paramount obviously wants to put the best face on an underperforming situation and is still telling me that “when opening day isn’t Friday you get a higher multiple vs Friday”. But the numbers are the numbers, and rival studios have estimates for STID that are dramatically lower.

Don’t get me wrong: the movie is still making a lot of money. Just not the $100M cume predicted all week by the studio which is now claiming $22M for Friday, $70M for the 3-day weekend, and $83M for the 4 1/2-day total. Rival studios have numbers of $21.6-$22.0M for Friday, $56.2M-$66.2M for the 3-day weekend, and $69.7M-$75.5M for the 4 1/2-day total.

http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-3d-opens-to-2m-late-night-and-imax/

43. Tony Montana - May 18, 2013

@34 The only thing that would have made the reveal more absurd is if Cumby started talking like Ricardo.

44. Josh C. - May 18, 2013

42 – $65 million for the 3 day weekend would be a disaster

45. AyanEva - May 18, 2013

So it seems like the international marketing plan worked perfectly but not so much for the domestic one (my local theater didn’t have a single poster even advertising the film, but the other two theaters I’ve gone to have had multiple and prominent displays).

For movie number three (and I’m positive there will be one because it’s the 50th anniversary and you can turn it into a crazy year long event), they can combine their 2009 domestic marketing efforts with the 2013 international efforts and finally hit on a combination that works everywhere.

Also, lose the mystery box thing. I feel like people got worn out with the guessing and subterfuge until finally they kind of just didn’t care. It was annoying after a while even for me.

I still think this is a solid film with good reviews and it’ll do fine in the long run, even without such a front loaded opening. My guess is that the profit will be more spread out but still good cumulatively. 100+ million is a nice number to imagine but I was a bit skeptical about it, tbh, as I think a lot of us were.

46. Charla - May 18, 2013

Going tonight, can’t wait! First of at least a couple of time- I hope it does better, as the weekend progresses.

47. Josh C. - May 18, 2013

Another thing I’d like to note – I’m not sure if this is the case elsewhere, but here, Iron Man 3 is still on more screens, 2 weeks later, than Star Trek is, so the theaters seem to have known something

48. TrinaInUS - May 18, 2013

Obviously there were some marketing/timing issues. I’m hearing very positive WOM, myself, and think that total box office may even itself out as time passes. We’ll see. I saw a Thurs. matinee (couldn’t get to a Weds. nite show), and am going again with friends on Sunday.

I really enjoyed STID, though the pace of the film was a bit fast for me. It was a huge amount of content to take in. That may just be middle-aged me, though. ;)

49. Xavier_Storma - May 18, 2013

Am I the only one who really hates those Marvel/Disney fast food comic book based films?
Avengers was awefull and I am certain IM3 is not better… I will not even dare to think about crap like Thor, Captain America and other followups.

50. Dee - lvs moon surface - May 18, 2013

I was watching ZQ with Chelsea Handler and saw CP with Ellen and I’m wondering if this sort of interview is able to convince someone to go see the movie, it seems only conversations revolving around nonsense … and obviously I’m not referring to the movie … anyway because nobody seems to be interested in talking about the movie, in this kind of show!
…………………………

I saw the movie yesterday, it’s a fantastic movie! I loved it!

51. Tribblesoup - May 18, 2013

I hate this. I love Star Trek!!!! I love all Star Trek…even the goofy fifth one… I don’t want to see it go away. I don’t care if people hated it. I love those characters and want to continue to see them.

52. JimJ - May 18, 2013

number 51 don’t be so pessimistic this isn’t over yet

53. Sagart - May 18, 2013

@49 – You’re probably not, but I think you’re in a definite minority. I love the Marvel movies. To each their own, I guess.

With these box office numbers, perhaps 2016 will bring Trek back to TV, not the cinema. BTW, I loved ID; going for the third time tomorrow.

54. Rob - May 18, 2013

Given how well the film is doing internationally before it has even opened in all markets and the strength of the US opening, I am sure Paramount are happy.

I am saddened by some “fans” reactions to the film. The level of hate aimed at the storyline by some is kind of a joke – ALL Trek series and films have rehashed storylines over and over but it was always the characters that made them interesting. I partly agree it was a shame that a 100% adventure couldn’t be used BUT I see Into Darkness as a great homage to things past and now this new version of crew have earned the Enterprise.

I think with JJ most likely not directing a third film, and in story terms the 5 year mission now beginning, there is now room for a different direction and in my opinion Edgar Wright is the ideal choice for the next Trek. He has a superb visual style and is a huge Trek fan. What we need is a new story and an “adversary” that is NOT the one man baddie we have seen over and over – lets get something more mysterious for the crew to go up against.

I have seen Into Darkness four times now at the cinema and have loved it.

I just wish some finds would stop being so cynical – not just about Trek but these are the same people that lambast most movies these days – if you can do better, PROVE it – YOU write the script for the next amazing Trek – it’s easy to bitch about it in a comments section.

When I go to the movies, I enjoy good characters and in summer season exciting set pieces that only Hollywood can provide.

Into Darkness provided this and then some and I for one love seeing this group of actors in these roles and cannot wait to see them on screen again.

55. AyanEva - May 18, 2013

#53 Wouldn’t it be awesome if we got one more film that then led into a TV show? I know it’s probably WAY too much to hope for but that would be one helluva way to celebrate the 50th anniversary!

56. Sagart - May 18, 2013

@55 – I would love to see a new TV series return us to the Prime Universe but I’m open to anything that s good Trek :)

57. Jeff O'Connor - May 18, 2013

#49

You aren’t, I’m with you. But as has been stated, we’re in the minority. And we will be for at least several years.

58. Philip - May 18, 2013

WOK cost 12 million to make, and it grossed $14 million opening weekend, then a total of 78 mil domestic and 97 combined with international BO… It made 8 times it’s budget essentially…

I’m sorry, but as much as I love this movie to death (seen it 3 times and will go see it again next weekend) a part of me thinks it shouldn’t cost $185 million to make a bloody Star Trek picture. That’s just crazy money…

I think STID will go same route the Motion Picture did, it’ll be the last time Trek ever gets royal treatment as far as budgets go, and the next one will be a little more cerebral, and slower paced to make it for around 100-125 million instead.

Trek will never have the broader appeal Star Wars has, sadly.

59. Prentice of Borg - May 18, 2013

4 years between films and JJ’s insistence on this “mystery box” add campaign coupled with early releases overseas didn’t help. A cut and paste ending on a crap plot will be it’s ultimate downfall. The audience I saw it with didn’t even clap at the end, nor stay for the credits. There were more groans when it Cumerbatch was revealed to be Khan and loads of laughs and boos when Spock yelled KHHAANN!!! And these people were fans, lots of people in costumes and very excited when the credits rolled.

60. Greg Stamper - May 18, 2013

All I can do is my part, I’m watching it again tomorrow and inviting all the friends I can muster to go with me.

61. Riker's Beard - May 18, 2013

Agree with others that this movie is far better than most of the super hero movies that make more money. The 4 year gap probably killed momentum with mainstream viewers and the marketing must have missed the spot somewhere along the line but I doubt the so-called ‘rehashed’ storyline put any of them off – i dont think the name Khan transcends as much as we fans might think it does.
I’ll be gutted if poor box office performance hurts or kills this series of movies. We now have 2 brilliant movies we could only have dreamed of after Nemesis. The only thing wrong with this movie was the title – should’ve called it Star Trek Into Amazballsness!

62. Matias47 - May 18, 2013

@11 in production executive’s minds under performing is considered a failure, even if the movie turns a profit. The 1998 Godzilla is a perfect example of that. Worldwide it made $379 million on a $130 budget, even with advertising costs at about $30 to $50 mil 1998 dollars it made solid money. (Yeah, it was a bad movie, but bad movies that make money or live up to estimates get sequels.) Yet here in Hollywierd all the talk was on how it tanked in a huge way.

If STID underperforms to the point of $65 to $70 million for the opening weekend execs will see it as a failure. If it does well enough overseas there still may be a third film, but certainly at a lower budget.

63. Josh C. - May 18, 2013

58 – I get your point ($12 million in ’82 would be about $30 million today, by the way), but I think it would be hard to make a Star Trek movie without special effects which is where a lot of the money goes – and JJ is actually one who likes physical sets, etc. over CGI.

Look at the Great Gatsby which was made by $105 million. I think you’d be hard pressed to find much other than the special effects that make up the $80 million difference.

64. Dee - lvs moon surface - May 18, 2013

After seeing the movie I noticed that the trailers were very unfair to the crew of the Enterprise … the actors all, have far superior performances in the film in relation to trailers … and the highlight is Chris Pine, none of the trailers do justice to his work in “Into Darkness” … He is great, his best performance in a movie … believe me the scenes with “shirtless Kirk” and “feline women” in bed … wetsuit on the bridge … that’s what matters least … although I’m not complaining about it! ;-) :-)

65. The Sky's the Limit - May 18, 2013

@ 58

Good points, but while the domestic opening may come in a little under projections (or hopes), this movie is going to make a TON of money not counting DVD and PPV sales. The producers and writers read these comments, and based on the feedback, I’m sure that they’ll heavily consider what the next iteration of the franchise will be.

66. Captain Matteo - May 18, 2013

This film was BETTER than the 2009 version. I was at the sneak peak IMAX show and will see it again a few times — but not nearly as many times as I saw the ’09 film (11). I think what doused my enthusiasm was the flood of clips, spoilers and reviews from the international release. Basically, I’ve been hiding under a rock for the past 2 weeks trying to avoid over-exposure. I’m one of the BIGGEST ST fans ever – and I LOVED this movie, but I felt sort of exhausted even before the fist showing!

67. philip - May 18, 2013

So much for a big budget Borg war film:( lol

I’m just not sure how original a Trek film can be these days. So many TV shows, previous films, etc.

I’d do a mirror universe movie… then you could even bring back Admiral Marcus to reign terror..

68. HubcapDave - May 18, 2013

@62

I don’t think it will be the death knell. This movie just has too good word of mouth. I have a feeling that this may perform like Batman Begins, i.e.: Disappointing opening weekend, long legs which turned it into a success.

69. Josh C. - May 18, 2013

In any case, I think if the movie does well but lower than expected, we’re likely to see:

1) another action flick instead of an exploration movie

2) the villain be very recognizable (Borg, Klingons) and not against, say, a natural phenomenon or other less known thing (say, the Doomsday machine)

They’ll probably take less risks and have a smaller budget (or certainly, not a bigger budget) on a 3rd film

70. Philip - May 18, 2013

Speaking of box office mysteries……

Can I get anyone to agree with me about how odd it was Skyfall made a billion dollars??? Don’t get me wrong, thought it was a solid film, but I walked out of the theater not thinking “boy I can’t wait to run back and see that again on the big screen”…. The Shanghai scenes were very cool, but I feel like a movie like that, compared to a visual masterpiece of fun action scenes and humor that is Trek, makes me wonder how the hell it’s underperforming domestically..

The only other thing could potentially be Trek maybe would have had more explosive financial success being released in November, versus summer..

71. Ahmed - May 18, 2013

@70. Philip

“The only other thing could potentially be Trek maybe would have had more explosive financial success being released in November, versus summer..”

I don’t think it has anything to do with the release date. ST09 was released in the summer & it made lot of money.

There are other factors here, the marketing for once. The super secrecy about the villain & no real marketing until couple months before the movie is out. The trailers left nothing at all, all the major scenes were put there, including the very last one.

Also wasting 4 years was a big mistake, not many people remembered the 2009 movie. No one was excited about it except for us, the fans.

72. Mr Trumpywumpy - May 18, 2013

I normally watch a new trek film multiple times at the cinema and I imagine a lot of other Trek fans do the same. I will only watch into Darkness once at the cinema. Good film, I’ll watch it again on bluray but despite referencing trek lore throughout it felt more like a generic action film than real trek. I wonder how many other fans felt the same.

73. Elrond L - May 18, 2013

#54 Rob: perfectly said, thank you!

#66 Capt. Matteo: same here — I’ve been going crazy for this film and 3 weeks ago I was kinda exhausted by the barrage of clips. I went into hiding too (except for TrekMovie) to avoid spoilers.

But once the movie started I was hooked instantly and loved it start to finish. This is from a lifelong fan who was born around the same time Trek premiered in ’66. The character work is tremendous.

It’s sad that some of you guys are already dancing on the movie’s grave when we haven’t even finished a weekend. $83 mil and an “A” CinemaScore is nothing to dismiss lightly… plus the movie is rocking overseas. Everyone I know who’s seen it has loved it, so I’m hopeful for strong legs and a long ride for the big E.

74. Captain Jack - May 18, 2013

I think in the end this film will gross a ton of money and they will greenlight a sequel ASAP.

This was by far the best Star Trek Film I have ever seen. Thats it. Stop the whining and the nonsenical comparisons to 30 year old films. This film and this series should not be measured by the original cast. I get annoyed with that.

This was an amazing film.

75. Devon - May 18, 2013

The movie is under performing, not bombing. While we were all opening, and many estimating, that it would be a bigger opening, it’s still very good all things considered.

76. pg - May 18, 2013

Maybe this film will collect some legs eh… If it could rake in another 40 mil next weekend, over 3 days, that would be a sign it isn’t completely dying off.

77. Josh C. - May 18, 2013

for what it’s worth, Iron Man 3 has more sold out shows on more screens than Star Trek does at my local theater so far today

78. JohnRambo - May 18, 2013

who cares?

79. Weerd1 - May 18, 2013

I was in two showings with full theaters even at odd times: Friday 2pm and Saturday Noon. (Olympia, WA area.) Hope the numbers stay steady, really enjoyed the film, and though I believe everyone has a right to their opinion I found most of the criticisms I heard to be unfounded when I actually saw it.

80. Check the Circuit - May 18, 2013

Shouldn’t wait for 4 years. Strike while the iron is hot and all that. There was demand…and then people lost interest as other big franchises bumped Trek from our collective memory.

Too bad.

81. richard - May 18, 2013

stil early wait until the weekend is over the movie is good and word of mouth gets around star trek lives again!!

82. TonyD - May 18, 2013

It would also be nice if Paramount got out of this mindset that Trek HAS to be a summer film. Movies like Skyfall show that you can open during the holidays and still have a gigantic box office haul will contending with relatively fewer competing films.

83. Lukas Kendall - May 18, 2013

If only they had put some money into promoting it…

84. Gregory Stamper - May 18, 2013

#77 I was disappointed in IM3 … I’m frankly surprised its doing so well. But that is the thing Hollywood has always struggled with … “What does the public want at the moment.”

85. NuWisdom - May 18, 2013

I’m going to go out on a lib and say a rather unexpected possible reason as to why the film is under-performing: The Boston Marathon Bombings. People are still shaken up about that, and are not itching to see a movie which mirrors that, so soon to the fact. The Matrix sequels and The Dark Knight Rises, both had similar issues.

86. NuWisdom - May 18, 2013

*limb

87. SoonerDave - May 18, 2013

I can’t fathom that so much as one person decided *not* to see STID on the basis of finding out there was “magic blood” in the story. Huh?? That makes zero sense.

The only thing that makes sense to me is the four-year wait between movies. Tremendous expectation and excitement after the ’09 reboot came out, and then….nothing…..and then…nothing….and then…a delay….until now.

There’s an old saying….strike while the iron is hot….and, for whatever reason, Paramount missed the boat on this aspect of Trek.

All that said, nothing about box office is going to diminish the fact that this was a great Trek movie, nor diminish how much I enjoyed it. I thought it absolutely rocked. My whole family loved it, and I’m looking forward to seeing it again.

88. Josh C. - May 18, 2013

87 – oh believe it. heck, I considered skipping it because of Khan/magic blood, but decided I should at least give it a chance

89. John from Cincinnati - May 18, 2013

3.

The general American public are dumb. Is that news to you?

90. Aix - May 18, 2013

I think it’s more on the “cooler” franchises coming out before and after STiD. It’s not because they’re better films (Iron Man 3 was meh). It’s just more on the “mainstream appeal”, if you will. Don’t get me wrong, Paramount did its best but it’s still Trek. And we just need to accept that no matter how great the SFX are, no matter how Hollywood handsome our stars are, not matter how critically-acclaimed the supporting actors are, ST is still a niche to its core.

91. Curious Cadet - May 18, 2013

@12. Josh C.,
“I think there were just a lot of things wrong with the movie and the marketing: 1) Why hide Khan? If he’s your villain, advertise it.”

Not so sure about this. Maybe the suits at Paramount thought this, but in actuality what you are proposing is this scenario:

A Saturday night in the near future, an average couple’s home –
Man: Honey let’s go see that new Star Trek movie I’ve been hearing about.
Woman: SciFi? I don’t know ….
Man: You remember how good that last Star Trek film was we saw four years ago?
Woman: Yeah … but that was four years ago, I don’t know … it was good, but …
Man: I hear the villain is supposed to be Khan!
Woman: Kahn! Holy moly … what are we waiting for … let’s go trek into darkness!!

92. Paul (London) - May 18, 2013

This is what happens when you make a poor movie & reject the aspects which Trekkies most appreciate like the 09 movie did.

Trekkies are the ones most likely to go see it 5 times plus.

Its not a huge surprise the numbers are way below expectations the next movie needs a new creative team onboard to reverse the decline IMO.

93. BH - May 18, 2013

It’s tough competition: IM3, Gatsby right now and F&F6 in 2 weeks.

What can you do? Except make the film and pimp the ever loving shit out of it. And let the chips fall.

Exactly what they did.

% falloff will be key to watch for this coming week. Word of mouth should be solid, which might prevent the usual fall off. Remember, this is STILL called Star Trek, with all the nerdiness it implies. It does have a ceiling.

94. TrekkerChick - May 18, 2013

My own experience FWIW.

Things are a lot tighter, financially, than they were 4 years ago for my employer – and 2009 was tough enough for the worker bees. 30% of my department’s staff have been RIFed and more are to come…and the end of the holiday on a reduced payroll taxes punched a hole in the discretionary [movie going] spending.

At this point after opening day, I’d seen the 2009 film three times. And for STID, *once* (fan sneak) at the Lacey, WA theater.

Now, fair point is that I covered the tickets and concession costs, yesterday, to take a friend who is on med disability to see IM3 – because she isn’t able to afford movies and wanted to get out, and isn’t a Trek fan. So, those $ could have gone to a second view of STID.

95. Flake - May 18, 2013

I saw iron man 3. It sucks. That is all. Star Trek has got the comic book movies beat at their own game but trouble is no one gave it a chance.

Is this the end of big budget Trek movies? Not sure yet, but its nt looking good.

A lower budget and a different release date would be a good start. A date tat gives Trek a few weeks to itself instead of being swept away by these other behemoth franchises. March/April late July or nov/dec

96. Devon - May 18, 2013

“This is what happens when you make a poor movie & reject the aspects which Trekkies most appreciate like the 09 movie did.”

Ummm, no…. considering this film is nearly as well received as that one this has NOTHING to do with it.

97. TrekMadeMeFat - May 18, 2013

Uh, let’s stay rational here. Even adjusted for inflation the opening weekend for Nemesis was 22.3 million. 68 million would be more than triple the Nemesis opening weekend.

The second week of foreign box office remains strong and Cinemascore exit polling remains a solid “A”. So, it’s not like the general public has any issues with the movie.

People who though Star Trek could do Iron Man or Batman numbers were being a little too jubilant.

98. Josh C. - May 18, 2013

91 – I don’t know if that specific scenario would go down, but at least the villain would be talked about, and people would KNOW he was the guy who basically killed Spock before.

Similarly, I don’t see people being like “I don’t know, the last movie was 4 years ago” either.

99. TrekkerChick - May 18, 2013

As to the movie, itself.

Despite some things that I didn’t care for, I thought that it was a good solid addition to the Trek franchise. The BC Khan issue was a bit glaring at the reveal, but I found his performance as the arrogant SOB that an Augment/genetic superman would be, to be well done and well-enough scripted.

I sensed the point later made by someone in a post, here, about the much-hated-upon reactor scene, occuring as a catalyst of the friendship between
the Spock and Kirk characters- especially coming after the mind meld with Pike as he died – rather than as an event as the culmination of decades of friendship.

As far as the set for the reactor…far superior and realistic to the, even at the time, laughably small set off of engineering in TWOK. My 0.02

100. TrekkerChick - May 18, 2013

Sorry for doing that on multiple posts… Doing this on the smart phone.

101. Mark - May 18, 2013

I saw it on Thursday night in 2D and there were 9 people there including me. 6 were women which was surprising. lol I liked it. I’m surprised it’s not doing better. Like others, I’d say maybe 4 years between movies (was that because of Super 8) and I think they should have marketed it by including Khan as the villain. I didn’t know it was Khan until it was revealed. I heard rumors so I did watch The Wrath of Khan 2 days before.

I think there will be one more in 2016 for the 50th anniversary. That’s a 3 year wait. I wouldn’t wait for JJ. (I think we need an 85 year old William Shatner Kirk Prime in that one! Spock just needs to bring him Khan’s blood and go through the Guardian of Forever.) I like the new cast except for Quinto. The supporting cast is better than the original with Zoe Saldana great. I liked Alice Eve too. No one will beat Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley but Pine and Urban are very very good.

On the 4 year wait, my dad (69) can’t remember watching Star Trek (’09) and he’s seen it on blu-ray so I doubt he sees Into Darkness.

Hope Into Darkness can make at least $200 million here, do the third movie and start a live action or animated tv show.

102. JT - May 18, 2013

I have to say all these so called ”die hard” fans criticising this movie and saying they have no intention of seeing it again are not fans. You are not fans whatsoever. If you were truly fans of Star Trek you would support this movie, not only because it is an entertaining movie and yes a good addition to the franchise but because it’s success helps the franchise.

I almost get the feeling some of you are so twisted and sad in nit-picking that you want to see the movie fail to justify some warped sense of ”justice” for trek. In the end you only end up hurting that which you proclaim to love.

103. Josh C. - May 18, 2013

102 – Indeed. It is a balancing act in trying to figure out how to “punish” the people who made a bad Trek movie without harming the franchise itself.

I want to see a third film. I also want to send them a message that they got this one wrong

104. stunkill - May 18, 2013

You all seem to be forgetting the BS premature announcement of star wars deflating the potential momentum STID would have garnered. That redirected alot of peoples interest IMO. Disney’s timing was rude and unnecissary.

105. Gary Makin - May 18, 2013

Four years is too long a gap in today’s market. The Fast and Furious movies come out every two years and look at how well they’re doing. They also don’t need 3D.

Although I thought the movie was good, I wish the villain had been another Eugenics Wars superman and not Khan. It’s not as if they traded on the name; in fact, they kept it a secret. Once they cast the excellent Benedict Cumberbatch, they could’ve changed the character slightly.

My advice to Paramount would be to forget about 3D and get the next movie out in two years.

106. Mark - May 18, 2013

My dad said he heard from someone or saw on tv that Into Darkness was the worst Star Trek movie! I’m a TOS guy but it’s far from the worst.

107. opcode - May 18, 2013

For those who think that it is ok for a $190M movie to make $385M globally like the first ST, let’s put this into perspective. Tron Legacy had a budget of $170M and a box office of $400M, more than ST 2009. And yet it was considered a mild failure.
Next week will tell what is going to happen with STID. If it drops like 60%, then it is in serious trouble.

108. Mike - May 18, 2013

People need to calm down. As a rule of thumb sequels usually do not make as much as the original movie (The Dark Knight is an exception) and its not like STID is going to pass $100 this coming week. The movie has a STRONG word of mouth and the critics LOVE it. So lets all enjoy the fact we have a NEW Star Trek movie thats every bit as good as the 09 movie if not better. Personally I loved it and I have been a Trek fan all of my life. I plan on seeing it again this coming week in IMAX.

109. anon - May 18, 2013

I wonder if the overly-secretive marketing had a negative impact. There was no in-story reason to keep the Khan reveal secret. Yes, his identity is not confirmed until halfway through, but it was hardly a mystery plot. Had they TRUMPETED that it was Khan from the rooftops, would the opening weekend box office have hit estimates?

110. al - May 18, 2013

This truly sucks…I think someone dropped the ball by moving up the release by a day. 2) Four years…may have played a factor. People have short attention spans, and move on to other things. 3) Hardcore fans that hated the first film, may have had something to do with it. 4) If this film makes about the same as the 09 film…we may get a 3rd film with a lesser budget. Typical Trek

111. Rachel Thompson - May 18, 2013

I saw it yesterday at 4:00 PM and there were about
15 people in the theatre in Phoenix. I was surprised at how empty it was.

As a hardcore fan, I felt they pumped up the action and sacrificed the story, character development and writing. It was more like an MI movie then a ST movie. They threw out a few ST references and it felt forced. I saw ST09 four times and I will wait for STID to hit cable or Netflix before watching it again. I think non trek or casual fans will enjoy the action. I thought it missed the mark. It felt like I was eating cake and someone forgot to add the frosting. It was tasty but something was missing.

112. VulcanFilmCritic - May 18, 2013

First Lesson: Release the movie in the US first. The problem with releasing a mediocre film to the foreign markets first, is that you get tons of mediocre reviews in the English language press. Just Google “Star Trek Into Darkness reviews” and you get the bad news. Now if the movie were outstanding, perhaps this strategy would work. The reviews were so dismal even I wasn’t going to see it.
Second lesson: Star Trek fans STILL matter. We are the ones who will pack the midnight shows and that first critical weekend. It is OUR word of mouth that will give this movie legs. Not an appeal to the “general audience,” by loading up the movie with a bunch of stunts and pretty flashing lights.
Third lesson: Star Trek needs a TV show to keep the concept in the public eye. I watched a video of some guy running around a block in New York with the real Zachary Quinto in tow, and they stopped and asked random people, “This is Spock. Do you care?” There were more than a few blank stares, and a few young people even asked, “Who’s Spock?” Sad.

113. Mr Mike - May 18, 2013

I think the numbers are going to end up being more than acceptable to Paramount a third movie will be made.

However, it was stupid to keep things so secret and then show the movie weeks in advance of its US opening and show so many clips online. This did put a damper on things, even though the movie was excellent. I do wish Abrams would go less for the cool factor and more for dialogue, but overall it was an amazing movie that made me proud to be a Star Trek fan.

114. Ensign RedShirt - May 18, 2013

102 -

Who are you to determine who the “real” fans are? Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

115. Mr Mike - May 18, 2013

I also think it was a big mistake to wait four years. If they had released this in 2011, it would have been 100+ opening weekend for sure!

116. KenT - May 18, 2013

Did anyone think the title maybe a turn-off for mainstream viewers? I am a huge fan and when the title was announced I was a bit put back. The movie wasn’t dark and was a fun ride. I know there is so much heaviness in the world that when you want to escape for a few hours…going to a movie with a poster of a destroyed city dealing with a terrorist has got to turn some people off who are not devoted fans. I know if a movie was just called into darkness about terrorism it would not pull me in at all. Thoughts?

117. Ahmed - May 18, 2013

The movie is doing very well in the international market.
———————–
Box OfficeSATURDAY 4:45 PM, 6TH UPDATE:

International for Star Trek Into Darkness from Paramount Pictures, Skydance Productions, and director J.J. Abrams‘ Bad Robot continues way up from the last film with $35M projected for this weekend, led by Russia debuting at $9M vs $2M. That would put the overseas total at a projected $75M through Sunday with just over half of all markets opened

http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-3d-opens-to-2m-late-night-and-imax/

118. JT - May 18, 2013

114-

Simple, if you would rather see the death of something you proclaim to love than you’re not a real fan.

112-

What bad reviews? It is getting an A from Cinemascore and an 87% from rotten tomatoes. A bunch of nit-picking whiners on forums such as this do not represent the mainstream.

119. Ensign RedShirt - May 18, 2013

If the movie underperforms, it’ll be for a variety of reasons, mostly marketing-related.

Waiting four years so that Abrams could go off and make his “personal” film(which in reality was just a Spielberg pastiche) definitely hurt, as did the “mystery box”. If I were a very casual moviegoer I wouldn’t have a clue what the movie was about. Also – outside of people who watch the BBC or British cinema, the average moviegoer has no clue who Benedict Cumberbatch is(he was great, by the way). I love Sherlock and the show definitely has a following here in the states, but it hasn’t made him a household name.

One other thing, not related the above specifically: I’m shocked that there isn’t more outcry that a white Brit was playing an Indian Sikh named Khan Noonien Singh. While Montalban may have been Latin, at least the coloring was somewhat close.

120. Ensign RedShirt - May 18, 2013

118 JT -

Even if this movie were to underperform horrifically bad(which I doubt), there will always be Trek, be it this iteration of it or something else. Some here object to the current Abrams version, which is their right. It doesn’t take away from their fandom whatsoever.

121. Ahmed - May 18, 2013

@ 118. JT – May 18, 2013

“114- Simple, if you would rather see the death of something you proclaim to love than you’re not a real fan.”

You know, I’m getting sick of people who want to control what we say or what we think of the movie. No fan want to kill Star Trek, we want it to be better. If we don’t like the movie, that sure doesn’t mean we want to kill the whole thing.

122. kmart - May 18, 2013

70,

Both of your points are valid. SKYFALL had the 4 yr gap and yet biz boomed … for a movie that was IMO crap, enough to end my 48yr pattern of wanting to see these things in the theater.

But the time of year thing is VERY valid. Ever since TFF tanked in the very-crowded summer of 1989, TREK films stopped releasing in summer. Not until abrams09 — a film intended as a xmas 08 release — did TREK dare go back up against summer competition. By some fluke (I consider it garbage) it succeeded wildly, but expecting lightning to strike twice might have been pushing things.

123. mhansen0207 - May 18, 2013

I just am worried. I mean, I absolutely loved the movie just as I did the 2009 film.

If this film underperforms or at the worst bombs, is this the death of Star Trek? I’m sincerely hoping with every bit of my heart that it isn’t.

124. Ahmed - May 18, 2013

Enough with the bloody McCarthyism.

125. Ensign RedShirt - May 18, 2013

For those of you worried that there won’t be a third picture: rest easy. There will definitely be one. The 50th anniversary guarantees that there will be another one, for the same reason Paramount went ahead with The Undiscovered Country: massive licensing opportunities.

The worry will be AFTER the third picture, when all the cast contracts are up and everyone will get VERY expensive. Might be another reboot or a lot of recasting on the horizon.

126. J alex - May 18, 2013

I think certain movies still REALLY need that heavy rotation on HBO to build into bigger sequels, in the old days, for stuff like Die Hard, Terminator, Lethal Weapon it was crucial. More recently Batman Begins.. The epix and whatever doesn’t count.

127. jas_montreal - May 18, 2013

I think hiding the villain’s true character hurt the film. When i told my friends the villain was Khan, then they got excited and wanted to watch it! I hope your reading this boborci….

128. JT - May 18, 2013

121-

Of course it does, don’t be so naïve. Star Trek is a commercial business. You stop supporting that business and you will end up hurting that business. If you want it to be better you would support fresh takes on it. I think it is obvious you don’t want better, you want it to conform to the vision you have of it in your head and that is simply ridiculous.

129. Ahmed - May 18, 2013

@ 125. Ensign RedShirt – May 18, 2013

“The worry will be AFTER the third picture, when all the cast contracts are up and everyone will get VERY expensive. Might be another reboot or a lot of recasting on the horizon.”

Yeah, but lets us worry first about the the 3rd movie first. I hope they will start preparations right away, and start looking for a new director & maybe new writing team. To get a fresh perspective & make an epic movie for the 50th anniversary in 2016.

130. Ensign RedShirt - May 18, 2013

128 JT -

So what you’re saying is that people should support Trek, regardless of whether they like the movie or not? That makes you a lemming, not a fan.

I love Trek, but I’m open to other opinions and feelings about it. Plenty of room under the tent for all ideas and opinions…

131. The Walking Phobia - May 18, 2013

112 – Not sure what reviews you are referring to. Most reviews I’ve seen have been pretty positive.

I personally would rather see it do well over a period of weeks and bring in a solid amount than do a $100 million its opening weekend and then nose-dive. And it’s performing well internationally. So this is one fan who isn’t worried about getting another movie.

I took my sister today to see it and she loved it (she’s not a star trek fan) but she said that she really hadn’t seen too many trailers on the t.v. So maybe more PR/Marketing should have been done. Also, maybe instead of staggering the openings worldwide, perhaps the movie should have opened globally, less chance of spoilers catching people unawares, especially with the whole JJ & Co’s secrecy thing and moving dates up last minute kind of throws people off.

But overall I think that people are enjoying the movie and my sister has stated that she would like to go again (it’ll have to wait until next week so our tickets won’t count for opening weekend) :-)

132. Paul (London) - May 18, 2013

@ 96

Well received by who certainly not the lifelong fans like me who I know many people think do not matter anymore but I am the Trekkie fan who watches a Trek movie 5+ times in the cinema IF I like what they have created & tell everyone I know to try & get them to come or go see with their family.

So by ignoring my simple requirements for a decent ST movie as Paramount marketing do not think I matter they are causing poor word of mouth & losing my repeat business. Multiply by all the other Trek fans who are not happy & you get left to rely on the general public who do not care either way most of the time. Trek is take it or leave it to many.

STID box office is the cause & effect result!! IMO but what do I know I only saw every single TOS Trek movie on original release day multiple times…..

133. Roddenberry was a Peacenik - May 18, 2013

@97 TrekMadeMeFat

“Uh, let’s stay rational here. Even adjusted for inflation the opening weekend for Nemesis was 22.3 million. 68 million would be more than triple the Nemesis opening weekend.”

The problem is that while $68 million is triple the inflation-adjusted $22 million Nemesis made, Darkness’s $190 million budget is also triple Nemesis’s inflation-adjusted $66 million budget.

In fact, you’ve just unintentionally hit on a really disturbing correlation. The budget/opening weekend ratio for STID is almost exactly the same as ST: Nemesis. It’s obviously too early to call Darkness a flop, but we all remember how we felt when we saw the opening weekend numbers for Nemesis. This does not bode well.

134. Jack - May 18, 2013

34. “The writing really nose-dived in the second half of the movie beginning with the revelation of Khan and yet another deranged admiral. The reactor scene, while it did show Kirk redeeming himself, was just unnecessary.”

Agreed. It could have all been so much more interesting. The set-up was pretty terrific. I wonder if non-Trekkies will even understand the Khan storyline — it doesn’t make a hell of a lot of sense as explained in the film.

Enough with the calls to Trek past. Yes, don’t piss (future Captain, everyone!) Mr. Sulu off (or you’ll still be hearing about it 47 years later). At least they didn’t give Carol Marcus the line, “hmmm, life inside a torpedo — turning something meant to destroy into something that preserves life… hmmmm….”

That said. I watched it again last night. And I enjoyed it more (I was no longer as irritated by the Khan thing).

135. Jack - May 18, 2013

“Moving dates up last minute kind of throws people off.”

Exactly. A lot of people had no idea it was opening, partially, Wednesday. Or even Thursday.

136. Ensign RedShirt - May 18, 2013

Sorry, guys. Moving the release date up a day doesn’t hurt. If anything, it gives it even more chances to have a big opening weekend. Saying that an early release date hurt makes no sense.

137. William Bradley - May 18, 2013

There will certainly be another movie for the 50th anniversary.

Who the filmmakers will be is an interesting question.

138. smike - May 18, 2013

This is not a surprise at all… I’ve seen that coming for quite a while. This movie is just too special, just too niche to be a mainstream success. I dunno why they chose the way back to the past/future, but that way it had to come to a middle-of-the-road BO gross. This movie is none to excite the “outside-Trek-masses”… it doesn’t even please all of our fellow Trekkies… for it doesn’t make the choice: mainstream or geekfest. It tries to be both, both well below expectations. For me as a Trekkie it’s a straight-forward B, nothing more, nothing less, but to mainstream audiences it may well be received as a C.

It’s truly sad to read there could have been a TV show if it wasn’t for the Para/CBS rights issues…

139. Josh C. - May 18, 2013

138 – I don’t have a problem with Khan being the villain per se, but if they do, they just as well have gone all out with it. I’ve said earlier, one of the things that made WoK great was that it was a battle of wits as much as a battle of spaceships, and we saw very little of that in STID I thought

140. Tom - May 18, 2013

I think the mistake was when they released it. This has become a VERY crowded summer, Gatsby, Iron Man 3, soon enough Man of Steel. There’s only so many movie dollars to go around, and I think it may end up hurting this franchise severely. I think Shatner once remarked that was one of the problems Star Trek V had in the summer of 89. (Not saying this movie is like V at all…)

Then the marketing failures…

141. Ahmed - May 19, 2013

Saturday Update #2:

BoxOffice is now projecting that Star Trek Into Darkness will make $68 million from Friday-Sunday, which will put its 4-day total at $81.5 million.

http://www.boxoffice.com/latest-news/2013-05-16-north-america-star-trek-into-darkness-posts-healthy-early-imax-numbers

142. Paul - May 19, 2013

I saw the midnight showing Thursday morning (3-D) and the theatre had maybe ten people. Smaller town and middle of the week. I’m guessing most hardcore fans bought their tickets for one of the bigger theatres in the closest larger city.

I went again to see it at the same theatre tonight (Saturday) for the 3-D showing at 8:15pm, and the place was packed.

The first Trek I saw in the cinema was when I was a baby. My folks took me to see Khan. I was born in 81, so don’t remember much obviously, though my folks say I didn’t fuss or cry at all during the showing.

I loved the original films (except TMP, which I cannot stay interested in even at 32 yrs) , particularly II, IV, and VI. I equally loved Star Trek into Darkness. Both times I’ve seen it so far, I found moved to tears in at least two different spots. I am going to try to see it at least 3 more times in the cinema.

As for those who poo-poo it based because it has parallel events with a previous Trek film…. so what? Was First Contact scoffed at because it involved another Borg invasion? ‘This film IS CRAP because the BOIRG are in it… that’s been done!’ If it was, not enough to cause it any harm. Was Star Trek IV ridiculed because it began with the same old ‘probe of unknown origin’ wrecking the cosmos? Hardly. Obviously is this alternate timeline, some things are the same (our villain is one we have encountered previously), and some things are very different (same villain was discovered by Admiral Marcus and was put to work for Starfleet). I do not feel at all that the writers simply pillaged a previous film/ character for lack of originality. I’ve seen that episode and film a bajillion times now. Into Darkness would have bored me to tears if it was simply ‘*that film* re-created. It was not.

And I for one am glad they kept us in the ‘dark’ as to who the villain truly is of the film. Because it was well-known information, lots of fan boys would have been steaming in their seats at their computers crying ‘HOW DARE THEY MESS WITH HIM?? HOW DARE THEY MESS WITH *MY* MOVIE?!?!?!’ ‘TOTALLY UNORIGINAL!!!’

‘HOW DARE THEY MESS WITH *MY* STAR TREK!’ …….. just like those who screamed and shouted when ST:TNG premiered. AND STTNG became so successful, it gave us two more series in the same era and four feature films, and countless of other amazing stories through novels, comics, etc… ‘BUT IT’S NOT *MY* STAR TREK?’

Star Trek is beyond ‘us.’ It accounts for far more than what you or I think it should be., even more than Gene thought it would/should be. And thank the Great Bird of the Galaxy that is, or we would never have had 3/4 of the films we did have, or series, or…. . Instead we would have umpteen story treatments on how the Enterprise crew wound up back in time during the Kennedy assassination.

‘Star Trek’ evolves, as it should. Gene himself was fond of saying he hoped someday some one else would come along and carry Trek further. And they have. Star Trek evolves, it changes… Yes, there are more explosions, lens flares galore, more shooting.,.. but at the heart it is still a story of the human condition.. The path that Kirk travels on this film, as well as Spock, is very deep. And that people can’t see that is really sad, in my opinion.

143. smike - May 19, 2013

139: “138 – I don’t have a problem with Khan being the villain per se, but if they do, they just as well have gone all out with it”

And that’s exacactly the problem. Why having Khan at all if you don’t market him as Khan? Why having “that mystery” around when you plan on releasing the picture in the rest of the world first? It’s the worst imaginable marketing I’ve ever seen… Oh, let’s have Khan, but don’t people tell it’s him, for even the ones who want to see him might want to be shocked he’s an Englishman this time round…but yeah, the Brits might give us that extra tin we desperately gonna need… but don’t tell them he’s a hint at their colonial past… they might not like that… so keep him under wrap… Okay, let’s keep the Joker a secret, let’s keep Lord Vader a secret, let’s just forget there has ever been a Ernst Stavro Blofeld or Lex Luthor… please! People might be interested in actually seeing that film….

144. Gary Makin - May 19, 2013

I saw the movie Saturday night (in the UK) and the theatre was pretty full for a second weekend. Word of mouth might mean this film has legs.

145. smike - May 19, 2013

@142: I don’t have ANY issues with explosions, lense flares and shootings… I wouldn’t have any problems with bear breasts and onscreen coitus, if they would be so kind to get the science and basic farbic of the Trek universe right. It’s not about style I’m complaining, it’s about SUBSTANCE. And that substance is withering away each second of this movie. There is, scientically, nothing to KLING ON TO… It’s all been turned into some weird mumbo jumbo full of shananigans… yellow-eyed Klingons, transwarp tissue paper and far-range, interactive, cryostatic nukes… I really feel cheap these days…

146. Jim Nightshade - May 19, 2013

Yah Now I am seriously worrying if it will even do good enough for a 3rd movie??? So they changed it so international audiences will like it more and they succeeded at that but now domestic audiences arent liking it as much…

There is so much slam bang action in this maybe too much….maybe it moves at too frantic aka rushed pace for everyone to get???
I kinda thin Iron Man 3 was similar with the same story almost as the other two movies….least star trek tries to make a better story….

Im disillusioned now….I thought JJ was our savior….guess it probably doesnt matter anymore if he leaves or not….

147. Buzz Cagney - May 19, 2013

#142 its impressive that you didn’t fuss and cry as a baby during Wrath. If only the same could have been said of our Captain and First Officer in this movie!
I’ve not seen so many professionals in tears since the banks collapsed a couple of years back.
And its a sign of the Facebook times that we are living in that Kirk spends much of the movie wondering if Spock is ‘friending’ or ‘unfriending’ him. Purlease.
Friendship should be unspoken. If you have to talk about it you probably aren’t friends.

148. Cody - May 19, 2013

Uhm, the film is still doing well domestically, and is doing even better than ST2009 overseas, and yet everyone is flipping out…. I don’t get it.

149. VOODOO - May 19, 2013

It seems that Iron Man’s strong hold is really cutting into ST’s box office numbers. Perhaps the studio overestimated ST’s broad appeal and under estimated the juggernaut that the Marvel films have become?

Another thing to consider is that the four year window between films has hurt the interest of the average/non Trekkie fan. Sure all of us wouldn’t care if their was a ten year gap between films, but the average younger audience who seemed to enjoy the last film has the attention span of a nat with a labotomy.

Did Abrams desire for secrecy hurt the film? I found it odd that they would attemp to hide the true identity of such an iconic villian. I guess the counter argument to that would be the non Trekkie doesn’t know who Khan is anyway so what did it matter?

At the moment the film that ST seems to be trending closely to is 007′s Quantum of Solace (actually it is a little behind QOS when adjusted for inflation + QOS didn’t have the benefit of 3D showings)

If these numbers hold up ST will end up in the vicinity of $155-$165 domestic. Not a disaster, but clearly a disappointment.

150. Paul - May 19, 2013

@145 ‘if they would be so kind to get the science and basic farbic of the Trek universe right. It’s not about style I’m complaining, it’s about SUBSTANCE’

Again though, this is *your* perception of what the science and fabric of that universe is. If the keepers of the flame want to come up with new notions, I’m all for it. But let’s talk science of the Star Trek fabric… how many times through just TNG did the ‘science’ vary from week to week depending on what situation the crew was facing? We’d seen people transport thru shields, phasers that could (or could not) be re-adjusted in frequency on the spot, Klingon blood that was red (but in VI it was purple!!!), alien specious that were completely changed only to be changed back based on the needs of the story/writers (the Borg to name but one example).

When I think about what Star Trek is at its core, I could give two figs about transwarp transporting or whether a genetic superman’s blood could save a dying person. I’ve already suspended my disbelief by willingly watching science *fiction*. These are conceits of the over-all story. And the overall story has always been that Star Trek is a story of the human condition. And I see that in spades in ‘Into Darkness.’ The young rebel Captain getting his knockdown and realizing that the responsibility is not something to be taken lightly. The captain losing his mentor and father figure. The path he takes in learning the importance of his decisions and the effects it will have on those around him. The desire for revenge. The relationship between Kirk and Spock. The experiences that draw them together. These are the themes that ‘Into Darkness’ is about.

When you look back at The Cage (IMHO a better story than its successor) all the stuff about aliens and mirages and flying ships is just a means. The story is about loss, how we cope with losing those we care about, how we deal with freedom being taken away from us, how we handle separation from those we care about, how the decisions we make can affect others, for better or worse. These are some of the themes that the very first Trek was all about. All the technobabble was a device, not the story itself.

The worst of Trek is when everything is accomplished *because* of some new or established scientific bit of mumbo-jumbo. Something later series are frequently pummeled about. The best of Trek is when it reveals something about us…the human condition. If some novelty piece of hokum gets created along the way, I’m ok with that. Heck, that’s how the transporter was established. There was no great effort to investigate the science theories behind it. That came later. It was just a plot device to allow to people to get to a planet surface without needing to figure out a way and taking the time to land the ship.

151. Robert Carver - May 19, 2013

I saw the sneak peak showing of Into Darkness at my local AMC Theater here in New Orleans on Wednesday night. The first show was packed and I stood in a pretty good sized line for the 2nd show. I did notice that the AMC Theater was not promoting Star Trek like they did in 2009. I got the 4 Star Trek Themed collectible gift cards & fountain drink cup at the theater. I went to Burger King to get their Star Trek goodies, I bought Kellogg’s Star Trek cereal that had the cool toys and I sent off for the Star Trek collector’s plate. There was a plethora of domestic marketing efforts to promote the 2009 Trek film that are missing for Into Darkness. No fast food restaurant is offering a Star Trek item, no Kellogg’s breakfast tie-ins or giveaways. I went to my local toy store and got the phaser, communicator, tricorder, action figures and the JJ version of the USS Enterprise. I have found none of these items being offered for Into Darkness. Other than the Kree-o (Lego-like) blocks kit to build the new Enterprise and Klingon BOP, I haven’t seen much available for Star Trek fans. My AMC Theater had one poster up but seemed to still be promoting Iron Man 3 more than Into Darkness. I am going back to see Into Darkness in 3D tomorrow with my wife. It will be her first show for ID. I read the graphic novel prequel and then read the novelization of the movie which greatly helped me understand plot points I missed in the rush of the film. So I will go see it Sunday knowing what led up to the start of Harrison, Section 31, Admiral Marcus and messing around with Klingons along the Neutral Zone. The prequel and the book are able to explain the thinking of the characters so you have more exposition on why they did the things they did. Many of the criticisms I have read on here would be answered by reading the prequel & then the novelization of the film. I hope that many of these issues are covered in the extras found on the Blu-ray release. By reading this background and the items cut in the film that were kept in the book I think the story makes sense. The problem comes from just watching the movie with no other sources of information. It can be confusing to understand why things happened the way they did. So I believe I will get a lot more out of viewing the movie again now knowing the information to fill in the blanks of the film. Like the call back to the Mudd Incident was about Mudd’s daughter who was working for the former Captain of the Enterprise… Robert April. April violated the Prime Directive to intervene for some natives against an aggressor species. It turned out the Klingons were sending weapons to the aggressor group. Captain April had gone native and was trying to get the Enterprise to use to save his allied natives. April was going to give the Enterprise to the Klingons. Foiled by Kirk and Spock, the Enterprise warps back to Federation space to turn over April but a call from Admiral Marcus orders Kirk to stop and turn him over to Star Fleet Intelligence. Kirk wasn’t happy about it. So before Into Darkness starts you have this back-story that lets you know some Section 31 black ops are being run for classified reasons. Then the novelization gives you more in depth characters due to the format. You have Lt. Carol Marcus explaining to Kirk why she had a British accent rather than an American one like her dad and so on. I understand they even referred to events in the Star Trek video game when McCoy talks about doing a g-section on a Gorn to deliver feisty baby gorns that bite. So the intent seems to have been to make this a multimedia experience. Now that I have the full picture of the story I must say I really like it and it makes sense. Now how many of my fellow fans will reach this same conclusion?

152. ironhyde - May 19, 2013

The marketing was a total fail on this movie. They kept secret a non-secret, causing irritation and annoyance among fans. Then released the movie in a disastrously staggered fashion that totally ripped away any semblance of excitement from the reveal. Not to mention, the Countdown to Darkness comic was abismal.

Fortunately, despite the numbers, I totally throw my will behind this movie, ranking it above 2009′s version and probably on par with TUC.

Orci et al… :) forget the money this time. You did good.

153. CaptainDonovin - May 19, 2013

@148 Cody

I think people got their hopes up that this would top the previous movie & most of the other blockbusters this year. That & maybe there’s a fear that if it doesn’t meet expectations that Paramount would pull the plug on Trek again.

I was hoping for a great movie with solid box office numbers, looks like both happened. I think it will easily top the movies budget, thus giving Paramount a nice profit. All will be fine.

154. Dennis C - May 19, 2013

My wife and I attended the Sneak Peak and were surprised to see that the movie hadn’t sold out.

Expect another movie but if this one performs only slightly ahead of 2009 domestically expect a smaller budget on the next one.

155. CaptainDonovin - May 19, 2013

@ 151

Reading the comics did help, seemed to be something going on before Countdown began. Didnt know about the video game connection or the novel, haven’t read it or played the game. Everything tied together nicely for me, plan to see it before work once next week & take my wife next weekend (think I talked her into it).

The two times I saw it weren’t packed but I went @ 10:30 am & 1:15pm on a Friday. Second show had more people but I figured larger crowds would come for the evening shows.

156. HubcapDave - May 19, 2013

@136

It does when you do it at the last minute, and don’t really get the word out.

157. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 19, 2013

I’ve started reading the novelization on Kindle. I’m up to just past the introductory scene with Dr ‘Wallace’ on the shuttle so far. The novelization is not exactly the same as the movie, but it’s very close (as you would expect). There is some additional exposition in it – in particular exactly how Harrison got all the way to Qo’nos via the transwarp beaming device.

It’s reinforcing my feeling after I’d watched it the first time (I’m up to 5 thus far) – the movie needed to be longer to properly deal with all that’s in it. It’s too fast paced, too action packed for this old codger to take it all in in 1 or even 2 viewings.

158. Elias Javalis - May 19, 2013

Right now 450 mil worldwide seems reachable!

159. Mitchell - May 19, 2013

@3. Nat:
There is Great Irony in your 2 statements.

- – - – - – - –

Ultimately what held this film back from reaching Trek’s full potential was exactly that. The Film itself held Trek back from it’s potential.

160. David b - May 19, 2013

I think the biggest problem is the retread. Using lines and concepts from previous movies does not help. Did no one read the reviews as to why Superman Returns failed?

You can,t go over the same ground again and expect the audience to thank you for doing so, the whole land mass thing and copying dialogue from original Superman and putting in SR hurt the movie. STID has fallen in to the same problems.

Like a lot of people have said why do Khan at all? 007 celebrated 50 years last year and over 20 films, never once using Goldfinger again as the villain just nods to the car now and again.

Perhaps the third movie should reset everything back to the original timeline and De JJ the entire universe.

161. Luka - May 19, 2013

INTO DARKNESS was filmed on a 190 million budget.

Do your math… A 85 million opening weekend would cume in a 170 million dollar total gross (usually films make up to 50% of the total profits on opening weekend).

You will have the internation BO to at least get a total of 200 million to call it a moderate success, otherwise the film will be considered a disappointment.

162. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 19, 2013

There is no way I would want Abrams and co. to reset this Star Trek back to the prime universe.

I want to know more about this alternate universe with these characters(actors). Finally, Captain Kirk (“my captain”) is back, along with the rest of his main crew and I could not be happier. It took the creation of an alternate universe to bring them back to where they should be and I couldn’t give squat about resetting anything or introducing a whole new crew and ship in any future time period.

Star Trek is about events taking place on an explorer ship called the USS Enterprise (with some defensive capabilities), commanded by one Captain James Kirk (Chris Pine), first officer/science officer Spock (Zachary Quinto), and the rest of new cast playing their iconic characters…we know who they are…:)!

163. AJ - May 19, 2013

The marketing of the movie with the “Khan” mystery has nothing to do with anything. Maybe 20% of the audience has heard of Khan, and they are there with the wife and kids, and a buttload of popcorn.

The issue is loss of equity over the 4-year lapse between films with absolutely NO investment in the brand in between: No cartoon series, like every other successful genre film, no toys in between films, except those made for weird adults with cash to burn, etc.

“Star Trek” as a brand on film simply shuts down between releases.

My son was 6 when the first JJ film came out. Now he’s 10. For a kid, that is a VERY long time. With no media to support any interest he may have had in the franchise, he just forgot about it. Kids don’t read comics, either. The marketing for STID has been stellar, but for “Star Trek” as a brand, absolute crap.

I haven’t seen the film yet. As an expat in Russia, I’ll have to see it dubbed, so I am not rushin’ (;-) ) to the local cinema. The key to ST3/JJ will be holding the international markets with syndicated cartoons and toys, just as Lucasfilm and Marvel have done since the early 1990s.

In my experience, kids in in Russia and Poland know lots about those franchises. Keeping in mind that Poland opened up in 1989, and Russia in 1991. They know nothing about Trek, and that is the key to a future of profitability. Permanent exposure.

164. Flake - May 19, 2013

163: I believe making cartoons and merchandise etc is up to CBS and they aren’t interested in doing anything new with Star Trek. They are just happy to make a relatively small amount per year from Trek licenses whilst making no investment in the brand themselves.

165. Jim Nightshade - May 19, 2013

i saw it wed at sneak peek at southcenter amc imax 3d near seattle…there was a line 3 hrs before the movie…they handed out the cool glow in dark posters tellin us they only had 200 per theatre which wasnt told in the announcement…check ebay…many of them selling the poster have ten or more copies or placed multiple ads….fair..nope….least we got our posters….anyway the obviously trekkers crowd loved every minute of the movie clapping n cheering thru the whole thing even clappin n cheering when harrison revealed his true identity…most also stayed for the credits n cheered n clapped wildly at end of movie…so others saying the fans hated it…obviously not all fans by any means…

iron man 3 is part of problem…i dunno why its so popular..iron man barely even gets any screen time….its mostly avengers tie in maybe…n this sept a tv series based on shield…while trek is tv less….
besides ironman n more blockbusters coming out..very crowded competiton for trek this time of year…
i agree that jj abrams wars announcement badly timed n jj shoulda asked disney to not announce until after trek comes out…cuz i think some will think…i like star ward better will just wait for jjs star wars…
and the overseas releasing ahead of ours lessened usa premieres maybe everyone already heard too much bout the movie before the usa premiers even began….
all we can do is hope for great popularity over a longer period of time with lower numbers…

166. AJ - May 19, 2013

Flake: An astute observation. The CBS thing hobbles the film brand (as a franchise) for sure. The films do the opposite for CBS.

I would hope that not all bulbs on the Paramount/CBS Christmas tree of intelligence have burnt out, and that someone in Hollywood in either office can actually take responsibility for the decision to revive the brand. We’re going on year 50.

I wish Disney would just buy it lock, stock and barrel.

167. Boomer13 - May 19, 2013

The “mystery box” thing was silly to begin with. Khan is to Star Trek to what the Joker is to Batman. Their strongest catch they didn’t promote. Plus the first rule of Nicholas Meyer making of Star Trek I recall him saying is “never repeat yourself ” I liked into darkness but then again I like re-runs.

168. KHAAAN the weasel - May 19, 2013

@36: “Now, franchises come out with movies on a yearly basis. Lord of the Rings/Hobbit, Harry Potter, Twilight were all done yearly”

Oh well. That would be well-nigh impossible for Trek though. Think of it:
LOTR: 3-part back-to-back production
Hobbit: 3-part back-to-back production
Twilight: Disgustingly bad movies – let’s not even talk about tthem

And ALL of those (+HP) were ADAPTED from novels.

169. Gardi - May 19, 2013

God guys,the figures are excellent,domestic US figures are strong and certainly in line with the previous movie.
But the real story is that overseas receipts are up by 60-70%.
That is extremely significant for overall box office and the future of the franchise.
I do,however,agree that four years is far too long between installments,especially to keep the interest of the casual viewer.

170. Colin - May 19, 2013

Personally, I feel that Iron Man 3 was a better written and directed film. I think that JJ Abrams marketing strategy backfired. JJ Abrams was deliberately deceptive about the villain. Yet, through his clumsy handling of the situation, people were able to correctly guess the villain. Now, let’s look at Iron Man 3. The audience is led to believe that the Mandarin is the threat because of an effective marketing strategy. There was no deception. Then, during the course of the movie, we get a major twist about the Mandarin. Now, I feel the real threat of the film could have been stronger, but it worked overall.

171. Elias Javalis - May 19, 2013

169,

Agreed, tell you the truth its a tiny bit of a let down for US number. On the other hand If Paramount’s strategy is to bring in more Audience’s overseas its certainly happening!

172. naHQun - May 19, 2013

So I’m slightly confused on if my tickets count towards “opening weekend”.

I got an e-mail from my theater on Sunday, May 12th that tickets were on sale for Wednesday the 15th.

So I saw what I considered to be Opening Night Wednesday tickets.
It was IMAX 3D and it was packed.

I then saw it again on Thursday.

I personally paid for 4 tickets; and was with a group of friends each time.

Are we being counted for the weekend numbers?
Or does seeing it on Wednesday and Thursday somehow not count?

173. I'mPaul - May 19, 2013

It’s really still too early too tell in my mind. They canablized their opening by moving it back a day. That was foolish. It made the opening look small. The midnight premiere was barely there and the Friday Audience was stretched across Thursday too.

It might shape up just fine. Saturday is the big day anyway.

174. Picard, Jean-Luc - May 19, 2013

What the frack is everyone worried about, Paramount estimated at the very beginning this movie was on track to put in around $80 million and oh look it is!

This movie is a massive hit overseas and that’s where these studio’s make their money. Despite many Americans believing the US is the centre of the world. Summer blockbusters make their money abroad and Into Darkness is making a ton of money abroad. $75 million is HUGE compared to the 2009 movie.

There will be a 3rd movie, Star Trek is very much alive and Into Darkness is doing fine.

All this worry is just irrational fan-boy nonsense.

At the end of the day, Star Trek Into Darkness will make a sh*t load of money and the studio will be happy.

175. flake - May 19, 2013

Paramount predicted 80-100m for the 4 day and it might end up 65-75m for the 4 day. Its a huge disappointment. Next weeks openers will take a lot of business away from Trek and it’ll drop like a rock. It might not get to $200m so its almost a disaster, the only thing preventing a disaster at the moment is the overseas numbers. Fingers crossed it at least makes it to $150/$250m so Paramount will hopefully greenlight a sequel with a lower budget at a less crowded time of year. Film it with 3D cameras, no IMAX. This will reduce the cost because they had to pay out extra to make a 3D post-conversion just to indulge JJ Abrams unwillingness to use a 3D camera.

The upside to all of this is the overseas! Its a miracle if it makes more overseas than in the USA however this might mean the next movie is even more action oriented and even less Trek because thats how they have marketed it overseas..

176. Disinvited - May 19, 2013

#166. AJ – May 19, 2013

THE WRAP’s reporting is a little off, Since 2006, Paramount licenses new TREK movie making rights from CBS. Paramount retains rights to their Trek film library of previously made movies. My point being CBS gets a piece of the action in all new Trek films.

Moonves (CBS) views himself as having been wrongfully denied the throne of a major motion picture studio (Paramount) by interoffice conniving weasels…err….politics. He wants Paramount to be in a weakened position to force a remerger with him at the head. However, if Disney could provide him with the means to make his CBS budget motion picture division into a motion picture studio that could rival Paramount, I don’t doubt for a second that he’d sell Trek.

Trouble is, Disney doesn’t have any plans to develop INDIANA JONES for the nonce, and I can’t see them looking to acquire more property until they get their Marvel & Lucas ducks all in a row.

177. Exverlobter - May 19, 2013

Well i saw Into Darkness 3 times now, so personally i did enough to support it by now.

178. Well, there ya go... - May 19, 2013

I saw Into Darkness two times now. I’m done supporting it.
It is a good movie but I think they lost the heart and soul of Star rek.
In this day and age where people genuinely do go to the cinema for a form of an escape from the tough reality of our times, the Star Trek franchise has one important element that could make it a huge, massive success with every member of the public…trekkie and non-trekkie.
Where was the hope? Where was the optimism?
I think if the writers capitalised on these elements these numbers would be higher.
These figures are fine though. I think Paramount might be disappointed somewhat, but not concerned.
I’m not disappointed. The fact that it has been a four year gap makes it completely understandable.
Frankly, this film is aimed at non-trekkies first and fore-most. 4 years is too long to expect regular folk to still be as interested after the success of 2009′s Star Trek.

179. Exverlobter - May 19, 2013

I am not surprised. Competition is huge this year.
Iron Man 3 which is basically this years Avengers, The Great Gatsby which performed much better than expected and Fast and Furious 6 which became after a phase of boxofficie weakness with the 3rd part, a respectible franchise again.
In 2009 Star Trek benefitted from the weak performances of Terminator Salvation and Wolverine. This year the situation is much more competitive.

180. William Bradley - May 19, 2013

Well, we’ll see soon enough just how far off the projections STID is …

181. VOODOO - May 19, 2013

I can only speak for myself, but when ST 09 came out and I knew that Leonard Nimoy would have a major part in the film peaked my interest. For whatever reason I just wasn’t as excited about this film compared to the last one and I loved ST 09.

Not to take anything away from the new cast as I think they are fantastic. That said the originals will always be the best…Mr Nimoy brought a certain gravitas to ST 09 that the new film lacked…just my two cents.

182. spiked canon - May 19, 2013

178 spot on

183. chrisfawkes.com - May 19, 2013

What percentage does word of mouth account for?

The reason I ask is that hearing that the film was a copy of Wrath of Khan makes people come to a snap judgement even if the person passing on that information is excited about the film.

I know it was not a remake, just some scenes were the same but that is not how people will articulate it when passing on their thoughts.

When I heard it was Khan my gut sank, when I saw the film it was so good I did not care. Many people won’t get to the cinema once they think the movie is just a rehash.

I wonder if the four year gap was too much as well.

I was a youth worker for many years and back in 95 I was approached by a group of churches that could not get more than 30 kids along to their summer camping program.

I gave them some tips but made the point that no matter how good a time they could give these kids that running a camp with 12 months in between was going to negate any good vibes they had created.

They implemented a winter camp and by the following summer they had over 100 kids. Inside of two years they had to rent another property as they could only house 150 people on their own property.

I know the scales here are massively different but I am not sure that the philosophy is any different.

Is there a way to get these films out with less time frame in between. Could another writing team be asked to have something out that could be ready within two years while the current team work on something for 2016.

Even if the films were shot back to back.

Alternatively could there be a yearly telemovie made with the current cast?

Something to build on the vibe already created.

184. chrisfawkes.com - May 19, 2013

@ 178 “Where was the hope? Where was the optimism?”

You must have seen a totally different film to the one I did. Kirks speech at the end was a terrific payoff to a film that brought all of this into focus.

185. Adam C - May 19, 2013

3D KILLED IT!

watched in IMAX 3D and once in 2D

186. Spock's Bangs - May 19, 2013

#174 – “There will be a 3rd movie, Star Trek is very much alive and Into Darkness is doing fine.

All this worry is just irrational fan-boy nonsense.”

Yep. No worries, this is just a little fuel (VERY little fuel) to feed the hater’s fantasy that JJ’s Trek is failing. The opening weekend is outperforming 2009 and it’s a success overseas. There will be a JJ produced Trek to celebrate the 50th anniversary in 2016, you can bank on it.

187. mr. thomas - May 19, 2013

AS written above, the movie still has´nt opened here in europe, and wont do before (In some european countries is has I know.) in the coming week and so on, so no need to rush thing.
I denmark in it wont open before the 6.of jube, and if i´m not wrong in others first in august, so despice low numbers(Cash-numbers) I hope w´ll get a third movie, because startek needs it.

188. Dr. lmage - May 19, 2013

On people of the opinion that this film an Iron Man 3 sucked: WHAT, I wonder, do you consider to be a GOOD movie?? TWOK? Get over it already.
Go back and watch it.
It has not aged well.

189. Robert - May 19, 2013

Let’s face it only Star Trek fans go to see it. For some reason the casual movie audience doesn’t go.

190. Check the Circuit - May 19, 2013

Since STID will fall short on domestic box office expectations, I’ll bet we see a shift in marketing strategy this week. Sure, there will be the usual “#1 movie in American” stuff. But since the mystery box approach didn’t fully deliver, I think we’ll see a Khan-centric campaign begin. “Captain Kirk’s greatest adversary returns!” That sort of thing. Maybe they’ll even use the clip with Leonard Nimoy laying that out. The “anti – mystery box.” Use whatever you can to attract the people that might have been taking a “wait and see” approach to this nuTrek.

191. Dismayed - May 19, 2013

I liked the movie a lot. I think it was a good popcorn flick and as a movie fan more than a Trek fan these days I think it works pretty well. If it doesn’t meet monetary expectations I think it can be blamed on a couple of things:

1. Four years is just too long. I barely remember the first movie and I’m a fan.

2. Marketing was bad. It’s like choosing the Joker for batman’s villain, the biggest most recognizable attention grabbing name in batman’s universe, and then not telling anyone he’s the villain. ????

3. 2009 was very charming because it was able to hit a sweet spot between nerdy and cool. Second half of ID I liked, but probably most non-fans would not and find way too nerdy.

4. Too much competition this time. IM3 trailers were getting 10x the YouTube views of ID leading up to this… Shouldn’t be a surprise.

5. Even I wasn’t all that jazzed about the movie going in because of my perception of it being super dark. It wasn’t, they got it just right, but that isn’t what I got from the marketing or the name. I and I think the casual fans liked 2009 and super hero movies because they are light hearted escapist events, which I think in today’s actually dark world most people are looking for. Not being able to reveal the villain’s identity meant constantly referring to him as a terrorist in the press junkets… Which was a turn off. So again bad marketing.

192. Lord Garth - May 19, 2013

“Strike while the iron is hot”, as one poster said, seems to make sense. However, there was a 4 year wait between Bond films, and “Skyfall” made over a billion dollars worldwide. Also “Skyfall” came after a previous entry that is widely considered to be one of the lesser Bond films. I think for whatever reason, “the bloom is off the rose” and “STID” is just not the big event that “ST09″ was. I also saw the ’09 film 5 times in theatres. This one I saw twice, the second time only because a friend needed someone to go with. It was good but I will not be seeing it again.

193. Toby - May 19, 2013

Just been reading a thread over on TrekBBS, someone on there is saying that the saturday figures are up 25% on Friday, been scouring the net for evidence and can’t find any. Clutching at straws I believe is the phrase

194. Toby - May 19, 2013

In fact this source is from Box Office Guru on Twitter

195. Lord Garth - May 19, 2013

That site is now saying $70.6 million for Fri-Sun and a total of $84.1 million Wed-Sun. Underwhelming.

196. Davey - May 19, 2013

I’m a big fan and haven’t even seen it yet due to other commitments so maybe it will have some box office legs. Still after all the comparisons between Batman Begins and The Dark Night, anything less than at least a modest worldwide box office has to be seen as a failure.

197. Al - May 19, 2013

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/05/19/weekend-box-office-star-trek-into-darkness-opens-with-just-84-million/

198. smike - May 19, 2013

@195: Yeah, totally underwhelming but as I’ve said. They had it coming. I loved the character moments and the visuals but the story and the “science” behind that movie were so poor it turns films like GEN and NEM into logically sound masterpieces.
Plus it simply made no sense to keep Khan’s identity a secret… if you want an iconic Trek villain to make a difference marketing-wise, why keeping it back?

I guess, the film won’t reach $200 million that easily. It’s what I’ve been saying for weeks now. If ST09 hadn’t been such a HUGE B.O. surprise, we wouldn’t consider calling this a failure. $150 million + should not be considered a financial failure for this franchise.

It used to be different. But then, they hadn’t spent $190 million on those films back then… They should have never considered this a true summer blockbuster tentpole and cut back the budget to $120 million. That’s more than enough to make a worthwhile Trek film…

199. smike - May 19, 2013

@197:

“In short, why pick a villain purely because he is recognizable to more general audience Star Trek fans and then hide his presence in the marketing?” (www.forbes.com)

Wow, so I’m not the only one who had that thought…

200. Trekbilly - May 19, 2013

This is a MUCH better film than the 2009 Trek film and deserves to do better. I firmly believe though that if this doesn’t perform well, it will be because they waited TOO LONG to release this!! 4 years between films is unacceptable. The studio/team squandered the opportunity to strike while the iron was hot after Trek 09.

I really think that’s the crux of the problem. Too much time has passed and the general population has moved on to other things…it also didn’t help that they kept a lid on this film for so long and didn’t promote it as they should have until it was way too late! And don’t tell me Iron Man 3 is what hurt the domestic returns…I won’t buy it. It’s about the right marketing strategy and at the right TIME. This film should have come out two years ago!!

Again, it’s a real shame because this is a MUCH better film than Trek 09. Now, I hope Paramount doesn’t have a post TMP-style knee jerk reaction if it fails to meet their expectations with regard to box office. My recommendation to them would be to stay the course and go right back in — right away — and get a film prepped for the 50th anniversary! Go all out and start hyping the anniversary NOW.

http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-3d-opens-to-2m-late-night-and-imax/

201. smike - May 19, 2013

I guess it’s as simple as that:

STID is simply not our Dark Knight, Skyfall or Avatar…It’s Prometheus, X-Men: First Class or Rise of the Planet of the Apes…a moderate success at best, that may or may not break even prior to home video marketing.

202. Mitchell - May 19, 2013

@188. Dr. lmage:
The Wrath of Khan holds up better than any movie since. Including the last two.

Watching The Wrath of Khan with netflix in HD on my flat screen blew me away.

203. smike - May 19, 2013

@200: Totally agree!!! They have wasted two years for no reason… STID didn’t become a bigger B.O. hit that way… almost all the successful blockbuster franchises have a much higher output rate… Harry Potter came out about every 18 months, LOTR/Hobbit annually, Twilight annually, the Avengers-related films come out twice a year and even Paramount’s Transformers street every two years. Same with Fast’n’Furious…

Waiting KILLS franchises. It has never worked so far…not for the last two Terminator pics, not for Alien, not for Jurassic Park… It’s an urban myth long gaps inbetween movies create a certain anticipation that helps to boost B.O. performances. It seldom turns out that way. Most of the time, it’s hard to ignite any mass interest after such a long hiatus.

204. Colin - May 19, 2013

JJ Abrams settled on a formula for this franchise with the first film. Some of the elements included:
* the film would be an admixture of Star Wars and Star Trek
* science gets in the way of story, so minimize the science
* people relate to what looks real, so film in real world locations that can pass for locations on Earth and on board the Enterprise
* throw in some homages to Classic Trek to please the fans

The above is some of what I got from watching the documentaries included with the blu-ray release of the first film. Watch them yourself. They are very informative.

Paramount created focus groups overseas in an effort at determining what will work and what will not work. So, this film is partially a focus group driven movie.

Personally, I think that a pure Star Trek film is dead. The people who matter the most – the overseas audience – aren’t interested in Star Trek. They want action-adventure stories that they can understand. Think about that for a moment. Consider how many different cultures a film has to be made for, and what this does with the freedom of writers to craft and write a story. If there is a third film, I believe that it will be even further removed from Trek than the current film.

From what I am reading, many fans are happy with this film. I think this same group will be happy with the next film. For those of us in the minority, I am concerned about alienation and ostracism. I am seeing those who like this film being hypercritical of those who disagree. They are labeling those who disagree as “extreme fans”, as “whiners”, and other ugly epithets. This is a classic tactic by the majority to marginalize those who have differing opinions.

205. Actual - May 19, 2013

I’m sorry but I completely disagree with the people saying STID is better than Trek09. I’m not sure we watched the same movie.

Trek09 was a fantastic movie just what the franchise needed to renew itself. It was original, yet familiar. Lots at stake, yet adventurous in tone. Respectful to cannon, yet not afraid to take risks (YOU BLEW UP VULCAN???!!!)

STID was nothing more than great VFX, wrapped around an obvious plot seen from a mile away, an over-hyped villain with people mistaking OTT acting for good acting, and ultimately falling back on cliche and rip offs of previous Treks (ST2 death scene, the big bad black ship).

I just hope that in a few months, when the excitement of seeing the Enterprise/ST Universe with such amazing VFX has passed, people will look objectively at STID and realize that story wise, it really isn’t that good.

By the way, LAUGHING at all the people who voted STID as the best Trek movie ever. Seriously?

206. JimJ - May 19, 2013

My prediction is $465 million worldwide.

207. Exverlobter - May 19, 2013

I’ve read the Forbes article and it pisses me off that nowadays just after 3-4 days a film is already labelled as succes/flop.

Remember Titanic? When it made about 20 Million dollars in its first week, on a 200 million dollar budget. And everybody was expecting that it’s gonna destroy the studio? But then it got bigger and bigger.
Well guess what, sometimes you’ll have to give things some time. We all know how that turned out for Titanic!

208. Trekbilly - May 19, 2013

I was surprised at how empty the theater was when I say it Friday evening. It wasn’t even half full. I’ll do my part and go see it again. My wife wasn’t able to see it Friday, so that’s another ticket too.

Also, I think releasing movies on a THURSDAY is dumb! No one goes to the movies on Thursdays and this isn’t Star Wars. Most people aren’t going to go see a Star Trek movie on a Wednesday or Thursday — those are nights before a work day for most people.

The marketing and promotion of this film was handled in a completely ASININE way. A lot late, yes…but this should have been promoted earlier and why keep Khans identity a secret? I think they pissed a lot of fans off by making the villain Khan. I myself was miffed and only Cumberbatch’s performance made me give the decision the benefit of the doubt. But I’d have much rather seen the Gorn as the villain or hell, even Gary Mitchell…

THAT and the fact that they waited too long to release this.

They just did.

209. Trekbilly - May 19, 2013

“Waiting KILLS franchises. It has never worked so far…not for the last two Terminator pics, not for Alien, not for Jurassic Park… It’s an urban myth long gaps inbetween movies create a certain anticipation that helps to boost B.O. performances. It seldom turns out that way. Most of the time, it’s hard to ignite any mass interest after such a long hiatus.’

A to the MEN!!! I really think that’s the problem.

210. Trekbilly - May 19, 2013

“From what I am reading, many fans are happy with this film. I think this same group will be happy with the next film. For those of us in the minority, I am concerned about alienation and ostracism. I am seeing those who like this film being hypercritical of those who disagree. They are labeling those who disagree as “extreme fans”, as “whiners”, and other ugly epithets. This is a classic tactic by the majority to marginalize those who have differing opinions.”

I’m happy with it in the context of what the filmmakers intended it to be. Now, having said that, yes — I’d love for Trek to get back to it’s TOS roots and tell those kinds of stories. But if you look at the trend in films, ALL of them now are what I call “spectacle” films. Everything is big, blown up and hyper action.

I’d love to see stories like those told in TOS or even TMP again…but I don’t think that will happen unless it’s back on TV.

And I’m with many of you here — I hope TOS does return to TV where it belongs.

211. Exverlobter - May 19, 2013

208. Trekbilly
“A lot late, yes…but this should have been promoted earlier and why keep Khans identity a secret? ”

Where does this myth come from, that reveiling a villain will turn on huge mainstream-masses? Most of regular people do not even know who Khan is. Remember, The Wrath of Khan is friggin 30! years old. Aside from the fans nobody remembers that film.

Nobody goes to the film “just to see Khan”.
BTW, i also think that Cumberbatch would have been a better Gary Mitchell instead of Khan.

212. Trekbilly - May 19, 2013

#205 — I sure had my problems with STID too. The “death of Kirk” scene was way too much and just a re-tread. Khan was NOT what I wanted to see.
And there’s no way in hell, I’d say STID is the best Trek film ever. Wrath of Khan remains that for me.

But, I enjoyed it as a film…and as an action film. I did enjoy the character moments and Cumberbatch in that role. I thought his performance was terrifying and very effective.

The film is worth seeing just to see his performance.

But best Trek film ever?

No.

213. smike - May 19, 2013

@204:

“They want action-adventure stories that they can understand.”

But that’s exactly the OPPOSITE of what STID did. The story / plot was incomprehensive for both fans and general audiences. The torpedo subplot made no sense at all. They had worked for years on that script and yet the plot doesn’t make any sense…*sigh*

The action was fine, the acting also, the score, the overall feel of it…but the plot was all over the place… being a nuissance for both fans and general movie goers…

“By the way, LAUGHING at all the people who voted STID as the best Trek movie ever. Seriously?”

You’re so right. It’s not even close to any of the truly best Trek pictures so far…TMP, TWOK, TVH, TUC, FC and ST09 are far superior…

I don’t hate the film, because there were so many wonderful elements…it’s quite similar to TFF… wonderful character moments and a certain sense of adventure. but a story almost nobody cared about…

It felt so odd when JJ and crew promised that this movie would be “bigger”, upping the ante and stuff… I had wondered if that was even a remote possibility after ST09 had created a new reality, blown up Vulcan, half the fleet and almost Earth… Of course NOT. There was no real sense of threat in this one.

What was at stake? A war with the Klingons? So be it. We had the Xindi incident, the Dominion War, the Borg… didn’t feel that much of a threat after having lost Vulcan and almost its entire population… This movie did NOT up the ante at all. It actually wasn’t even going “into darkness”… It was an entertaining, somewhat frantic retreat of familiar elements, boldly going where this crew had gone before….a bit of eye-candy and humor, a somewhat forgettable popcorn flick…

I wouldn’t watch this one 14 times like with ST09…I’ve seen it three times so far, a fourth time would be nice but only if it becomes available in 2D in our area…

214. Trekbilly - May 19, 2013

#211 — Oh, I’m not saying that that in and of itself would have made a difference…but from the trailers it looks like an out of control Starfleet officer movie. LOL!! I don’t think that would bring them in.

I agree that Cumberbatch would have made an excellent Mitchell…too bad we didn’t get to see that. But I thought he was very effective as Joachim….lol

As even Orci says, there’s nothing to say he was really Khan. He doesn’t have any resemblence to Khan…

215. saavik001 - May 19, 2013

I would have liked to see another year of Enterprise than this bloated, plagiaristic monstrosity of a film…

216. chrisfawkes.com - May 19, 2013

Another thought.

I wonder how many non trekkies will see it next week to avoid all the embarrassing laughter at any slight in joke in the movie by the rabid fans.

Trekkies can be totally cringeworthy the way they behave in a theatre.

217. Trekbilly - May 19, 2013

What I thought was weird is that THOUSANDS and thousands of people probably died in the crash of the Vengeance and no one said a word about it!! LMAO!!!

That would have been far far worse than 9/11!!!!

And no one said a word about it in this film! I mean the damned ship pretty much leveled downtown San Francisco!!! LOL!!

And all they cared about was getting Khan! HAHAHA!!

218. Trekbilly - May 19, 2013

And what happened to the notion (as presented in TMP) that when a starship blows up or crashes it’s a HUGE deal!!! We are talking about matter and antimatter coming together!! It’s NOT a fireworks explosion, ok?! LOL!! But, whenever we see starships explode in these movies it’s like a gasoline fire or something…lol…

A Federation starship crashing on Earth would probably create at least a CRATER from the matter/antimatter explosion!

219. Exverlobter - May 19, 2013

@217
This annoyed me as well. And almost nobody adresses that.
THat image is pretty much frightening, but it is played for blockbuster-exploitation purposes.
Pretty much inappropriate.

220. William Bradley - May 19, 2013

Hey, San Francisco is only the city I was born in!

And the headquarters of Starfleet and the foundation of the Federation. ‘

Why worry?

Not to mention what the tidal wave from that humongous ship hitting San Francisco Bay would do to the rest of the cities in the Bay Area.

221. Ahmed - May 19, 2013

@ 186. Spock’s Bangs – May 19, 2013

“Yep. No worries, this is just a little fuel (VERY little fuel) to feed the hater’s fantasy that JJ’s Trek is failing. The opening weekend is outperforming 2009 and it’s a success overseas.”

Wrong, the movie is under-performing domestically:

The first Star Trek earned $79.5 million in its first 3.25 days, a number that would be about $84 million adjusted for inflation and around $95 million when accounting for this film’s 3D bump. There is no way around it, Star Trek Into Darkness pulled in fewer ticket buyers than the 2009 Star Trek.
For the record, I do not want to scream “FLOP” over a $82 million four-day gross and potentially lucrative overseas final results, but this is indeed a case where a rather large opening can be considered a ‘disappointment’ in relation to realistic expectations and/or budgetary demands. Four years ago, we all thought that Star Trek 2 was a lock for one of the bigger opening weekends on record. Today, we’re wondering if it will even top $200 million domestic.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/05/19/weekend-box-office-star-trek-into-darkness-opens-with-just-84-million/

222. Exverlobter - May 19, 2013

BTW, does Khan really say
“You should have let me sleep!” in the original english version to Admiral Marcus?
That sounds totally hilarious!
In the german version they translated the sentence with
“You should not have awaken me” which sounds better because You should have let me sleep” sounds as if Khan has got a bad hangover, lol

223. HubcapDave - May 19, 2013

@221

Check out this site: http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=15910

Interesting fact that I did not realize, and they point out, is that this weekend has been a disappointment for opening movies going back 5 years now. They lay a lot of the blame at Paramount’s feet for choosing this weekend, and jimmy-jacking around with the opening day.

224. Mr Trumpywumpy - May 19, 2013

102 – that’s an idiotic thing to say. Anyone that sees the movie once at the cinema is supporting it, we should not have to see it 5 times so that it can be considered a success. I have seen it once on the cinema, it was okay, Not brilliant to be honest, JJ’s direction was a little too fast paced for my liking and the story a bit too predictable and unbelievable. Nevertheless, there was aspects that I enjoyed and I will buy it when it’s released on bluray. I just can’t see me going back to the cinema to watch it again so I guess this makes me bitter and twisted.

225. Michael Hall - May 19, 2013

“To quote Gladiator “The mob is Fickle.”

Yeah, pretty much. I always took issue with those who claimed, in response to critics like myself, that J.J. Abrams “saved” Star Trek in 2009. That’s an obvious conclusion based on a solid (if not spectacular) box-office success inspired by a TV/film franchise that many had written-off for dead, but that doesn’t make it true. In fact, Abrams did no such thing. He directed a fun, summer popcorn tentpole film that made money, but primarily because it was pitched to an audience that appreciated its energy and verve, not because it was Star Trek. The future viability of the franchise will now always depend on the qualities of the movie itself, its competition upon release, and a host of other factors. Except for a relatively few diehards like those who post on this site, brand loyalty to the Trek name in and of itself is over. And while I’m not certain if that situation is correctable–or even if it should be–I would suggest to Paramount that the current strategy of offering audiences ever-bigger bangs for their moviegoing bucks, like a drug addict who must take doses in larger quantities to get his fix, might not be the best possible business model for Trek in the long run. Just my 2 cents (and probably not worth much more than that; as William Goldman once famously said about the movie business, no one knows anything).

226. Ahmed - May 19, 2013

@223

Clearly Paramount made a mistake when they choose that weekend & the bigger mistake was when they allowed the movie to be release 4 years after the first one.
Not to mention the super secrecy that surrounded the movie like it is some kind of top government project of something.

227. Antimatter - May 19, 2013

I haven’t seen it and doubt I will. The plot turned me off.

228. Exverlobter - May 19, 2013

@226
Well the movie was so predictable that it was actually good that some mysterys were not revealed prematurely.

229. Penguin44 - May 19, 2013

Most theatres here are dead as it’s a long weekend. Not just a long weekend but the first cottage weekend of the year. Im3 and all others are empty. I’m sure it will be back to full Tuesday and more importantly people will see it.

230. flywithsean - May 19, 2013

Ya know Avatar only made $77 Million on opening weekend.

I know this ain’t Avatar but just sayin

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=avatar.htm

231. WyoTrek - May 19, 2013

So I saw a TV spot for the movie last night with the crew as pop-up book characters. Did anybody else see that? Pretty weird marketing.

232. Dennis C - May 19, 2013

The numbers are in:

Weekend: 70.6 million

Five day: 84 million

Opening weekend in 2009 was $75 million without inflated 3D and IMAX 3D prices boosting the numbers.

The four year gap between films will likely be discussed at Paramount as a contributing factor in deflated returns. Working around JJ’s schedule instead of keeping to the studio’s is something you likely won’t see repeated again anytime soon.

233. Picard, Jean-Luc - May 19, 2013

@230

The thing about Avatar is that it had nothing but Tron Legacy opening around the time it opened and even less opening after it so it was bound to do well because there was nothing else on. Had Into Darkness released in a dead month for cinemas we’d have been looking at huge numbers because the Star Trek brand is established.

I think Paramount had no choice but to release it this weekend in the US. release it too early and you hit Iron Man 3, release it too late and you either hit the more mainstream movies Fast & Furious 6 or Hangover III and then Man of Steel and Pacific Rim.

This year is just way too full of big movies trying to get the same audiences.

234. Picard, Jean-Luc - May 19, 2013

I think Paramount will be a little disappointed that they’ve not made more money but hopefully they’ll be looking at the really hugely encouraging international numbers and also looking long term domestically and thinking that between now and Man of Steel they could make over $200 million.

I’d assume that Fast & Furious 6 and hangover Part III will knock Star Trek back to 2nd and 3rd place but who knows. Star Trek Into Darkness isn’t a bad movie and hasn’t been reviewed as one so I don’t really understand why it wouldn’t make over $200 million unless hard truth time: the 2009 movie was a fluke and the Star Trek brand has still got a stigma attached to it that is so intrenched within its reputation with mainstream movie-goers that a sequel was just not that interesting to them.

235. LostOnNCC1701 - May 19, 2013

So, wait, Star Trek Into Darkness is a “big” success but not a “super-duper runaway better-than-part-one” success, so now some people are honestly worried that this could be the “end of Trek” (this is, what, the third or fourth time this has been declared?)

That is completely ridiculous, especially when you consider how well the overseas has done.

And as for how STID goes against the “soul” of Trek: few of the ST movies have actually been about exploration, hope and optimism. Picard even made a quip about it in Insurrection about how they are supposed to be explorers.

236. MikeB - May 19, 2013

Paramount should forget trying force Trek to be their big summer tentpole and release these when they could dominate. If this film had come out this past Christmas there would have been absolutely no competition and it would have made a mint.

As for this weekend – my wife pointed out that it’s a big graduation weekend. Many potential viewers are doing other things. When I went Friday night the theater was deserted. Again, a bad choice to release the film this weekend. With luck and good word of mouth hopefully ticket sales will rebound during the week.

Support Trek. Go see the film again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

237. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 19, 2013

smike – “The story / plot was incomprehensive for both fans and general audiences. The torpedo subplot made no sense at all. They had worked for years on that script and yet the plot doesn’t make any sense…*sigh*

The action was fine, the acting also, the score, the overall feel of it…but the plot was all over the place… being a nuissance for both fans and general movie goers…

… wonderful character moments and a certain sense of adventure. but a story almost nobody cared about…”

Really? Plot/story incomprehensible (which is the correct word, btw) for fans and general audiences? You know that for a fact, do you? Which fans, I wonder? It seems that many people posting here did comprehend the story fairly well and did not find the plot a nuisance.

Please refrain from speaking for other fans and general audiences. You certainly do NOT speak for me!

238. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 19, 2013

STID does not go against the “soul” of Star Trek. By the end of the movie, the “soul” of Star Trek was restored.

The third movie must be about genuine PEACEFUL exploration. Let the cosmos’s natural forces (large and small) be the adversary…

239. Theatre Historian - May 19, 2013

Just makes me a bit sad that the movie is under-performing
especially with the higher 3D and IMAX ticket prices.
Not to mention the A cinemascore grade.

not a single show sold out at the Vista, Arclight Hollywood, or Universal Citywalk yesterday.

At least the international rollout has payed off for getting bigger interest in the series. fingers crossed that the final International gross combined with the Domestic will be enough to get us another film,

I will be going and seeing it atleast 1 more time (but its a free screening at the paramount lot latter this month for local residents of the city of Hollywood who support Parmount Pictures Hollywood Project. so no admission price to go towards box office.)

240. Exverlobter - May 19, 2013

@ 238 Keachick
“The third movie must be about genuine PEACEFUL exploration. Let the cosmos’s natural forces (large and small) be the adversary…”

There was actually just one movie of all the 12 that was truely about “peaceful” exploration, and that was the Voyage home with the whales. All the other ones had pretty much kind of blowing stuff up storylines in it.

241. Trekbilly - May 19, 2013

#219, 220 –

That scene felt like a scene from a Godzilla movie. LOL!

Surely, they didn’t have time to evacuate the city before the Vengeance came down!

242. Picard, Jean-Luc - May 19, 2013

it was a brilliant movie, great story, had the spirit and heart of Star Trek at it’s core and was the most Star Trekky I think of all the movies, it embraced Star Trek on an enormous scale whilst many other Star Trek films have either tried to be too much for the fans or too much for the pop-corn loving audiences, this I think struck a balance between being hugely loyal to Star Trek’s message of optimism whilst appealing to the emotions of the casual moviegoer.

How this movie hasn’t made over $100 million is more likely to do with when and how it was released because it’s certainly a better movie than most summer blockbusters and a better Star Trek movie than most.

This isn’t a creativity issue, Abrams and Co were burning on all thrusters with Into Darkness, I found it to be a pleasing improvement and continuation on the 2009 movie.

I don’t like how many here are spelling doom and gloom because of finance and money. It didn’t make as much as it was expected to make but actually it’s done better than expected overseas and in the US it’s made a solid start over what’s appearing to be a hard weekend for movies in general. Hopefully within the 3 week’s it has before Man of Steel with only FF6 and The Hangover III to compete with, it will make more than it’s expected to make.

Although FF6 will do well I can’t see The Hangover Part III doing all that well and both are films from franchises that should have died a long time ago. Trek should hold its own before Man of Steel.

243. Theatre Historian - May 19, 2013

Keachick,
Its pretty obvious that Into Darkness is setting up a Huge war with the Klingon Empire.
Sure i will probably feature a bit of exploration in a manner like Into Darkness’s opening scene, but I am willing to bet that War with the Klingons will be the focus of the next film.
That being said with it being the 3rd film of this new series who should play the new versions of ST TFS klingons played by christopher Lloyd and John Lauraquette lol :) I kid I kid.

My hope is that we see Kang Korr and Koloth. Or would love to see Kirk and enterprise go up against a much younger General Chang from VI, or even General Korrd from final Frontier.
Say what you will about STV(personally I loved it) but I think it would be bad a$$ to see General Korrd in his prime in battle against the enterprise.And dont forget his military stratagies in the prime universe were required reading in the Academy. )

244. Josh C. - May 19, 2013

Back from seeing it a 2nd time. Went to the 12:40 2D show and while it wasn’t sold out, it was probably 80 to 85% full, which I hope is a good omen for an early Sunday show.

I see that it bounced back some on Saturday, which hopefully means the weekend is salvageable for it.

245. Trekbilly - May 19, 2013

Let the Doomsday Machine be the adversary…HAHAHA!!!

246. Theatre Historian - May 19, 2013

242 both Fast and Furious 6 and Hang over Part III are tracking very high
and Both have been getting excellent word of mouth around the city from the press screenings being done over the past few weeks.

I just don’t see how it will be possible for Into Darkness to be #1 next week, especially when you factor in the typical 50-65% drop first to second weekend for genre films. your most likely looking at 30-35 million next weekend plus a couple million per day on weekdays.

The movie will make its money back there is no question about that, but its not going to be doing even the same Business as ST 09 which is ashame.

But again That international roll out has paid off so there is hope.

247. USSEXETER - May 19, 2013

Ok just got back from a Sunday 10:40am start thinking it wouldn’t be packed that time of day, boy was I wrong. The theatre was 90% full, yeah for Trek ticket sales.

248. Mitchell - May 19, 2013

more from Yahoo
http://news.yahoo.com/trek-does-70-6m-falls-162559030.html

249. Josh C. - May 19, 2013

247 – sounds like you and I had similar experiences this morning

250. Michael Hall - May 19, 2013

Missing your original target opening by three million dollars or so on a film of this scale doesn’t strike me, and I doubt it will Paramount, as much of a catastrophe. Given the expectations and the pretty positive notices my guess is the shortfall will be the cause for some mild disappointment and a little soul-searching about everything from storylines to opening dates, but that’s it. With the stronger foreign take and all the ways these days that a film can continue to make money long after leaving the theatre, INTO DARKNESS will eventually turn a profit even if it declines considerably next weekend. A third Abrams film will certainly happen, and probably in time for the 50th anniversary. The only real open question is the budget, and since I believe art thrives on restrictions and that eye candy should never be used as a storytelling crutch in any case, a reduced budget would not only have saved the poor citizens of San Francisco some real grief but may well be in the franchise’s long-term best interest.

251. Gary Makin - May 19, 2013

To put things in perspective: Into Darkness has made more money in its first four days than Die Hard 5 did in its entire domestic run.

Into Darkness also opened to slightly less than Univeral’s biggest ever opening in the UK with Fast and Furious 6.

I think Abrams and company should have a little less action in the next one, and Paramount should produce it for no more or less than $150m.

252. Allenburch - May 19, 2013

I’m sooo not worried about this opening weekend results. It’s obviously being favored by the audience and word-of-mouth is giving STID legs. Epic will probably grab next weekend but I wont be surprised if Into Darkness beats F&F for No. 2 next weekend.

253. Devon - May 19, 2013

I swear some people sound like they need to be put on suicide watch. The film is doing fine. Yes, below what we were hoping, but it’s not a “flop” either. What if the legs of the film pushes to $300 million domestic? Then all will be fine.

Having said that, I certainly think that this film is one or two years overdue and “Striking while the iron’s hot’ was certainly no truer than the case of ST09.

254. Philip - May 19, 2013

I agree, not even a full week in release and people are saying it’s over. Just shows you the kind of culture we live in now. If it doesn’t get “done” today, it’s not good enough. Everything has to be immediate gratification, with no room for build up in the success department.

That goes for movies, relationships, and various other things that attention spans have gone bye bye for.

255. Exverlobter - May 19, 2013

@254
Exactly.
FOr example i havent seen Iron Man 3 yet, i’ll watch it next week. There is still some potential at the box office after the first week.

256. Dennis C - May 19, 2013

@250

Star Trek movies always turn a profit eventually but a more likely scenario is breaking even on this one if we’re looking at the typical 45% drop in revenue for week 2. By the time Man of Steel hits in June Star Trek could be hovering around $200 million in the U.S. A nice number but on a $180 million budget not what they were hoping for in the U.S.

And breaking even is subjective since theater owners, Skydance and Imax all get a cut of that final number. Safe bet is that the next movie will ne produced on a much smaller budget.

257. Al - May 19, 2013

I just talked to two friends that decided to see IM3 yesterday, but were thinking about STID. I asked why they decided IM3 and they said ID looked “silly.” With lower ID ticket sales, maybe the marketing mis-fired? Maybe 09 was a one-off? Really blame Thursday? Wouldnt people see it if they really wanted to anyway?

258. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 19, 2013

#243 – Unfortunately, with that comment and no doubt many similar following on, you will no doubt get your bloody Federation/Klingon war, with again, genuine exploration, which can also be exciting and thought provoking, being sidelined. Let the warmongering continue…:(

The producers/writers are reading all this… be careful what you wish for. After all, JJ and co. gave you Khan, even though many will whine on about it.

As for me, Benedict Cumberbatch is just fine as this Harrison/Khan…hehehe.

259. Flake - May 19, 2013

257: there loss because I have seen iron man 3 and I found myself bored mostly. It’s not as good as Into Darkness.

260. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 19, 2013

Lots of overseas countries have a Thursday movie start day…

261. Theatre Historian - May 19, 2013

254) I have worked in the Exhibition side of the industry for 19 years now, and yes it is a bit worriesome when a big budget sequel plays below expectations and doesnt even match the 3 day opening weekend numbers of the previous movies especially factoring in higher per screen ticket prices due to 3D and IMAX and on top of that more screens.

the 09 movie was selling out multiple shows in the big theatres (be they high capacity movie palaces or standard smaller seating capacity multiplexs) here in L.A. and your not seeing that with Into Darkness this weekend.

Based on what I personally have witnessed in my 20 years working for theatres
tomorrow it will most likely gross somewhere between 5-7 million tuesday 3-5 million, wed 2-4 millions thursday 900,000-2 million
then next weekend you will see a most likely 55 percent drop off for the weekend with a take of 30-35 milion

Don’t underestimate Fast and Furious 6 and Hangover 3 again both are tracking VERY HIGH and Both are getting great word of mouth from press screenings being held.

Now who knows perhaps its will take a smaller decline but to say that it shouldn’t be worriessome that Into Darkness is underperforming right now is just sticking your head in the sand.

And keep in mind that has no bearing on the qaulity of the film, there are a lot of really good movies great movies that peform under expectations.

I have no doubt that it will make its production budget back, but its definately even a bit worriesome

262. Gary Makin - May 19, 2013

Re: #218 – starships have always exploded like that in Star Trek. The crashing Enterprise in Generations didn’t explode or leave much of a crater. It just leveled trees like the Vengeance leveled buildings.

As for no one mentioning the people who died in San Francisco… Well, the movie was over. At least nobody made a joke about it, like Riker joking with Worf as people were dying during the space battle with the Borg in First Contact.

263. Theatre Historian - May 19, 2013

And I think the reason why you are seeing people worry is because we really want to see these movies continue to be churned out, we don’t want another almost 8 year wait like we had after Nemesis.

But I definately think the next film should target a Thanksgiving weekend release date. well thats my opinon anyways lol

264. Theatre Historian - May 19, 2013

258) Rose I don’t think very many wished for Khan.
I would say most just picked up on that it was going to him and accepted it.

I am sure you remember the somewhat vocal protestors of Khan on here over the last year or so.

Also there is no reason why exploration and a war scenario can not both take place in the film. And there can definately be a story that stimulates a lot of thinking and diplomacy in the midst of a huge war with the Klingons.
Think outside the box.

265. Marja - May 19, 2013

I loved the movie, all the performances were fantastic and the script emphasised telling the stories of characters. Kirk’s and Spock’s character arcs started on opposite sides to meet in the middle. Wonderful performances, powerful moments.

Yes, there was a lot of violence. Almost too much for me – but as long as they’re making movies for international audiences I have to accept it, or not attend. Not a chance of that.

They SHOULD HAVE OPENED IN DECEMBER. How stupid was that, to be so scared of a little Hobbit, which movie was not very good, bloated far beyond its story, but that’s by the by.

Many of us were expecting this movie in Summer 2012. Then Winter 2012/13. Then May 2013. I mean, WTF.

Okay, so I go to the movies about once a week. The poster for STID didn’t show up until mid-April. It was a wee little poster under glass like the other 20 posters in the lobby. Except this one was sort of in an alcove, like a shy little poster. Little to nothing to differentiate it or make it stand out. No eye-catching color. Grey and black and a tiny bit of orange and some brown, like a lot of other posters.

Nothing hinted at Star Trek except the Delta shape in the wreckage with Khan [his back to the viewer]. and maybe some small point type saying [squeak] star trek [loud voice] INTO DARKNESS. More dreary imagery to join all the other dreary imagery. It looked like yet another apocalyptic yawn of a movie. OK, I get it, they hated for people to think it was Trek, cos Trek is for nerds. So, fine – get the frikkin lobby cards out a month in advance like IM3 did! For god’s sake, there was a 6′ high stand-up card for IM3 in my movies’ lobby for 4 weeks before the movie opened. And, OH YEAH, Iron Man is dressed in his – gasp! – RED suit. Other colors featured as well, yellow, black, blue, and the concerned faces of Downey and Cheadle and Paltrow, with the enigmatic Pearce …

So two weeks before ST opened, they switched from apocalyptic Khan’s back ;) poster to Enterprise Descending poster. Also in the glass in the lobby in an alcove.

THE SUNDAY BEFORE THE MOVIE OPENED, May 12, there appeared by the “gate” where they take tickets a big poster in a lovely brushed-steel or aluminum stand, a pic of Enterprise being fired on by the giant dark Vengeance, an expensive looking and rather gorgeous stand, which should have been in that lobby about a month before.

Paramount should have announced MORE than a week in advance that they were adjusting the Wide Opening to 16 May. Stupid, stupid, stupid – and the ads were not any different to the ones that had said 17 May, except for that quick jot of an announcement at the end. The announcements should have had ‘THURSDAY MAY 16 – PREPARE TO GO INTO DARKNESS’ or something to really telegraph it, and then run the action sequences for the previews.

It’s like they couldn’t decide how to market the movie, and decided to copy Dark Knight Rises, then decided to go “full Enterprise” but be real shy about it.

So Paramount blows at marketing.

266. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 19, 2013

Who says that I am not thinking outside the square?

Movies showing violence and battles, wars are all over. Big armoured plated superheroes vanquishing the enemy or the enemy unable to be fully stunned by a futuristic phaser because of his “super blood”…Surely, thinking outside the square would be writing a different type of storyline/scenario.

Honestly, if people want to see battles, perhaps they should join their military armed forces and witness it for themselves, for real.

The thing I was one of the people who were vocal against there being a reiteration of Khan, but I guess how they played with the character and events was pretty good, from my point of view. It is possible that if the writers play with iconic Klingon characters and culture in a similar way and weave a good story around their inevitable war like nature, then I may well like that movie as well. However, I am not the only one who really thinks that the writers/producers need to move away from the constant war/violence scenario and not allow peaceful exploration to get sidelined. Instead of exploration taking a back seat to time spent dealing unto the warmongering Admiral Marcus and Harrison/Khan types, perhaps the more fun, interesting exploration could take a front seat, just once…

Also the impression that this more expansive, exploratory direction would occur was given at the end of the movie, with Captain Kirk’s speech, where he ended it by reciting the wonderful Star Trek mission statement!

267. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 19, 2013

As a general comment –

It would be nice if, for once, you did not have an actor giving so measured a response to the question of whether he might do a (semi) naked scene, but rather give an equally measured response if asked if he would be prepared to play a character who gets repeatedly punched and kicked or does so to some other poor sod.

It seems that so many actors (including Chris Pine) have no problem playing characters who dish out and/or receive brutal physical violence. Yet they are so coy about the idea of showing their human flesh in a natural setting perhaps or as part of a scene that has their character be loving and intimate. Do these people not think? It seems such hypocrisy, such lack of conscience – dare I say it…:(

I am sorry but I have to state it. This kind of stuff really bothers me.

268. I'm 'givin her all She's got Captain! - May 19, 2013

Long-time reader here, infrequent poster, but I wanted to weigh in on this story.

I do think STID is going to do well at the box office, and I wouldn’t necessarily put the burden upon this weekends numbers alone. Having said that, I believe there are also some things at work here that were not present in 2009. First, the economic considerations. Things certainly are much different today in 2013 than they were in ’09. In ’09, we had just come through the economic crash of ’08, but there were areas of the country (like my area in South Central PA) that hadn’t completely felt the entire affects of the downturn, so there were folks who still had a somewhat decent disposable income to draw from at that time. However, in the intervening 4 years, we’ve had the full affects of the downturn along with a few other things at work, not the least of which have been the price increases we’ve seen for EVERYTHING. At the end of ’08 in my area, gas prices were around $2.35. I don’t need to tell you how much they’ve gone up since. Costs have risen in every area, including entertainment. Which brings my to my next point.

There are a bunch of what look like great movies coming out this Summer, and not just this Summer, but this year. I myself will be seeing at least 5 movies this year, which is a high number for me. As a moviegoer, I am very selective in what I decide to go to the theater to see, and even more so when it comes to iMax. I did see STID in iMax. I have a family of 4, so given the cost to see a movie in iMax in 2013, it’s not an inexpensive venture. So as it is with anything else, it comes down to choice and competition. STID is a great flick, but as I said previously, there are also A LOT of other great flicks coming this year, so the competition for those entertainment dollars is stiff. And if you were expecting STID to outdraw Iron Man 3, I am afraid that’s unrealistic.

Which brings me to my 3rd point. Many have commented on the 4-year off-period between ST09 and this movie being an issue, and I agree that is also a factor. Love or hate the Marvel Cinematic Universe and it’s films, you cannot deny they have made a BOATLOAD of money. MCU has developed a formula that is working, and like Star Trek, it’s films have their rabid long-time fanbase (due to the comics), whose critics are just as equally vocal. From the various sites I visit for those movies, I can tell you there were many a fanboy who were displeased with the handling of the Mandarin in IM3.

But in spite of that, people are still flocking to see IM3. Why? Robert Downey Jr. People love him in the role and the love the character. And when you look at the Avengers movie, there is no denying that he was the glue. So what does Marvel do? They start Phase 2 with the next Iron Man installment because everyone wants to know, how would Stark handle the things that took place during that movie? From the overall standpoint of character development, marketing and strategy, you cannot deny that Marvel has put together an impressive financial juggernaut, and the fact that they are able to release a new AND different film every couple of years from within the same connected universe has paid huge dividends.

This is where I believe the 4-year “hiatus” was not beneficial to the Star Trek franchise, and I think this is a concern for Star Trek overall. As we all know, Star Trek has always been at it’s best in an episodic television format. As we all know, Gene started writing because he had stories he wanted to tell, ideas he wanted to share, and he did that through the medium of Star Trek & television. Sure, other television shows/movies are about storytelling too, and some are on a grand scale like Star Trek. I’m not suggesting that Paramount try and develop an “interconnected” universe such as Marvel has (I’m not completely sure this is even possible), but there has to be some way to keep the interest alive of the “casual” fan. This is what Marvel has been able to do. I am an example of this. Before the first Iron Man film, I had no idea Iron Man existed. I’ve always considered myself a “casual” fan of the superhero genre. I knew who Thor was and of course the Hulk and Captain America. But I knew nothing of Shield, Nick Fury, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Loki, The Destroyer and any number of other aspects from the Marvel Comic universe, and I didn’t know there was a team called “The Avengers”. But starting with the first Iron Man film, my horizons were expanded and I discovered a whole new universe of characters and stories. I’m still a casual fan, but they’ve kept me interested. If Star Trek is to remain relevant, Paramount needs to find a way to do the same thing, find some way of keeping those casual fans interested.

Overall, I am of the opinion that JJ & Company have crafted 2 very entertaining and enjoyable films. The thing that I have loved about both of these films is the fact that we have gotten to see some of the things that have been “talked about” and written about, but were never seen on the screen. Things such as Kirk taking the Kobyashi Maru test. Written about and talked about on-screen, but never seen till ST09. Also, Spock in WOK mentioned he had never taken the test. Given that he did not enter Starfleet under the “Command Track” we can understand why, but ST09 also gave us an additional glimpse at that as well, since he created the test. STID also gave us a further look at the development between the Kirk/Spock friendship. While I do not completely agree with the much maligned “reactor scene”, I do understand why they wrote it in. Up to this point, the “Kirk character” had come off as being rather self-centered and self-serving. Much like Tony Stark in The Avengers who was seen as “only fighting for himself”, the young James T. Kirk was also questioned about his OWN ability to make the sacrifice play. Could we also not speculate that this example is what motivates Spock many years hence to make his own ultimate sacrifice? Do I wish the writers could have found a different way to advance the same plot point, rather than paralleling the “reactor room scene” from TWOK? Yes, I do and as a long time fan, I won’t deny it didn’t bug me. But as I said, I understand it’s inclusion.

But aside from that, the portrayal of some of those referenced but never-before-seen events is what has made the JJ Abrams movies enjoyable to me. I had no problem with the idea of the villain being Khan or BC’s portrayal of him. Khan is to Star Trek as The Joker is to Batman. Khan is that over-the-top nemesis that can raise the bar when he’s used correctly. This is one thing that concerns me about the ending of STID. Khan has been returned to his state of suspended animation. So if you want to have him appear in a subsequent installment, who is going to be crazy enough to wake the guy, know what I mean? In many ways, Khan’s status has grown FAR beyond the “villain of the week” role he was intended to play back in 1968, and the difficulty of defeating him further complicates how he can be used. I mean, in TWOK, the fight was to the death. That’s why The Borg are so difficult to write, because of how difficult it is to defeat them, but because of their sheer numbers, they can “keep coming”. In the case of Khan, there is only one, and that makes it somewhat difficult to write him in, and you certainly can’t use him in every film. But I digress.

In conclusion, I believe the film will do well, and I believe there is more to come. But if Paramount wants to keep benefiting from the entertainment dollars of those “casual” fans, they will have to find some way of keeping up their interest level in the intervening years between movies, a way of “teasing” the next feature, similar to Marvel’s post-credit scenes. Just my thoughts. Looking forward to more!

269. 'Givin her all She's got Captain! - May 19, 2013

Long-time reader here, infrequent poster, but I wanted to weigh in on this story.

I do think STID is going to do well at the box office, and I wouldn’t necessarily put the burden upon this weekends numbers alone. Having said that, I believe there are also some things at work here that were not present in 2009. First, the economic considerations. Things certainly are much different today in 2013 than they were in ’09. In ’09, we had just come through the economic crash of ’08, but there were areas of the country (like my area in South Central PA) that hadn’t completely felt the entire affects of the downturn, so there were folks who still had a somewhat decent disposable income to draw from at that time. However, in the intervening 4 years, we’ve had the full affects of the downturn along with a few other things at work, not the least of which have been the price increases we’ve seen for EVERYTHING. At the end of ’08 in my area, gas prices were around $2.35. I don’t need to tell you how much they’ve gone up since. Costs have risen in every area, including entertainment. Which brings my to my next point.

There are a bunch of what look like great movies coming out this Summer, and not just this Summer, but this year. I myself will be seeing at least 5 movies this year, which is a high number for me. As a moviegoer, I am very selective in what I decide to go to the theater to see, and even more so when it comes to iMax. I did see STID in iMax. I have a family of 4, so given the cost to see a movie in iMax in 2013, it’s not an inexpensive venture. So as it is with anything else, it comes down to choice and competition. STID is a great flick, but as I said previously, there are also A LOT of other great flicks coming this year, so the competition for those entertainment dollars is stiff. And if you were expecting STID to outdraw Iron Man 3, I am afraid that’s unrealistic.

Which brings me to my 3rd point. Many have commented on the 4-year off-period between ST09 and this movie being an issue, and I agree that is also a factor. Love or hate the Marvel Cinematic Universe and it’s films, you cannot deny they have made a BOATLOAD of money. MCU has developed a formula that is working, and like Star Trek, it’s films have their rabid long-time fanbase (due to the comics), whose critics are just as equally vocal. From the various sites I visit for those movies, I can tell you there were many a fanboy who were displeased with the handling of the Mandarin in IM3.

But in spite of that, people are still flocking to see IM3. Why? Robert Downey Jr. People love him in the role and the love the character. And when you look at the Avengers movie, there is no denying that he was the glue. So what does Marvel do? They start Phase 2 with the next Iron Man installment because everyone wants to know, how would Stark handle the things that took place during that movie? From the overall standpoint of character development, marketing and strategy, you cannot deny that Marvel has put together an impressive financial juggernaut, and the fact that they are able to release a new AND different film every couple of years from within the same connected universe has paid huge dividends.

This is where I believe the 4-year “hiatus” was not beneficial to the Star Trek franchise, and I think this is a concern for Star Trek overall. As we all know, Star Trek has always been at it’s best in an episodic television format. As we all know, Gene started writing because he had stories he wanted to tell, ideas he wanted to share, and he did that through the medium of Star Trek & television. Sure, other television shows/movies are about storytelling too, and some are on a grand scale like Star Trek. I’m not suggesting that Paramount try and develop an “interconnected” universe such as Marvel has (I’m not completely sure this is even possible), but there has to be some way to keep the interest alive of the “casual” fan. This is what Marvel has been able to do. I am an example of this. Before the first Iron Man film, I had no idea Iron Man existed. I’ve always considered myself a “casual” fan of the superhero genre. I knew who Thor was and of course the Hulk and Captain America. But I knew nothing of Shield, Nick Fury, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Loki, The Destroyer and any number of other aspects from the Marvel Comic universe, and I didn’t know there was a team called “The Avengers”. But starting with the first Iron Man film, my horizons were expanded and I discovered a whole new universe of characters and stories. I’m still a casual fan, but they’ve kept me interested. If Star Trek is to remain relevant, Paramount needs to find a way to do the same thing, find some way of keeping those casual fans interested.

Overall, I am of the opinion that JJ & Company have crafted 2 very entertaining and enjoyable films. The thing that I have loved about both of these films is the fact that we have gotten to see some of the things that have been “talked about” and written about, but were never seen on the screen. Things such as Kirk taking the Kobyashi Maru test. Written about and talked about on-screen, but never seen till ST09. Also, Spock in WOK mentioned he had never taken the test. Given that he did not enter Starfleet under the “Command Track” we can understand why, but ST09 also gave us an additional glimpse at that as well, since he created the test. STID also gave us a further look at the development between the Kirk/Spock friendship. While I do not completely agree with the much maligned “reactor scene”, I do understand why they wrote it in. Up to this point, the “Kirk character” had come off as being rather self-centered and self-serving. Much like Tony Stark in The Avengers who was seen as “only fighting for himself”, the young James T. Kirk was also questioned about his OWN ability to make the sacrifice play. Could we also not speculate that this example is what motivates Spock many years hence to make his own ultimate sacrifice? Do I wish the writers could have found a different way to advance the same plot point, rather than paralleling the “reactor room scene” from TWOK? Yes, I do and as a long time fan, I won’t deny it didn’t bug me. But as I said, I understand it’s inclusion.

But aside from that, the portrayal of some of those referenced but never-before-seen events is what has made the JJ Abrams movies enjoyable to me. I had no problem with the idea of the villain being Khan or BC’s portrayal of him. Khan is to Star Trek as The Joker is to Batman. Khan is that over-the-top nemesis that can raise the bar when he’s used correctly. This is one thing that concerns me about the ending of STID. Khan has been returned to his state of suspended animation. So if you want to have him appear in a subsequent installment, who is going to be crazy enough to wake the guy, know what I mean? In many ways, Khan’s status has grown FAR beyond the “villain of the week” role he was intended to play back in 1968, and the difficulty of defeating him further complicates how he can be used. I mean, in TWOK, the fight was to the death. That’s why The Borg are so difficult to write, because of how difficult it is to defeat them, but because of their sheer numbers, they can “keep coming”. In the case of Khan, there is only one, and that makes it somewhat difficult to write him in, and you certainly can’t use him in every film. But I digress.

In conclusion, I believe the film will do well, and I believe there is more to come. But if Paramount wants to keep benefiting from the entertainment dollars of those “casual” fans, they will have to find some way of keeping up their interest level in the intervening years between movies, a way of “teasing” the next feature, similar to Marvel’s post-credit scenes. Just my thoughts. Looking forward to more!

270. Theatre Historian - May 19, 2013

I tend to disagree with the comment that Khan is Star Trek’s version of the Joker.
Khan was seen twice through out the entire run of the series and film franchise featuring the original cast. twice.

The Joker IS Batman’s arch nemesis plain and simple for countless decades through numerous issues of comics, movies and tv shows the Joker and Batman were connected.
Khan and kirk only met TWICE. and the second time they were never even in the same room togeather (which says boatloads for the talents of Montalban and Shatner by the way) and Both times Kirk went up against Khan. Kirk won, there have been numerous occasions where the Joker has won or come out as a draw against batman.

So is Khan one of the most t ICONIC villians of Star Trek YES, but is he star treks Joker, No

The Klingons would be star treks Joker, look no further than Star Trek III, V and VI for that. By the end of VI though Kirk and Crew realize there is a better way though.

271. HubcapDave - May 19, 2013

Here’s where I think it stands:

This is a disappointing opening weekend, no two ways about it. However, unless it drops off a cliff and severely underperforms domestically, there will be a 3rd movie. Here’s why:

1) With all their Marvel properties now at Disney, Paramount has very few franchise properties of their own. They have Star Trek, Mission:Impossible, Jack Ryan (restarting with our very own Captain Kirk), and Transformers (though they share that with Dreamworks), and that’s it.

2) The foreign news is all good so far. If the $75 million news holds true, that means that STID has made 60% of what ST made overseas in only two weeks. Whatever mistakes were made in the domestic marketing, so far it seems they’ve succeeded in broadening the audience for Trek internationally.

3) As we all know 2016 is the 50th anniversary of Star Trek. No way Paramount doesn’t try to capitalize on that.

Now, I’m certain everyone at Paramount and Bad Robot are going to take a step back a re-think some of the things they did in promoting-marketing this movie. While I have no doubt that STID will make a profit, money was left on the table here. Hopefully, they come to the right conclusions.

272. Moputo Jones - May 19, 2013

STID is by no means a flop. But unless you want to go back to the days of extended episodes with laughable budgets like Insurrection or Nemesis, then go out and see this move a few more times!

273. David Oakes - May 19, 2013

Almost broken even in just under two weeks ? Disappointing ?

This movie will probably be out for a few months.

Remember that Life of Pi took ages to make all it’s money.

I’m not worried just yet.

274. JackballTV - May 19, 2013

i saw it first thursday, then on fri for a 2cd viewing, both matinee showings, and the theater was pretty full for a afternoon weekday! everyone was into it and having a good time, so much fun =)

275. HubcapDave - May 19, 2013

Did a little number crunching to prognosticate where STID might end up domestically.

A good movie will usually have a ratio of final total to opening weekend of 3.0. ST had a ratio of 3.25

If you include the Thursday number in the opening weekend total here’s what you come up with:

$84m x 3=$252m
$84m x 3.25=$273m

That, I think is safe to say, is the high end of expectation. Adjusted for inflation, the best STID will do is match ST.

Here’s the low end. Remove the Wed. night sneaks and Thur. numbers, and it works out thus:

$70.5m x 3=$211.5m
$70.5mx3.25=$229m

And just to keep the comparisons equal, the ratio of ST’s total gross to the Friday-Sunday numbers is 3.43.

$70.5m x 3.43=$242m

So, unless something goes drastically wrong, the worst this movie will do domestically is make back its production budget, plus about $20mil.

276. Dennis C - May 19, 2013

@270

There will be a third movie. There WON’T be a $190 million budget.

277. opcode - May 19, 2013

Would it be that ST fans turned their backs to ID? Because of Khan, or because they didn’t like ST 2009, or perhaps because JJ Abrams involvement with SW, or a combination of all of these?
Or yet perhaps because JJ is just overrated and few really care about him (I am in that group, though I care about ST). Truth is, as a director he has yet to make a movie that go beyond $400M globally, which of course has nothing to do with quality, but I digress.
While I surely enjoyed ID, truth is, JJ’s ST is a totally different ST entity than TOS, or the original movies, and I just accept that. Is ST 2009 or STID the ST I would like to see? Nope, but that is what we have for now. Still, I would like to see the trilogy finished, and after that I would rather prefer to see Bad Robot gone. I am sure eventually we will get someone that is both truly talented and respectful to the original material, and yet will re-imagine ST in a new, bold, and, most important, intelligent way. While I appreciate the character moments in both JJ’s ST, the rest is just too loosely written and too carelessly executed to give it a chance of becoming the definitive ST.

278. Aix - May 19, 2013

It’s not really the film. It’s the competition. And my god the competition! Especially with F&F and The Hangover coming this week.

I don’t think it’s the Khan factor as well. Nobody really knows him outside geek circles. With the trailers, all I see is a cool badass guy antagonizing the crew. Do people really think the general audience care about the guy’s name?

And no, casting a “big” star like Benicio del Toro won’t help.

Our saving grace is the international market. China, specifically. I hope they love Pine’s blue eyes there.

279. Anthony Pascale - May 19, 2013

There is a world between monster hit and bomb and that is the world where Star Trek Into Darkness lives. The domestic sales may not be as good as 2009 but international will more than make up for any deficit so it should make more in the end pretty easily.

Does Paramount want even more? Of course. But there will be a 3rd film from Bad Robot/Paramount.

280. HubcapDave - May 19, 2013

@277

“Competition” isn’t as big a factor as you may think, especially nowadays in the era of massive multiplex theaters. Plus, none of the movies opening would be direct competition (F&F6 is kinda close, Hangover 3 and Epic, not so much). Plus, they’re not going to drop the number of theaters it’s in. They’ll pick off all the leftovers first.

281. Canyunman67 - May 19, 2013

The explanation is simple…

It’s STAR TREK.

It does not, and never will, have the universal appeal as other movie franchises do – no matter who the director, the actors, the villain or the creative team is. ST09 was a novelty, so it had a greater sense of curiosity attached to it.

All the talk of the gap between the last film, the ad campaigns, the promotion, the script, writers, plot, villain, etc etc…. are all irrelevant as far as I’m concerned.

It’s Star Trek. That’s all that’s going on here. The numbers are just fine, it is what it is, and the next movie won’t do any better. The 50th anniversary hype will not change that. These just are not, and never will be, $400M movies.

The upcoming movies over the next week or two are going to clean STID’s clock, and there’s no crime in that. Let’s be thankful we’re even getting new ST movies, and enjoy this.

282. Bill Peters - May 19, 2013

Agree with Anthony, Paramount will like how this did.

283. devonp - May 19, 2013

I have seen Star Trek Into Darkness 4 times so far since opening night Thursday & am going again Tuesday & again when my partner gets home from his trip. I saw Star Trek 2009 7 times in theatres & will do the same with Into Darkness which I believe to be the Best Trek Film Ever,IMO. I do believe the one big factor is the huge delay between films… 4 years, is this really necessary? $ years between Insurrection & Nemesis killed films for the Next Generation Crew… it’s just too damned long! Paramount should have capitalized on 2009′s momentum much sooner. Though in this case I thought Into Darkness was Incredible & worth the wait. I just hope Paramount doesn’t miss the boat again & gets the next film out for the 50th Anniversary Celebration of Trek in 2016.

284. Jim, London - May 19, 2013

The only thing that can be blamed for lower than expected opening weekend is Paramount messing with the release date… Fools.

285. Bill Peters - May 19, 2013

Paramount vice chairman Rob Moore said he was “extremely pleased” with the sequel’s performance, both domestically and internationally, where the studio waged a massive marketing campaign to improve the franchise’s standing (“Star Trek” has never been as popular overseas).

286. AyanEva - May 19, 2013

I’m going to see it again tomorrow on my day off. I think this is a solid enough box office and I think it’s pretty certain we’ll get a third film because the 50th anniversary is coming up and this film will likely have respectable numbers domestically and internationally when all is said and done, despite the crowded summer schedule. I’m really pleased with those international numbers in particular.

I do think they can lower cost next time by dropping the 3D conversion, which didn’t really add much to their profits. I do wish we could make the film a blockbuster but simply not tanking will also work. lol

Strong word of mouth may keep this going a modest and steady pace so we could be surprised in the end. The drop-off next weekend will be key, I think.

287. Dennis C - May 19, 2013

@276

JJ’s a good director but I think a few things are at play here:

- Khan as the villain has nothing to do with it the average performance at the boxoffice. What may have been a factor is the secrecy behind the villain. I was starting to lose patience the closer we got to the release date. The big reveal meant nothing to casual Star Trek fans and when it is made they don’t really learn a heck of a lot about him.

- The reboot was a success but a four year gap between movies slowed whatever momentum and goodwill the franchise was building after 2009. Paramount delayed production to accommodate JJ’s schedule and that may be coming back to haunt them.

- Paramount expended so much effort promoting the film overseas that the domestic push may have lost focus. Lighthearted action movie? Hardcore action movie? Hardcore Star Trek movie? Espionage thriller? Buddy movie? There was a separate trailer to match each of these themes. The marketing for this movie lacked a consistent message. “Man of Steel” has been fairly consistent from the beginning. Everyone knows both products, it’s how you sell them is what gets butts into seats.

- This movie had a sloppy roll-out. I was surprised to discover that among fans I know how few actually knew about the Sneak Peak. The Thursday opening? Even fewer.

So, yeah, they kind of screwed the pooch. This movie should have been out well over a year ago and a massive production budget is going to eat into the profits. The Avengers walked away with a $623 million domestic gross on a $170 million budget. STID will likely walk away with roughly $250 million domestic on a $190 million budget.

Star Trek will return but the days of the $190 million Star Trek budget are over.

288. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 19, 2013

Well, Paramount should already have the third Star Trek film release date slotted in – 8 September 2016 – a no brainer really!

Better get writing, Bob/Alex/Damon – you know where I am if you need help with an idea or two! Remember to write some good female characterizations. Let’s see what you got ‘n’ all, guys…:)!

3 years and 3 months…

289. Dennis C - May 19, 2013

@285

When a statement lacks hyperbole it’s an expression of disappointment.

290. Erde_Kaiser - May 19, 2013

Enough with the gloom and doom, guys.

Paramount did a lousy job of getting word out that the movie was opening early, which they’re going to see when they look at the returns by day. STID also opened against IM3, which is formidable. Taking everything into account, this has been a more than respectable opening weekend. STID is /far/ from the death knell for big screen Trek that some of you are making it out to be.

Everything’s gonna be alright.

291. Russell Meyers - formerly rm10019 - May 19, 2013

11 – No that is not how it works. Traditionally screens are not added as weeks go on, other films open, and demand lessens. This is why the old regime at paramount was frugal when it came to Trek films. Traditionally two weeks, then all demand dried up. The fans had seen it, and if it didn’t cross over then it was really done.

292. Andrew - May 19, 2013

Should have opened in July. Far less competition there, capitalized on Dsrk Knight similarities, which both opened in July.

293. Trick - May 19, 2013

@34 and 134

This.

Still excited about seeing what comes next though. A fully original mission I hope.

I really think the emotional impact of this story and the various homages would have been greater (and would have resulted in repeat viewings by me personally) if this had been film three. I think it was a little too early for the TWOK-like death scene especially and for Spock’s uncharacteristic reaction. Would have had more punch if we saw more of their relationship prior.

I saw 2009 three times but I doubt I will see this one again, at least in theaters.

294. Jack - May 19, 2013

I’m sure this has been said already — but how many people (who don’t cone here) knew it was out Wednesday/Thursday?

It’s the Canadian version of Memorial Day here, so everyone’s away. I know we’re a drop in the bucket — but still. When Iron Man 3 opened, the multiplex parking lot was packed — this weekend (with amazing weather, it was maybe 1/3 full, if that). Longer days (sun’s still bright at 10), 27C weather — so movies… meh.

I wonder if the fuzziness over the villain, and the darkness of the marketing are part of it. It doesn’t necessarily sound like a fun night at the movies. The reviews were generally positive, but even the good ones were middling.

295. Phaser On Stun - May 19, 2013

I tend to rely on the wisdom of the box office results from Box Office Mojo. There forecasts and assessments are usually dead on. As they indicate the competition along with how much money folks can spend at one time was a factor. But the biggest factor was the 4 year wait. And if you think about it, there was alot of positive buzz and general love for the first film. But casual viewers have forgotten about the first film. This really needed to be rolled out 2 years ago.

There is no question that there will be a 3rd film. The question is how big will the budget be? The size of the budget will determine what kind of story can be told. Additionally,how long will this particular reboot last (4 films??). Will Paramount reboot after 3 or 4 films or will CBS to create a TV series based on this iteration.

By the way I like the film. For the casual viewer once is enough, for Trek enthusiasts, multiple viewings is almost required in order to fully grasp everything that occurs in the film.

296. Bender Bending Rodriguez - May 19, 2013

WOO-HOO! Let’s keep it going, baby!

Friends of mine who haven’t gone yet are just dying to go and those who have seen it want to bring their friends. And everyone I know who has seen it is awestruck! Post after post on Facebook say the same thing: Best. Star Trek. Ever.

It may be next weekend, but I am back in that theater as soon as I can!

297. gingerly - May 19, 2013

Well.

This is what happens when you use an unoriginal villain and then whitewash him.

Hollywood has been baffled by the success of the Fast franchise, but I will tell you that it’s honestly, in part because of it’s DIVERSE stars.

I bet you it will crush STID and hopefully Hollywood will finally get a clue.

298. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 20, 2013

#297 – Oh for goodness sake. I am tired of the complaints of whitewashing a Khan who probably isn’t a Khan…

So you would like to STID crushed just because of someone’s skin colour in a new iteration taking place in an alternate universe. Starting to feel more like whitebashing…:(

299. Philip - May 20, 2013

@294, just go see the bloody film Jack, it’s awesome, don’t worry about the reviews…

U will regret it if you don’t. Trust me.

300. LizardGirl - May 20, 2013

Hmmm…I find this a little ironic.

Last year, fans who said that four years was too long and we needed more exposure a year in advance of opening were called things like whiney and impatient and needed to calm down or chill out. Here, I see many saying the VERY same things that were said last year! Four years IS too long between a first movie and a sequel release!

My biggest bafflement and annoyance came with the knowledge that there was no (new) Star Trek presence at Comicon or Any-cons and that there were no teasers attached to TDKR or Marvel’s the Avengers….actually the complete lack of ANY teasers/movie art/posters etc. last year was irritating. What I found upsetting about that was that those two movies alone were the biggest grossing movies last year. The exposure Trek would’ve received would’ve been massive on national AND international scale! The conventions are where you win over the hardcore fans. There was no attempt to reach them! Also, everyone involved with the movie (director, producer, writers, actors) all just about fell off the face of the Earth! Not a peep from anyone. Except for those shoddy spoiler pics.

Also no merchandising. I know some Trekkers don’t think that Star Trek needs merchandising like SW. And I don’t think ST should be merchandised to death either, but what else was there besides the Hasbro Enterprise? I love the idea to reach a younger audience, but it just kind of stalled.

*****
I personally feel very happy and satisfied with STID. As said earlier, we’re a mixed bag of opinions on how good/bad the movie is. Everything’s so chaotic right now. Forbes, Yahoo, Paramount, etc. are falling all over themselves to predict numbers that differ from each other. There’s nothing anyone can do at this point except wait for the dust to clear to see where the numbers actually stand. Even if records of opening weekends aren’t broken, it doesn’t mean the movie will do worse that ST09.

And if STID does do better than ST09, I think Paramount will definitely think twice about waiting for a director and writer combo to decide when to make a movie next time around (sorry supreme court!). ST13 will need a more aggressive time table and marketing scheme (including merchandising). I won’t push my agenda of seeing an animated series spinoff *wink, wink, nudge nudge*, but it would only help!

But I will now take the time to thank Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman, JJ Abrams, the rest of the Supreme court as well as the cast of actors and anyone else involved. Trek needed a breath of fresh air. You gave it that breath. You’re sticking with us even though we wail and rant against you. Thank you so much for putting up with us! Please don’t get tired of us! >_<

301. Scott - May 20, 2013

285- “Extremely pleased” – if this had been posted 10 years ago, we’d all be making fun of Rick Berman’s “We are very pleased” statements LOL.

302. Riker's Beard - May 20, 2013

With the right director a smaller budget won’t be a bad thing. I saw a bbc documentary about Danny Boyle (not suggesting him and he wouldn’t do it anyway) who’s best movies have been made on tiny budgets. Duncan Jones (Moon,Source Code) could be an option. The point is we could have a different kind of movie next time – some sort of Inception-like head trip might be a good turn for Star Trek – so a lower budget shouldn’t be the end of the world.

303. Charla - May 20, 2013

What she said!! # 300 Lizard Girl…. Easy peazy, why don’t the marketers of the film understand these concepts?

304. JimBoB - May 20, 2013

It’s a long weekend in Canada, I figure most folks are camping opening cottages for the season, seen it Thursday figure 28 in cinema at 1pm showing. Went with a friend friday to IMAX it was over half full guestimate of 90 full seats.

I would recommend it in IMAX makes for an immersive experience, I could tell right away watching it in 2d it was geared for 3D.

That being said it was a great ride but these folks on here thinking the repeat viewing are going to make a difference it will not it might as well be throwing a $20.00 bill in a hay bale, the only diffrence it will make is a dent in your wallet with the over inflated ticket prices and putting money into Hollywierd.

Sure I like trek but I am not going to feed a corporations coffers in the hopes a 3rd movie will get made, what is the concern about anyway the cast of actor’s are signed for a 3 movie deal.

As with promoting the movie open it as a worldwide release at the same time. As for the trailers etc.. that is the studio’s problem and if it bombs thats there problem not mine don’t expect me to go multiple times to cover for there marketing errors or whatever there problem is, thats Skydances and whatever other company that financed STID.

Anyway have fun feeding some cronies coffers thinking a 3rd movie will not get made.

305. AyanEva - May 20, 2013

#302- Riker’s Beard

I’d really like to see what Duncan Jones could do. I own Moon but keep forgetting to watch it but I’ve only heard good things about it and about Duncan.

I wanna know specifically which part of the Qo’nos scene Edgar Wright directed because that sequence was very awesome and I like Edgar Wright’s stuff anyway. Did they list him in the credits anywhere, I wonder?

306. Marja - May 20, 2013

It astounds me, it really does, that Paramount didn’t have the actors and JJ drop by ComiCon and the Las Vegas con with a couple of trailers. Maybe they think all SF/Comic/Fantasy fans are a soft sell, so ‘why bother.’ It also amazes me that Paramount didn’t do more to help Abrams get this movie out earlier. Personally although I enjoyed it I could have gone a summer without Cowboys & Aliens, and maybe even missed Super8, though it was a good movie. But making fans wait FOUR years was not cool, and letting the general audience forget Trek 2009 as if it were a one-off bothers me too. I’m sure Paramount and Bad Robot don’t care if I’m bothered, but I do so want this movie to succeed and for its sequel to come along by 2016.

To save money maybe they could do as TOS used to do – have a “bottle” show. Why not? Chambliss’s Enterprise is beautiful and spacious, and they could easily film a “Doomsday Machine”-type episode using “2″ Enterprises, one in the role of the Constellation.

I really hope the studio gives the go-ahead to a 3rd film soon so Orci and Kurtzman can draft #3. Of course I suppose the studio/production company need to know how much $ STID makes so they can budget for the 3rd film … and the writers need to have a fair idea of what they can and can’t write as far as action sequences and aliens and costumes &c. Grrr, so many obstacles! But please folks, I really hope you can start kicking around ideas. (One hopes they already have a fleshed-out idea and just need to start scripting it. Like, maybe this year.)

Does anyone else miss Romulans? (Not the dreaded be-wigged dented forehead ones from TNG.)

307. John N. - May 20, 2013

Saw the film on Friday. Extremely disappointed in the casting of Cumberbatch. Great actor, but not for THIS part. I’m very disappointed in the team for whitewashing a classic character like that. This isn’t supposed to be a re-imagined universe. If you wanted to cast Cumberbatch, write an original character for him. This was lazy and disrespectful.

308. LizardGirl - May 20, 2013

@307

From what was reported, they tried to find actors of Latin decent for the role from the beginning. But nothing stuck. I don’t believe they meant to whitewash the character or be disrespectul. But seeing as no one on their short list wanted the part, why not give a chance to someone who’s willing to take a shot at it?

Also, I wonder. Seeing as we’re talking TOS, what point of reference to we have for “original characters”? It’s an interesting idea, but it seems to me that since we know any and all possible characters that could be used, there really isn’t an option for an original character while trying to remain “in canon”.

309. Aix - May 20, 2013

I am baffled by fans who want this film to fail. Why would you want a Star Trek film to fail???!! Sure, you don’t like it, you have problems with it. Fine, go on and say it here and hope boborci reads your comment. But Trekkies hoping a movie of their beloved franchise fail? It’s just so… wrong. Trek is being kept alive by these films!

310. FinnGoDo - May 20, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness under-performed domestically. Here’s why I think it happened:

1) Competition from Iron Man 3 and Gatsby was formidable. Remember, Gatsby was suppose to open this past December originally so it wouldn’t have been Competition. And while Gatsby is considered counter-programming, there is a pretty big female crowd that could be marketed to for Star Trek- but they didn’t (more on that in a minute). As for Iron Man 3; it’s a juggernaut, and everyone knows the Robert Downey Jr. Brand of humor and bringing fun to a summer movie. Something Star Trek Into Darkness’ Marketing was void of…so…

2) Paramount’s marketing team, in trying to make things dark and action-packed for international audiences, didn’t realize that “dark” isn’t always going to be a selling point domestically. Dark Knight doesn’t need to be every action film– Dark worked for The Dark Knight, it was a natural fit. But marketing Star Trek as dark and void of humor and personality? I’m not sure Paramount realized what made Trek 2009 a success. The characters/cast chemistry was hugely part of it. Sure the action and fx were great too. But to not market to people to remind them of why they liked 2009 Trek to begin with? Dropping the ball. That was 4 years ago, and for someone who was introduced to Trek for the first time with that film needs that reminder as to why they should pay $12-16 to see something in 3D. By marketing Dark and Action, they ignored Human and Humor.

3) Kahn. Some fans just didn’t go based on this alone.

The silver lining? Star Trek Into Darkness is getting good word of mouth that will probably carry it into a successful 2nd weekend. Also- if it did extremely well, every Star Trek would be dark and in this vein going forward. Instead, Paramount will be forced to consider other ideas for a sequel- and I’m on board for that. Just make and honestly market a good exploration/adventure film in space and go with it. The money will folow.

Let me know you’re theory. @finnmadej on Twitter

311. FinnGoDo - May 20, 2013

@309 I don’t want it to fail. I want it to succeed just enough to where Paramount knows it can do better.

312. Sean - May 20, 2013

Oh Thank everyone who was smart enough to avoid seeing this pile of garbage that Abrams thought we would swallow. The movie made just enough to get a lower budget, which means they can’t depend on shiny special effects and will be forced to actually write something worthwhile.

P.S. Word of mouth made 2009 do what it did. I know a lot of you were mad when I called out Bob on the Magic Blood, but honestly, when everyone you kno, knows you are a huge fan and you tell them, “Into Darkness does not boldly go where

313. Sean - May 20, 2013

Cont. Does not boldly go where no other trek Movie has gone before… They wait for the DVD.

314. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 20, 2013

Apparently human blood and tissue is used in a lot of experiments in order to develop better medicines and one day, the blood of those who have not been infected with the HIV/AIDS virus despite repeated exposure, may well become part of a cure for this disease. Blood can be like magic…

Such short sighted thinking on some people’s part.

315. Sean - May 20, 2013

At 314

Oh they so they forgot the cure to aids and then found it in a 300 year old dead guy and gave it to Kirk? Because what I saw was Spock and Bones going over to Billy Crystal’s house where Billy says, “your friend is only mostly dead” but do not worry because Kahn had a transfusion with wolverine, and now has the Magic blood that will cure him.

316. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 20, 2013

#315 – You are ignorant and facetious. Stop trolling.

317. James - May 20, 2013

I dont think it’s done to bad! The US take should be between $200-$250, and the foreign should be $200-$250.

So global take of $400+ I hope.

I saw the film on Saturday in the UK Imax and I really enjoyed it. There were tons of references and in-jokes for the long time trekkie. I’d rate the movie at a 7 or an 8. I need a little perspective though as I’m still buzzing.

318. Sean - May 20, 2013

@316

Now now no need to call someone ignorant for saying that you were grasping at straws and that the film is like the Princess Bride of Star Trek. If you prefer less funny comparisons I could do this..

Star Trek 2 is about Kahn wanting revenge and uses nukes as metaphor.

Star Trek 6 is about shooting torpedoes at the Klingons to start a war and is metaphor for the cold war ending.

Into Darkness is about Kahn wanting revenge and shooting torpedoes at Klingons to start a war and is metaphor for the documentary “Loose Change”.

Call it trolling if you like, but face it, into darkness is the most unoriginal Trek.

319. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 20, 2013

You weren’t going on about Khan wanting revenge and torpedoes. You were trolling about the idea that a component of a particular person’s blood could have healing/recuperative powers…you are being rude and facetious.

320. Jim Nightshade - May 20, 2013

what marketing was different this year….how many trailers were there for trek 09….a lot fewer..i think they plastered so many trailers i almost felt i already saw the best scenes…plus so many trailers confuse those who were only mildly interested n they kept releasing new scenes where i couldnt keep up with em all n i started losing interest….combine that with im3 other movies coming…the overseas first release n the 4 yr wait all contributed…..the trailer for trek 09 was award winning….i hope anthony is right n trek does well enuf for a third one….i gotta save up for a 3d tv..anyone know which cheap 3d tv is best?

321. Exverlobter - May 20, 2013

I don’t think that the 4 year gap was a big issue. Trekkies are gonna see it anyway and the normal mainstream-audience at least is aware that there is sort of a 50 year old franchise( ah that series with the guy with the funny ears) and might give it a chance if its actually good.

No,May is simply overcrowded. I just experienced it myself. A few weeks ago and my friends and i planned which movies we wanted to see and Star Trek was on our must-see list.
We go to the cinema about twice a month and after Oblivion, Iron Man and the Upcoming Fast and Furious 6 they simply had not enough time, passion and money anymore to go to see Star Trek as well.
Thus i had to go alone.
Star Trek 2009 could only compete in May, because Terminator Salvation and Wolverine turned out to be unexpected bad films. But just dont always count on the failures of others, Paramount!
I think the late-sommer/ early fall timeslot, where Rise of the Planet of the apes turned out to be an unexpected major surprise hit, would have been more suitable for Into Darkness.

322. HXuang - May 20, 2013

#278 With all due respect to Pine, and I know that you were being light-heartedly joking, but he is really not a popular heartthrob in China or Asia, please don’t place such pressure on him; also Chinese moviegoers are not all so shallow about what they choose to watch in theatres.

323. Sean - May 20, 2013

@319

Dude, your comment about the blood deserved to be laughed at. You are saying that they found a cure for death 300 years before the movie takes place, forgot it… Even though DS9 and enterprise still had people making augments. I mean the plot of Insurrection centers around the fact they need some death cure but they just could have taken some of Bashire’s magic blood to cure death? Silly silly silly. Let’s not even bring up that this film took a guy with the magic blood out of a tube and put Kirk in it, yet Spock had to stop his homicidal need to avenge the death of someone he hasn’t know very long, oh and he cares more about that guy than his mom, otherwise Star Trek 2009 would have h screaming Nero’s name. Face it… Magic blood is dumb and so is the Stargate magic transporter.

The common knowledge that mutations of some people’s blood can provide the rest of us with a cure for disease is not in dispute and never had been.

Keep name calling if you want too, but this movie had magic blood and is so stupid that it has a resemblance to the Farce Princess bride.

Guy above me. I don’t think the trailers mattered, because I saw them and really wanted to see it. Now I wish I didnt. I saw the 2009 3 times and I told my friends that In to Darkness sucked. Many others are doing the same. Word of mouth for 2009 was way better

324. Captain John C Baron - May 20, 2013

‘Pile of garbage’? @312 I do wonder sometimes if people see the same film as me. I grew up with TOS in the 70s and have been with it through every movie and series since then and I really enjoyed STID. And with a $80m + take, people have hardly ‘stayed at home’ have they? It’s opening weekend is higher than the TOTAL gross of Insurrection and Nemesis . ‘Ignorant’ indeed!

Sure, it’s got its flaws but I think it’s a better film than ST09 (which I enjoyed) and stands repeat viewings better.

Some random observations? As for it being a box office ‘disappointment’, it’s a ‘disappointment’ mainly because of it’s $190m production budget (which is only $10m less than Iron Man 3) with promotion and prints on top (rumoured to be another $100m worldwide) which means it needs to do stellar business for Paramount to make a profit.

For those thinking that Par not making a profit isn’t important, let me into a little secret – they ONLY make it to make a profit. They don’t do it because they like Trek or because they’re a charity serving the fans or that it might be nice to do another film. It’s a business. If it doesn’t make a profit they won’t make more (or they’ll downsize the budget). It may damage any thoughts of a new TV series. That’s worse-case scenario.

There’s a nice analysis over at box office mojo about Trek’s BO performance: http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3686&p=.htm

It’s important to say that while it’s a ‘disappointing’ return, it’s not a disaster, it’s not a flop – it’s still a decent return.

I suspect it’s been hurt by Iron Man’s continuing good run and it’s got some tough competition next week where it’ll likely fall to third behind Fast 6 and HO3 – here’s hoping its second weekend gross holds up.

325. Gary Makin - May 20, 2013

323:

1. The Augment blood doesn’t “cure death”. It has limited restorative powers under ideal circumstances. In case you hadn’t noticed, Star Trek has been doing magic science stuff for years; dermal regenerators, for example.

2. Spock did get upset about the death of his mother and people in the first film. In fact, he went batshit crazy on Kirk about it.

3. The movie has very good word of mouth. Only a few butthurt fanboys like you don’t like it.

326. Sean - May 20, 2013

I like how my critics do two things. They make excuses for bad writing and then call me a name. This is not Harry Potter. Star Trek establishes rules with a suspension of disbelief. Once your established rules are violated you lose the suspension of disbelief. For example, Kirk can not fly like a bird and human can. If he suddenly does then you no longer believe what is happening. What you describe, Kahn regeneration is established in the x-men comics. Let’s say he is the only person with magic blood, then how does he age. Why would he need to be frozen. Such blood would make him as invincible as a certain man character. Plus, that blood is so useful that it would be a better weapon than the torpedoes, but Marcus gives for torpedoes, even though he has the magic transporter that can send bombs anywhere, but he needs Kahn to build torpedoes. There are no established rules inside in darkness or within other trek that is not broken by the writers.

Word of mouth matters and this movie combined others without even trying to resemble sense within the established rules of into darkness.

327. Sean - May 20, 2013

*and no human can

328. Sean - May 20, 2013

Sorry about the mistakes but auto correct on phones makes interesting choices. Anyhow, I am done with this site. Feel free to call me more name now that I am gone. I can see that the majority here like a different kind of film than I do. Just as I do not belong on a site that the majority of people think that the fast and the furious are good movies I do not belong on a site that enjoys an equally dumb movie, Star Trek: Into Darkness.

Good bye.

329. Elias Javalis - May 20, 2013

I red in a couple of sites it may reach 400mil overseas! No matter 500+ mil worldwide is a good haul for me!

330. VulcanFilmCritic - May 20, 2013

@265Marja
@268I’m giving her all…

Well said!
According to the Boston Globe the weekend take in the US was $70 million. That’s somewhat worrisome.

As we’ve said YEARS ago, 4 years between films is too long. And Bad Robot obviously has other fish to fry. They are overworked and distracted.

But I’m going to suggest another problem. JJ Abrams said at the outset that he wanted to make a “dark” movie like “The Dark Knight.” Well, now you have it, a dark rather violent revenge fantasy, that has very little to do with Star Trek.
Now I’m not suggesting that we go back to the days of the “Star Trek Formula,” whales, tribbles, and dressing in funny period clothes, but this franchise needs to lighten up. And a few cliched quips isn’t going to do it.

Shouldn’t a summer movie be at least a little uplifting. Just because the world is a dangerous, violent, revenge-filled place, do movies have to remind us of that? I don’t want sugar-coatings, I want answers to problems. That is what science fiction is supposed to do. Whether technological, sociological or biological, at least treat us to a few gee-whiz moments of awe and wonder. Hey, what’s going on on New Vulcan? Maybe they can help us in a less non-violent way.

Where’s the diversity? Where’s the hope for a better Earth? This movie is less like the real world and more like a throwback to the segregated movies of the 40′s where you had a Black maid thrown in here and there and maybe even a White guy dressed up as an Asian, but HELLOOOOOO, this is 2013! Even Spock has morphed into a White guy with funny ears. Gone is the tawny make-up, the outsider status. What makes him Vulcan anyway? He certainly doesn’t have much control over his emotions, he doesn’t do science or logic, and he has no real superpowers, does he? So what’s the point?

2016 is just three years away. Paramount had better learn from this experience and get crackin’ SOON on the third film. If I were a producer, I wouldn’t wait for the Supreme Court, I’d be on the phone with Nicholas Meyer RIGHT NOW, to star working on a script for the 50th anniversary of this franchise. He’s not a Star Trek fan either, so he’s not wedded to this ST universe or the other, and he can crank out a script that makes sense in 12 days.

331. Jim Nightshade - May 20, 2013

hey was it just me, or did anybody else LUUUUVVVV that the natives on the volcano world were drawing an image of the big e in the dirt? Finally somebody worshipping something that deserved to be worshipped… our beautiful enterprise, that shape that many of us have loved for close to 50 years hahh

332. Stephan - May 20, 2013

Bye Sean.

Maybe one day you will get the emotional intelligence star trek into darkness provides.

333. Exverlobter - May 20, 2013

328. VulcanFilmCritic

Calm down, i guess you have seen a different movie than i have.
Into Darkness was not dark at all, at least not darker than Wrath of Khan. Nemesis for example was way darker.

334. Disinvited - May 20, 2013

KTLA reporting that while STID took the top spot Bloomberg reports that ticket sales were disappointing,

335. drumvan - May 20, 2013

spells it out pretty well right here.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3686&p=.htm

336. James - May 20, 2013

Yeah, the new Trek will take $200 million or more in the US and at least $250 million in foreign sales. This film is an epic success not a faliure as some would have you believe!

337. drumvan - May 20, 2013

the problem is, with articles like this the casual movie goer will feel the movie is dissapointing without ever having gone seen it. they will write it off as a failure because not enough people are attending. it won’t be the “cool popular thing” to go see with their buds.

we may get the dvd/blu-ray quicker then we thought.

star trek 13 – direct to video (ok probably not)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2013/05/19/star-trek-into-darkness-box-office/2323033/

338. Exverlobter - May 20, 2013

@ 335 drumvan
Do you really think that people who want to see a “cool“ movie check BoxOfficeMojo to see how much money it makes. No, they just ask their friends if that movie is worth their time.

Nobody cares about money, besides the studio executives who have to greenlight a sequel.

339. Exverlobter - May 20, 2013

Speaking about money there will definetely be a sequel, but 190 Million Dollar budget is an excessive amount of money. They|ll have to reduce costs for the next one.
Consider that Revenge of the Sith cost about 100 Million and that was just 7 years ago. Yes, i know there was a bit inflation since then, but it cannot be that much. I guess Into Darkness was way more expensive than a Star Wars Film which is insane.
Remember the days when Jonathan Frakes was able to make a very expensive looking Star Trek Film for just 35 million dollars.
I|d wonder what First contact would cost today.

340. Elias Javalis - May 20, 2013

It ll make at least a million dollars here in Greece.. I my self will see it more than 4 times with different friends! I dont think they need to cut budget..Just to increase the “volume” overseas!

341. drumvan - May 20, 2013

@336

no they don’t read boxofficemojo but they do see headlines and articles in mass market usa today (that i linked) that use terms like “quick exit from theaters” and “fall flat” that are certainly buzz kills in people’s minds.

i mean really, paramount got what the deserved. they came right out and said in the article that they wanted to increase overseas revenue by altering the perception (and in turn the feel) of what star trek is. more action and visuals at the cost of sloppy writing and rushed execution. just get the audience to the next big crisis. mission accomplished!

there were things i really loved about stid but all in all i came away feeling kind of let down. the opportunity was there for a really outstanding movie with just a few plot and writing changes but it eneded up settling for a safe b+.

342. smike - May 20, 2013

@337: FC cost $45 million back then, INS $58 million and that one didn’t even finish all the SFX for the collector due to financial issues. But generally you’re right. The next one should be well below $150 million budget-wise…

@336: While people do not check with BoxOfficeMojo for their weekend plannings, they do take notice of B.O. news in mainstream media. And if these media outlets declare this movie a failure, it is more likely to tank even quicker. Look at the USA Today article linked to by drumvan. It’s not just us “fanboy pessismists” cooking up these assumptions, it’s the pros as well…

343. TerranGuy93 - May 20, 2013

I think several factors are leading to poor performance

1) Too many years since the first one

2) Not enough repeat viewings

3) Bad word of mouth

I saw Trek 09 several times and encourage people to see it as well. I saw it Into Darkness once a d encouraged people not to see it. its poor storytelling and vapid nature, as well as the rip off ending and rushed feel are not worth the outrageous ticket prices.

My casual non trekkie friends didn’t hate it but said it was a fun but forgettable action film. Nothing special to tell others about.

Also, I honestly think the 190 million was too high, paying for entirely too many cgi scenes and pointless visuals.

First Contact at 45 mil in 1996 would be about 60-80 mil now. That was a far better film.

344. Black Fire - May 20, 2013

Reading the first depressing estimate here I did think that’s what you get for throwing a movie that would do great otherwise under the bus, Paramount, with so many other high profile films coming out this year.

Well, I’m coming off Tumblr and going through the Star Trek tag there it was hard to believe the movie was underperforming. It was cited more than once as being better than Iron Man 3. Give it some time to achieve word of mouth credibility.

345. smike - May 20, 2013

What MIGHT help a bit at this point is to re-release the film in 2D in those areas where it previously had been forced upon the viewers in 3D only. I know a few people who have so far refused to see it due to the forced 3D aspects (let alone rewatching it!), and even those who went along in 3D did so only grudgingly.

I don’t know about the US or other countries, but if you can’t find a 2D version of the film within 50 kilometers in Germany, that definitely hurts business. A Saturday night 11 PM showing and only 3 people show up… that’s borderline ridiculous…

2D now!

346. smike - May 20, 2013

@341: TerranGuy93: SO TRUE! I took along at least 60 people back in 2009 and watch ST09 fourteen times myself. Honestly, I couldn’t do the same with this one. Not because it’s an all-out bad film…it does have its moments…but it’s nothing worth your time and attention if you are not a fan already. Mindless plot, over-the-top action, some nice character moments, a bit too much nostalgia for a film conceived as a contunuing reboot… nothing to rave about…no hype, no buzz, it’s just there…

347. Exverlobter - May 20, 2013

@339. drumvan
no they don’t read boxofficemojo but they do see headlines and articles in mass market usa today (that i linked) that use terms like “quick exit from theaters” and “fall flat” that are certainly buzz kills in people’s minds.

Yes, they|ll read that, but if an article also says that a movie is good despite not achieving much money than this is the more important factor.
Films like Fight Club, the first Austin Powers, or the recent Dredd became cult/films despite disappointing at the box office.

348. The Transformed Man - May 20, 2013

I’m failing to grasp the hand wringing here… so let’s see “Into Darkness” opened more or less in line with Trek 2009 and met Paramount’s original projection of $85 million (before Paramount bumped up the release date and then “revised” the projection to $100 million). Also, unlike Trek 2009 this film actually faced competition. In 2009 the only competition at the box office was “X-Men Origins: Wolverine (which underperformed), and “Obsession” with Beyonce; the film faced virtually no competition until June when the original “Hangover” was released. Contrast that with “Into Darkness” which has faced strong holdover films in “Iron Man 3″ and “The Great Gatsby,” both films that explain the drop off in key demographics. For example, Gatsby siphons female viewers away; up 40% of Trek 2009′s audience, but only 36% of “Into Darkness.’” Meanwhile, Trek 2009′s audience was made up of 64% of viewers over 25, but this time around 73% of audience members are over 25, so obviously Iron Man is having an impact there.

Ultimately “Into Darkness” will do just fine and should finish in the neighborhood of $225 million domestically, maybe a little more. However, the film is running well ahead of Trek 2009 internationally and they are expecting an overseas haul of $225-250 million. So in the end “Into Darkness” will end up making in the neighborhood of $450-475 million worldwide, a great improvement over Trek 2009′s haul of $385 million.

As for the cries from some that the film was too dark or did not reflect the societal utopia originally presented in TOS I call bull. There’s nothing presented in Trek 2009 or “Into Darkness” that suggests humanity is not united and that hunger has not been eliminated. Also, this film was no darker than “Wrath of Khan,” “First Contact,” or “Nemesis.” Each of those films were pretty dark and tried to present more mature themes. Meanwhile there’s nothing this film did which was terribly out of line with TOS: Power mad Admiral… check, power mad Admirals trying to start a conflict with the Klingons… check, crazed genetically enhanced madman trying to take over the Enterprise and destroy/rule Starfleet… check.

Sure it’s presented in a more modern fashion and may be a little more violent and a bit more intense, but that’s more a product of the desires of modern filmgoers. Look, Billy Beane said it best in Moneyball: “Adapt or die.” Paramount recognized the franchise was in trouble, audiences had been drifting away from Trek on TV for a long time, and the movies were seeing increasingly diminishing returns, something needed to be done or Trek would have been nothing more than a relic of the past. There would have been no movies, and no possibility of continuing adventures on TV, but now at least the franchise is in that place.

If Star Trek wanted to compete there needed to be a change in the way it was managed and how it was presented to modern audiences. Frankly I love it, sure there are changes, but sometimes change is a good thing. In between the sweeping grandeur and frenetic action of the film, Abrams and company have managed to capture the spirit of TOS with stories which highlight the characters and their relationships. “Into Darkness” also managed to do what TOS did well in many episodes by presenting a moral conundrum which the characters had to manage their way through. The film asked a number of questions through the actions of Admiral Marcus about our response to the events of 9-11, it asks questions about due process. Interestingly the film also asks questions about the opposite end of the spectrum through Khan. Can a peaceful, insulated society really be safe when madmen like Khan are walking around influencing world event? And how does such a society respond and what are they willing to sacrifice?

That’s what made TOS great… the characters, the adventure, the wonder of it all, and the morality plays which often unfolded on our TV screens. Even though the scale of the productions have changed the heart of Trek is still there beating strong as ever.

Yancy

349. Dennis C - May 20, 2013

Huffington Post takes a stab at “what went wrong”.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/star-trek-into-darkness-box-office_n_3302983.html?ref=topbar

Highlights:

- Keeping Khan secret. Paramount had a plan to reveal his identity in March but it never materialized.

- Too much time. Of note is that sequels to both “Hangover” and “Fast” would hit screens just two years later after 2009. “It’s almost surprising Paramount didn’t simply reboot “Star Trek” again, a la what Sony did with the Spider-Man franchise last year.”

- Competition: “Star Trek Into Darkness” almost feels like an under-the-radar indie film — albeit one with a budget near $190 million.”

- Lack of Star Power. Debatable but casting a higher profile actor as the villain probably couldn’t have hurt.

- JJ taking the Star Wars gig overshadowed STID. Valid point. “Star Wars Episode VII”, story by George Lucas, Directed by JJ Abrams, score by John Williams. BOOM! Writers asked about JJ and Star Wars. Michael Giaccino asked about John Williams scoring Star Wars. JJ promoting Star Trek but asked about Star Wars, Star Trek fans saying STID looked like Star Wars. In 2009 all questions went back to STAR TREK. Even when comparing old to new it was STILL only about Star Trek. So, this film wasn’t even released and the press had already moved on to Star Wars — and so had Mr. Abrams.

350. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 20, 2013

In my little part of Australia, the 2D & 3D sessions appear to be equally available… There is no IMAX here, ‘though.

I fail to understand why you would want to release a movie in 3D only, when so many people have issues with 3D. Sure, the 3D ticket earns more than the 2D ticket – but only if the ticket is actually purchased…

STID has been #1 in Australia for the second weekend running.

351. Exverlobter - May 20, 2013

“Maybe “Star Trek Into Darkness” should have found room for The Rock or Channing Tatum.”

Well The Rock was already in Star Trek Voyager.

352. The Transformed Man - May 20, 2013

@347 I actually agree with the point about Star Wars. All one has to do is go on Youtube and look at any number of press Q&As about “Into Darkness,” Star Wars is hovering like a Bird of Prey over the whole junket. Reporters dutifully ask questions about Trek but invariably one reporter steps up and asks: “What do you think are going to be the differences between making Star Trek and Star Wars?” And that starts the whole avalanche of Star Wars questions.

Yancy

353. RAMA - May 20, 2013

341. Incorrect on all accounts:

Poor performance: No, they projected $80-100 million and made almost $85 million. The movie grossed $165 million worldwide.

1. No, since it did well at the box office.

2. 55% of people tracked to do repeat viewings.

3. Nope RT viewer ratings are 4.4 out 5. Cinemascore is an “A”. Social media positive reviews are running about 3-4% negative. I found very few negative reviews.

Most people I’ve seen dont think its perfect but rave about it. My wife said she’d see it again in the theater and she has never seen a movie twice in a theater.

354. Exverlobter - May 20, 2013

The increased international revenues will make up for the weaker domestic one. I guess that the movie, like its predecessor will make about 350 Million.
In 2009 that was considered as a major succes, so why not this time.
Did the suits at Paramount really expect that STID would join the billion dollar club. Hubris!

355. AyanEva - May 20, 2013

Theater I’m going to today is 2D. Kind of glad that I don’t have to wear glasses over my glasses.

356. smike - May 20, 2013

@347: I must say I agree with almost all those valid arguments presented by Huffington Post.

1. Keeping Khan a secret was nonsense…don’t keep your prize stallion under wrap when you want to win the Kentucky Derby.

2. The four year hiatus far too long, especially after the first movie became such a surprise hit! They should have given us two movies and a TV show by now!

3. Competition is disastrous this time! Iron Man 3, though being a mediocre installment, makes a billion on autopilot. Hangover III and F&F6, probably being lame rehashes of bland movies, will outgun Trek next weekend and even Shyamalan’s After Earth will then blow us out of the stars…It’s one big helluva joke…

4. STAR WARS! JJ’s now nothing more but the future director of Star Wars. And that’s exactly why Paramount should have been so bold to turn Star Trek into the new Star Wars. Now that Star Wars is back, Star Trek has no chance at playing this game… it happened before and it’ll happen again: As soon as the prequels were launched in 1999, Next Gen was done on the big screen…

I still believe NEM bombed due to a lack of general insterested caused (though not only) by the return of Star Wars… And now there will be new Star Wars EVERY YEAR… There simply is no place for Star Trek on the big screen. Return it to TV or we are screwed…With JJ gone anyway, please don’t repeat that 1978 mistake… they should have made Phase II back then.

Now we are almost in exactly the same situation…A still young crew with four years of “space experience” could go either way… back to TV were Trek belongs or just another Star Trek into Warzone…

357. smike - May 20, 2013

should NOT have been so bold…that is…

358. Dennis C - May 20, 2013

@351

Paramount initially projected $85 million, then had a good vibe leading up to it and pumped that number to $100 million. The L.A. times was then predicting a $100 million based on Thursday’s performance but by the end of the weekend the number came back down to $84 million (and keep in mind Paramounts $85 million number was projected from Friday to Sunday, not Wednesday-ish into Sunday).

As for repeat viewings, what people say and actually do are two different things. I intend to go back but the question is when I’ll actually get the chance and if that chance is the middle of June I’ll probably be heading in to see Man of Steel.

And I am among those who believe four years was way too long and that Paramount gave Mr. Abrams and company way too much flexibility on getting this movie out. He should have been on their schedule, not the other way around. This movie should have been in theaters back in 2011.

So, not a flop but definitely a disappointment, In the end, Star trek never loses money.

359. NuFan - May 20, 2013

I would rather see it continue to soar in the foreign markets than domestic because that was where their emphasis was this time.

They can balance it out better for Star Trek 3, but it was critical that they prove modern Star Trek doesn’t have to suck overseas just because all the other ones did. And they accomplished that.

And I wish the haters would stop posting fake numbers. I just looked up First Contact and it opened with 29 million not 45.

360. RAMA - May 20, 2013

354. This is also wrong. SW and ST can coexist, they released 3 films around the same time as each other and ST did fine in it’s own niche.

Wrong to go to movies instead of phase 2? Adjusted for inflation, the first 11 ST movies made $1.9 BILLION dollars domestically alone!

ST is more popular now, but it’ll still be niche to most people, it won’t be the same player as SW or Hobbit, or most superheroes, but it is doing quite well on it’s own. There is no prerequisite for movies to do Star Wars numbers to exist.

361. BH - May 20, 2013

People need to sober up on a few things:

- this film will be lucky to hit $200 domestic, but should clip 225+ international. Something over $400 world wide for Star Trek is a fucking success. And it should hit that.

- there will be another movie.

- this weekend is going to be interesting: word of mouth is VERY good for thisi film, but it’s about to get a whole lot more crowded in the marketplace.

- expecting STID to beat out IM3 is being batstuff crazy. The Avengers are a $3-4 billion+ dollar film franchise that publishes every 6-8 months. Juggernaut.

The goal here was clearly to set up for a third movie because by and large their focus sure was on international exposure and busting out of the perceptions overseas. I think they’ve done that and that’s a good thing. Their overseas uptick from last go around WILL be seen as a successful table setting for more sequels.

I would say this: it is NOT a good idea to announce Blu Ray release dates opening weekend in a summer this crowded. That has to kill some ticket sales. Wait a month for pete’s sake!

362. RAMA - May 20, 2013

356. Only a few last minute projections actually pushed the prediction that high, in general $80-90 million is closer to the mark, and also what Variety predicted. The fact that they hit the mark is not a disappointment.

363. smike - May 20, 2013

@348: “I fail to understand why you would want to release a movie in 3D only, when so many people have issues with 3D.”

You are SO right…The situation in Germany is horrible these days. For whatever reason, there aren’t any 2D versions of most 3D blockbusters available anymore, not even in bigger cities. The theater operators blame the distributors for it (have talked to two of them!), and if you are VERY lucky, a 2D version launches 2-3 weeks later, but only for a week or so. Obviously the distributors want to thoroughly force their crappy postconverted 3D products down our throats… and there is nothing we can do without harming both our cinemas and our favourite movie franchises…

364. smike - May 20, 2013

@357: First Contact had a BUDGET of $45 million, opening weekend was lower. If you’re talking to me, than this is what I was talking about…

Also I’m not a “hater” of the reboots. I’m a HUGE fan of ST09 and I was VERY open to STID even after some details began to irritate old-schoolers. I don’t have any problems with the TWOK “xerox scenes” and was very happy with the character moments. But what I simply can’t stand is the bad science / plot elements…transwarp beaming to Kronos with a portable device, long-range torpedos fit for 20th century cryotubes, the entire torpedo conspiracy that made no sense at all…now THAT stuff I do indeed dislike…

365. No Quite - May 20, 2013

Adjusted for inlfation, this movie did about 75mil (in 2009 numbers.) Not good.

It’s easy for the couch potato to sit home and think of all the things they could do with $400 Million but studios don’t look favorably at these numbers so don’t start think this is the rezounding success everyone was hoping for…especially when other studios are breaking $1 Billion. $400 million is food stamp territory.

Sorry.

366. Exverlobter - May 20, 2013

@355. smike
” And now there will be new Star Wars EVERY YEAR… There simply is no place for Star Trek on the big screen. Return it to TV or we are screwed…With JJ gone anyway, please don’t repeat that 1978 mistake… they should have made Phase II back then. ”

As if Marvel and DC could not coexist. Same with Star Trek and Star Wars.
There is room for both. Especially as Bad Robot is at least producing the next Star Trek film

367. Exverlobter - May 20, 2013

Guys calm down, until now the only Trek-movie that did not turn into profit was Nemesis. Just One of 12 movies. Thats a good result.

368. TerranGuy93 - May 20, 2013

352. Incorrect on all accounts:

Poor performance: Yes, they are 15 million short 100 mil and will face two massive juggernauts in a week. Of course it made good box office, but the point of the comment was why they missed the 100 mil mark.

1. Yes, since buzz died down, had this released sooner, probably would have hit the $100 million mark

2. Where is that analysis from? I have yet to see a single real person tell me they will go see it again, in fact most people i know will be skipping it.

3. Yup, word of mouth in the real world. Perhaps it may be different where you are, but I have yet to see a single person tell me they loved it or talk to their friends about how they should go see it.

As for reviews, i have seen plenty of negative reviews on it. Please note that it has been a lower score than its predecessor on RottenTomatoes AND MetaCritic.

Add to the fact that most of the google results for Into Darkness news are discussing its underperfomance.

Compare the domestic results of it and its predecessor.

Star Trek 09 Opening Weekend

$79.2 mil with a budget of 150 mil

Star Trek ID Opening Weekend

$83.5 mil with a budget of 190 mil

Take Iron Man 2, a film that paled in comparison to its predecessor critically and it still managed to make $30 million more in its opening weekend with an increase of 40-60 million.

I am not and nowhere stated the film is some kind of financial or critical failure. Its not as much of a success as they wanted or expected, and a critical analysis shows why.

369. TerranGuy93 - May 20, 2013

@366

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek10.htm

Actually, according to BoxOfficeMojo, Nemesi did turn a profit, a pretty pathetic one but it still did.

$67.3 mil on a $60 mil budget

370. TerranGuy93 - May 20, 2013

How come my comment got deleted, in response to 352??

371. JimJ - May 20, 2013

341. TerranGuy93: Please do NOT take this as a personal attack-

Why is it, if we are Star Trek fans that want to see it survive, would any of us discourage people from going to/seeing the movie? Just because you didn’t like it , that doesn’t make it a bad movie. It makes it a movie that you didn’t like. I love certain episodes or incarnations of Trek that others hate, and dislike some that other people swear by! Am I right and are they wrong? Are you right and I’m wrong? No, we all have different tastes.

Please do not give me the line of…”I’ll show them, I won’t go back and will encourage others not to go so they make MY type of movie next time.” That’s just plain BULL. Writers cannot cater to each fan’s ideas, they will never satisfy everyone.

Frankly, I think this movie rocks and it’s my favorite Trek movie EVER!!! That comes from a guy who loves TWOK, TVH, TUC, FC, and Trek 2009 and hates GEN and “parts” of TFF.

Now, they (the crew of NCC-1701) have earned their stripes and are ready for the 5 year mission and “the adventure is just beginning”. I can’t wait for the next one.

I think it is performing well and every person that I know that has seen it LOVES it. For the negative nellies, I think it’s a combo of Iron Man 3, Gatsby, and the future releases that will slow it in the box office. Add to that a fragile economy, a HUGE jump in gas prices in the midwestern parts of the USA in the last two weeks, the first nice weather this spring…it all contributes.

I also buy into 3 other things: 1. JJ’s Star Wars endeavor IS taking attention away-curse all of them for announcing his involvement. They could have waited until June 1st to announce! 2. 4 years was too long of a wait for the new fans that 2009 brought in, and 3. They should have announced Khan. People that are casual fans would have been hyped up for that. Rabid fans like me would have possibly shown disappointment but would have come around (I certainly have).

Anyway, I have seen it twice and plan to go at least 10 more times, unless gas keeps rising (see, there is a shining example of how our economy DOES effect ticket sales). Anyway, I think in the end, it’ll make plenty and outperform that last one by about the same spread as the additional cost they spent on budget.

It just blows my mind, though, that some are predicting the death of Star Trek AND are telling people to NOT go see it. When 86-88% of all the movie reviewers LIKE it…I’m sorry to say this, but you are wrong to try to influence others opinions just because you didn’t like it. I certainly didn’t tell people to skip TFF, GEN, or other Trek movies people found subpar. That’s because I knew I would most likely love the next one. Support this show/franchise, it IS worth it! I want my daughter to have something like this to watch rather than franchises like Hangover, Knocked Up, and many more…….

Live long and prosper: Star Trek!

372. TerranGuy93 - May 20, 2013

@371

I told people not to go see it because

a) its just not a good movie, I won’t be the kind of fanboy who hypes up anything that happens to have the words Star Trek attached to it, I told people to go see Trek 09 because it was a phenomenally good movie.

b) I am definitely not predicting the death of Trek from this movie, though it looks like 70-80 % positive reviews

c) I think its wrong of people like you to just tell people to spend their money on any old piece of drek that is labeled Star Trek, bad movie should make less money so studios see that better ones should be made.

d) Since quality of work is a subjective analysis, if I thought it was bad, it is by definition a bad movie from my point of view and i will share that point of view.

e) I told people that instead of going to see Into Darkness, to instead spend that money on a copy of Wrath of Khan, a much better version of the story.

I want the franchise to continue, but not if its written with a plot that makes Family Guy episodes look like shakespeare.

373. Al - May 20, 2013

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3686&p=.htm

Look closely at the demographics. I think they say a lot.

Remember, a movie needs to make 2-2.5 times its production cost. Paramount only gets 30-50% of the attendance money depending on the theater contract.

374. Al - May 20, 2013

Positive reviews and/or word of mouth aren’t enough. I question if there is a market for ST on the big screen?

375. Exverlobter - May 20, 2013

@374
“Positive reviews and/or word of mouth aren’t enough. I question if there is a market for ST on the big screen?”

This would not be the 12th! Star Trek-Film if there was no Market for ST on the big screen.

376. Jon - May 20, 2013

FWIW, my wife and I will be seeing it next weekend. Not that we didn’t want to see it this weekend, but between work and the fact that we just couldn’t line up a babysitter until then, that’s the way it will work out for us.

I’m not surprised either on the lower-than-expected take. Moving the release date up on a short notice was a bad call, no doubt about it. Most people I know had no idea, and it just ended up diluted much of the hype of seeing it on opening night.

And yes, having to wait 4 years was not good either. The masses are just too fickle these days…heck, they cancel TV shows after just 1 or 2 episodes nowadays if the ratings aren’t there! Heaven forbid that they let a show build its audience! Some of my favorite shows from years past would probably never have made it in today’s “American Idol”/”The Voice”/Dancing with the Stars” dominated world :( .

My 2 cents…

377. Al - May 20, 2013

375:

True, true, but peoples viewing interests change and corporate profits are viewed differently compared to 20 years ago.

378. smike - May 20, 2013

@366: Actually, Marvel and DC can’t co-exist! One of them will have to fail on the long run. The reason Marvel is so successful is DC/WB not releasing competing pictures regularily. The TDK trilogy was an exception to the rule for it was not your typical comic book adaptation. It was closer to The Godfather than to any comic book installment. Apart from that, DC has released two flops: Superman Returns and Green Lantern. Nothing more within the last years. Now IF Man of Steel is successful and IF this movie launches a successful range of DC features, this WILL undoubtedly hurt Marvel a lot. They might be able to compensate for that for about a decade, but eventually, one of them or even both of them will falter. Genre fatigue that is…

Same with space opera. If the new breed of Star Wars films, along with the Avatar sequels and some standalone space films are a smashing success, there will be less interest in Star Trek.

GEN and FC, and even INS did incredibly well back in the 90s, because there had been no new Star Wars around for more than a decade. Then the age of blockbusters was launched by 1999′s Episode I and there was almost no interest in NEM outside the hardcore Trek fanbase.

ST09 would have been a lost cause if it had to compete with annual Star Wars films. Mainstream audiences only watched it as a replacement fix because no new “real” Star Wars was around. It was basically JJ’s application for becoming a Star Wars director.

I DO like both franchises, almost equally, but there is only a limited general interest in genres like space opera and comic book movies… on the long run, people will grow weary of that, a process that has already started…

DC/Marvel and Star Trek/Wars can NOT co-exist for too long. It’s a limited decisive period in which such franchises can find their legs, be it niche or mainstream…

379. smike - May 20, 2013

Supplemental: I know TMP and TWOK did rather well despite having to compete with the Star Wars OT. But at that point, the mainstream audience was not yet able to distinguish between both franchises to the same extend they are now. Lots of people back then must have mixed TMP up with Star Wars, only to realite it was nothing like that but that “guy with the ears” already seen on TV.

380. Spock Jr. - May 20, 2013

So basically Paramount predicted it would make more so when it looked like it was going to fall short of that for a moment everyone jumped online to say it was failing only to have it pick up the next day so everything is pretty much fine!?

Good to know.

381. smike - May 20, 2013

@373: “Look closely at the demographics. I think they say a lot.”

Indeed. Too much emphasis on male, older viewers. Female audience and teenagers largely ignored the film. I’m not surprised. Present-day 15-year-olds were only 11 when the last one came out. They probably can’t even remember that. They are looking forward to FF6 instead. And women? Probably turned off by the action-centered promotion and the gratutious underwear shot.

They have waited FAR TOO LONG… They had a buzz back then four years ago. Now it simply is too late. The kids are gone and the girls have probably all married a Star Wars guy…

382. indranee - May 20, 2013

Seriously?! Need this be spelled out?

Releasing it THREE WEEKS ahead abroad while we USA fans twiddled our thumbs waiting for it here? I’m not mentioning names, of course, but at least a majority of some of the younger Trekkie dudes I know torrented it.

It may still have strong legs but I’m not surprised it didn’t meet the bloated 100mil expectation.

383. Exverlobter - May 20, 2013

@ 378

I actually do think, that the success of Star Wars made the resurrection of Star Trek possible in the first place. Otherwise Trek would be a forgotten show like Time Tunnel!

384. Exverlobter - May 20, 2013

@381

What Star Trek 2009 is already forgotten? I guess you think that most people have amnesia!

385. Al - May 20, 2013

384:

Point made, but it hasn’t carried over to this movie. That’s the problem.

386. Exverlobter - May 20, 2013

@385

As is said before, people don’t have forgotten it, May is just overcrowded.
In May 2009 people checked Star Trek out, because Terminator Salvation and Wolverine sucked. This time it was not that easy for Trek because EVERYONE has to see Iron Man 3 and many people will also check out Fast and Furious while girls tend to attend the Great Gatsby.
Interest in Star Trek is still strong, but it is no match against Marvel. The main problem was the May-timeslot. They should have used the one in August.
I guess the movie will perform great on DVD and TV though.

387. VulcanCafe - May 20, 2013

@369

No way Nemesis made a profit. $67 million at the box office translates to about $40 million to Paramount (most movies earn 80-90% of opening box office then it slides down over time so that theaters earn more the longer a film plays). Plus add in somewhere between 50-100% more in advertising expenses and you get a Paramount spend of $100 million that earned back $40m plus some DVD/cable revenue. Yikes!

Regarding STID I remember hearing somewhere that they wouldn’t need to spend as much in the USA on marketing this time. So $190m budget, plus $100m marketing and you need to make almost $400m to break even. ($400m x .7 average cut to the studio). They’re halfway there. DVD/Blu revenue is WAY down so you can’t count on that. They did make a chunk on US cable rights last time though, with FX paying $24 million plus whatever EPIX paid for ST2009.

STID movie will make a profit, and there will be another, with a new director and a lower budget. There will continue to be more sequels as long as the international box office continues to grow, thats where the big money is. Iron Man 3 made $700m overseas. If they were smart I’d expect positive Chinese, German, and British characters to play a large role in ST2016.

388. JimJ - May 20, 2013

@ 372: I told you not to take it as a personal attack (I was speaking about fans in general), but since you did anyway, I AM going to respond to your comments:

“I told people not to go see it because”

“a) its just not a good movie, I won’t be the kind of fanboy who hypes up anything that happens to have the words Star Trek attached to it, I told people to go see Trek 09 because it was a phenomenally good movie.”

It is not a good movie, in your opinion…the majority thinks it is good. It’s sad that you think it is bad, but that is your opinion. Also, i did not ask you to hype it up. I said I didn’t understand FANS who tell people to NOT go to a Star Trek. Are we so conceited that we have to tell them how they should feel about a movie or whether they should go to it or not?

“b) I am definitely not predicting the death of Trek from this movie, though it looks like 70-80 % positive reviews”

85-88% positive reviews by the critics is NOT a qualifier as a BAD movie. If that’s the case, then at least 10 of the 12 Star Trek movies ARE bad!

“c) I think its wrong of people like you to just tell people to spend their money on any old piece of drek that is labeled Star Trek, bad movie should make less money so studios see that better ones should be made.”

AGAIN, this is YOUR opinion. Apparently, even though I have watched Star Trek since 1969 and am known in my neck of the woods as a fantastic and knowledgeable Star Trek fan…I am wrong to tell my friends that I loved the movie and that they should go see it, because YOU think it is an “old piece of drek that is labeled Star Trek”. Apparently your opinion matters more than mine? If I don’t like something, I tell people that I didn’t enjoy it as much as the last one, but I let them form their own opinions. Heck, my wife LOVES “Insurrection”. I consider it an average movie at best, but I never discourage her from watching it if she enjoys it. I’m just happy that she likes Star Trek, even if it’s not the exact same thing that I like related to Star Trek. My point is…why the open hostility towards a franchise you supposedly enjoy? You dislike it, that’s fine, but Spock’s Brain still exists and I have found a few people that like it. I absolutely HATE Star Trek Voyager, but i am glad some of my friends came to love Star Trek because of it. When they asked me about Voyager, I told them it wasn’t for me, but they should see what they think, if they were curious. Some agreed with me, some violently disagreed.

“d) Since quality of work is a subjective analysis, if I thought it was bad, it is by definition a bad movie from my point of view and i will share that point of view.”

When I dislike something (not just Trek), I tell them it wasn’t for me. Romeo & Juliet isn’t for me, in fact…I think it’s bad, but obviously my opinion doesn’t match the majority. telling other people not to read it is not right, in my opinion.

“e) I told people that instead of going to see Into Darkness, to instead spend that money on a copy of Wrath of Khan, a much better version of the story.”

I watched “Wrath of Khan” last night. Great movie for it’s time, but it doesn’t play as well in today’s world. Ask yourself, what kind of response would “The Wrath of Khan” get if they re-released it on the big screen today (as they have done with some other classics)? I think we both know the answer to that question. Batman was a great movie in it’s time, but there’s no doubt that the Dark Knight movies play better in today’s world.

“I want the franchise to continue, but not if its written with a plot that makes Family Guy episodes look like shakespeare.”

A statement like that totally discredits you, IMO. NO Star Trek movie EVER “makes Family Guy episodes look like shakespeare.” GEESH!
….remember, I told you not to take my last post personal, but you turned it into this. I’ll fight for this movie because I think it’s great. What you think is “drek” I think is fantastic writing (for a lot of reasons). You think it’s rehash, I think it’s brilliant. So, that being said, I know my statement just now totally discredits me in your eyes. SO…I’ll agree to disagree with you!

389. smike - May 20, 2013

@382: THREE weeks ahead? It was only ONE week ahead in Australia and Europe…I’m not talking about premiere events, only wide release. But I also think that this was a mistake, a big one. Not just because of illegal downloads but because of spoilers! What sense does it make to keep Harrison’t true identity under wrap and then not to release this film worldwide on one day? Poor Anthony had to keep you guys from spoilers for 8 days and this was only one of hundreds and thousands of sites around the http://www... The mystery box has backfired in a multitude of ways.

390. Spock's Bangs - May 20, 2013

Wow. leave it to the JJ haters to call an amazing, 4 day, 84 million dollar weekend, especially in the wake of competition like Gatsby and Iron Man 3, a failure. Sorry squeaky wheels, this is really a non-issue, especially considering the fantastic foreign returns. JJ’s trek isn’t over by a long shot. Picard isn’t coming back. Sorry.

391. Al - May 20, 2013

386:

I’m not sure you can say people haven’t forgotten. When adjusted for inflation, STID tickets sales were smaller than ST 2009. Sure, this month is packed with hits, but don’t you think that if the 2009 movie really stuck with people…the numbers would have, at least, been equal when adjusted for inflation? That’s why I said earlier that 2009 may have been a one off.

392. Al - May 20, 2013

Look, most of us aren’t “JJ haters.” I want Star Trek to be as successful as you do. When looking at the raw numbers, however, domestic attendance was down compared to the last movie. I’m sure there are multiple reasons. I just hope 2009 wasn’t a one-time event.

393. Exverlobter - May 20, 2013

I don’t think it’s a one-off the audience is the same, but the circumstances are a lot tougher this time.
If Abrams would have changed direction and presented a totally different film from the one in2009 those decreased numbers might be an explanation.
But at least in my oppinion STID is the natural successor of the first film.
Its not like between TMP and TWOK where you wondered if this is still the same franchise.

394. Philip - May 20, 2013

Oh don’t give me this there’s no audience for Trek…

Watch this…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaorl0IlNsI

It’ll never die…

395. Cody - May 20, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness is a BIG success, both critically and at the box office. End of story. Sorry haters, you lose. Better luck next time. :P

396. Al - May 20, 2013

393:

Nice link- thank you. I remember my dad taking my brother and me to the Lensic to see the movie. Being awed by the opening minutes of the Klingon sequence. Fandom, however, changes with time. Sure, there will always be an audience for ST, but perhaps the big screen isnt the best place for it?! Who knows..time will tell. Just observations.

397. Ahmed - May 20, 2013

@ 394. Cody – May 20, 2013

“Star Trek Into Darkness is a BIG success, both critically and at the box office. End of story. Sorry haters, you lose. Better luck next time. :P”

Are you high or something ?

398. Justiceman - May 20, 2013

I’d agree with the many people on here who question the usefulness of hiding Khan’s identity. It served no purpose, and it was an underwhelming “reveal” in the brig. Using Khan for the marketing would have been much more effective than the not-particularly-scary-sounding “John Harrison.”

399. Exverlobter - May 20, 2013

@397 Justiceman

To the mainstream audience it does not make any difference if the bad guy is Khan or John Harrison.
I remember when i saw the Dark Knight Rises and Miranda Tate turned out to be Talia al Ghul (who i did not know as i am just a casual batman fan)at that point.
I said to myself, “So what. Miranda Tate/Talia, it does not make any difference for me”
Same with Khan/John Harrison.
Again, most mainstream people won’t remember Khan from a 30 year old movie!

400. Exverlobter - May 20, 2013

BTW Talia Al Ghul, nobody complained that Christopher Nolan did the same thing like Abrams- hiding the villains real personality.
It did not hurt the box office of TDKR at all.

401. The Transformed Man - May 20, 2013

@393

There will always be an audience for Trek, but the numbers have diminished greatly. Bear in mind that’s a video from almost 35 years ago when Trek was only 10 years removed from from being on NBC and was still in the midst of its syndicated heyday. Those days are long gone as there is much more competition for sci-fi/fantasy dollars. Kids simply don’t gravitate to Trek like they used to, they look to franchises like Star Wars, the Avengers, and the Dark Knight to get their escapist fix.

“Adapt or die.” It’s as simple as that. The hardcore fanbase is growing older and the numbers are dwindling. Paramount is trying to engage younger viewers, and yes there are going to be certain changes required to appeal to modern audiences. As long as they don’t lose sight of what made Star Trek tick, then I’m fine. But if you expect to find success if Paramount changes course and goes back to making Star Trek films the “old fashioned way,” I think you will be disappointed with the results as Trek goes back to the state it was in around the cancellation of Enterprise.

Someone suggested going back to Nicholas Meyer to guide the franchise. As much as I love Meyer’s work there’s no way they are going to turn to a 67 year old writer/director who has done nothing of substance in almost 20 years… not going to happen. Trek needs to continue moving forward, not backward.

402. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 20, 2013

Leave the movie making to the younger Bad Robot people. Please don’t let Nicholas Meyer, Leonard Nimoy, Harve Bennett or any of the other *oldsters* near the business of making any third Star Trek movie. I still have an ick taste when I think of how those iconic characters were handled in parts of TUC. Honestly, Nicholas Meyer and Leonard Nimoy – what were you thinking? Yuk.

Let there be a big get together at a convention for all those involved with the making of Star Trek over the last 50 years in 2016. Give it some really good publicity et al, so that fans the world over, can feel a sense of real participation, even if most cannot be there in person.

403. Lurker - May 20, 2013

@397

Well according to Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and CinemaScore, it is a critical success.

There will be movies this year that will have lower scores than STID, and they will make hundreds of million dollars more.

ST09 got an astounding 95%, and still made crap compared to other blockbusters that year. People who think Star Trek is main stream for the movie going audience are kidding themselves and need to get out more. It will always be way cooler to got to Hangover 3 than some nerdy sci-fi movie. Especially in the summer…

Andy P said it best above – STID won’t be a monster hit, and it won’t be a bomb. So get ready for Star Trek in 2016, produced by Bad Robot Productions.

404. FinnGoDo - May 20, 2013

@ 321 “I don’t think that the 4 year gap was a big issue. Trekkies are gonna see it anyway and the normal mainstream-audience at least is aware that there is sort of a 50 year old franchise”

I don’t agree. Fans are a small percentage of the global audience. 4 years is an eternity.

405. FinnGoDo - May 20, 2013

@330, VulcanFilmCritic.

You summed up my post better than I could. Dark=Killed Star Trek at the Domestic Box Office. People want to be entertained. The Dark Knight isn’t a formula for a success, it’s a rarity that worked with that property.

Star Trek should be adventure. Not one humor-filled line from Star Trek Into Darkness (and there were a few) were featured in any marketing material. JJ dropped the ball in want to go dark. Paramount dropped the ball in marketing it dark.

406. Dismayed - May 21, 2013

The biggest question this thread has brought up: how on earth do you all have enough free time to see a 2+ hour movie 5 times on its opening weekend???

407. VulcanFilmCritic - May 21, 2013

@ 333 Exverlobter I guess it sounds harsh, but I’m just repeating what I read that JJ Abrams said years ago, that he WANTED to make a dark movie like “The Dark Knight.”

@405FinnGoDo. You’re right. Star Trek doesn’t look good in “dark.” And there is a lot of death, destruction and sadness in this movie that is not really justified.

(SPOILERS AHEAD)
The dying child (Did we really need this?)
Her father’s terrorist act. So robotic, no feeling to it at all.
Pike’s fate (WHYYYYYYY? This is an alternate universe. This doesn’t have to happen. This is SOOOO wrong!)
Re-purposing a Star Trek villain (What a downer.)
Spock’s loss of control (If we lose Spock through character drift, we lose the whole point of Star Trek.)
A dire warning from “Spock” (I really enjoyed my 10 billion nano-seconds of nostalgia.)
Kirk’s fate (Cynical bastards! How dare they re-imagine this scene!)
Stuff being blown up left and right, including the Enterprise.
etc. etc. etc.

And what do we have in the plus column? Bupkis! I didn’t experience one genuine feel-good, fist-in-the-air moment in the whole film. If you don’t get that “hit” of adrenaline in the blood and norepinephrine in the brain, you’re not going to want to go back for more.

Star Trek is like an addicting drug. We’ve gotta have those moments. They can be emotional (Spock Prime) or mechanical (little James Kirk driving a car off a cliff) or both (space jump.) But we gotta get that rush.
Re-hashing the good moments, as fans often do, is what sustains us between films.

408. LizardGirl - May 21, 2013

@403

Agreed!

409. TerranGuy93 - May 21, 2013

386, The only person who is taking anything as a personal insult seems to be you, and if you can’t have a logical debate over an illogical refutation you provided to a comment i made, I won;t be discussing anything further with you.

By the way, in the future, you probably shouldn’t respond to someone disagreeing with you by immediately trying to get defensive, it makes your argument looks weak.

Have a lovely day ignoring what you don’t want to hear.

————————————————————————————-

A comment I read in another forum was actually another pretty good reason for why the film underperformed.

Avengers was incredibly popular not due to its story which was so meh but the characters people wanted to go see.

This movies marketing never really emphasized character and thus when paired with a nebulous idea of the movie, not much was their for people to really get pumped about.

410. thunderstrike44 - May 21, 2013

What a bunch of Whiners, its sounds like the movie industry is going the way of the Auto Industry. “We are making money, but its not as much as we estimated, so we are losing money……” What Crap……

411. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 21, 2013

“Spock’s loss of control (If we lose Spock through character drift, we lose the whole point of Star Trek.)”

Lose the whole point of Star Trek? Seriously? Spock being (part) Vulcan (ie must suppress emotions so the audience can *think* good) and Montalban’s Khan have been way more attention and idolization than is either necessary or deserved.

412. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 21, 2013

edit: “…have been GIVEN way more…”

413. Josh C. - May 21, 2013

For what it’s worth, Into Darkness did $500,000 better than 2009 did on it’s first Monday. If it can do that for Monday through Thursday, that’s about $2 million it can gain during the week.

Into Darkness did $8 million yesterday. 2009 did $7.5 million on it’s first Monday.

414. Josh C. - May 21, 2013

Also, it has a slim shot at possibly passing $100 million today (probably not, though, since Tuesdays usually drop from Monday) but it should almost certainly pass $100 million on Wednesday, so 7 days to $100 million it looks like

415. Gary 8.5 - May 22, 2013

I think Paramount picked the best possible opening day that they could.
Lets say we get lucky .
Weekend Two is between 43-47 million dollars.
Weekend Three is between 23-27 million .
Now ,obviously I dont know that is going to happen .
But you have a better chance of something like that happening if your second weekend is Memorial Day weekend .
If Weekend Three is still in the double digits , than I think we will be okay.

416. Photon70 - May 22, 2013

@ 415. Gary 8.5 – May 22, 2013

I’m waiting for this Friday’s numbers.

If its around $12million, then we could be looking at a $50million 4 day long weekend.

417. VulcanFanatic - May 23, 2013

I didnt read all of the last 416 comments, so i may be echoing someone else when i give my opinion on why the movie isnt performing that well in the USA. Doesnt have anything to do with IronMan 3 or any other movie. I am a life long Star Trek fan with over 40 years under my belt of watching all of the series, and the movies when they first ran in the theaters. I think i am qualified to say that since i have seen this movie, i know what the problem is. The Dumbasses in charge of scheduling the movie to premiere a week earlier in the UK shot themselves in the foot. People in the US found out the the movie sucked, was a rehash of someone elses story idea, and so avoided going to the film when it finally opened in the US. What genius in Hollywood came up with the idea to release an american film overseas first. Maybe if Paramount is disappointed with the take on this movie, they will get someone to actually write an original script next time, instead of taking a bunch of old trek moments that were good in the original movies and string them together with a weave of explosions and call it a Star Trek movie. Gene Roddenberry would be ashamed of this movie.

418. Disinvited - May 23, 2013

387. VulcanCafe – May 20, 2013

No way any Trek before 2009 had a 9 digit advertising budget:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2002/STRKX.php

“Prints and Advertising Budget $33,000,000″

419. Disinvited - May 23, 2013

#387. VulcanCafe – May 20, 2013

Make that “a 9 digit production + advertising” budget.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.