Analysts: Into Darkness ‘Solid’ Domestic & ‘Strong’ International Open – But Why Not Even Better? |
jump to navigation

Analysts: Into Darkness ‘Solid’ Domestic & ‘Strong’ International Open – But Why Not Even Better? May 20, 2013

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

The final weekend results are in and Star Trek Into Darkness is the #1 movie in the world, bringing in over $110M over the weekend giving it a global gross of over $164M. Analysts mostly agree the film had a solid domestic performance (but behind expectations) and impressive overseas sales. More details and analysis of the analysis below.   


Star Trek off to a ‘solid’ performance domestically + ‘strong’ internationally

After the softer sales on Friday, Star Trek Into Darkness rallied with stronger domestic sales on Saturday and Sunday to end the 3-day weekend with $70.2M and a cumulative total of around $84M. Paramount’s view is that the film is outperforming the sequel by 6% domestically, but they are comparing the 2009’s 3-1/4 day returns with Into Darkness’ 4-day returns (+ IMAX previews), so there is a bit of apples to oranges.


Domestic $M Star Trek
Into Darkness
Wednesday $2.0*
Thursday $4.0* $11.5
Friday $26.9 $21.6
Saturday $27.2 $26.9
Sunday $21.0 $21.6
Open Wkd Total. $75.2 $70.2
Cumulative $79.2 $83.7
*limited release  Source:

While it ended the weekend a bit ahead of where the 2009 Star Trek movie, it didn’t meet the $100M projections from Paramount. However the film did meet the $85M projection that Paramount was talking about three weeks ago (before they moved the release date). There is a consensus that the last-minute move of the release date did not achieve Paramount’s goals of boosting sales and may have just moved hardcore fans from Friday to Thursday without bringing in more regular filmgoers.

It is hard to predict where the film will go from here but domestically it looks like  Into Darkness may not outperform the 2009 Star Trek film (which brought in a domestic total of $258M making it the 7th highest grossing film of 2009). So this time around Into Darkness probably won’t break into the top 5 but it still has a shot at the top 10. Even using the lower $70.2M figure, the Into Darkness opening weekend would be ranked 7th best for either 2011 or 2012 and 6th in 2010. And 7th ranked films have brought in $210-$260M (domestic) in the last 3 years.

On the international front, Into Darkness brought in an estimated $40M over the weekend, opening in over two dozen new territories. This brings the overseas total to 80.5M. The film continues to significantly outperform the 2009 Star Trek film in each market, in come cases very significantly. For example in Russia it opened with an $8M weekend, compared to just $1.9M for Star Trek in 2009. We don’t have the final country-by-country data yet so we can’t do a full Into Darkness vs. Star Trek breakdown, but Paramount is projecting that in the end Into Darkness could as much double Star Trek’s $128M total international take.

So it looks like any potential shortfall (vs. Star Trek) domestically could be more than made up for internationally so that in the end Into Darkness will likely outpace the $386M global gross of the 2009 film. Of course with a bigger budget, 3D tickets and inflation it was expected to perform better, so the big question now is how much better will it do?

As of May 19th, Star Trek Into Darkness global cumulative gross was $164.2M.

Analysts: Sales "Solid" but Paramount over-predicted domestic

Analysts seem to agree that Into Darkness was a solid performer domestically but that Paramount was over-zealous in their predictions. There is also agreement that the studio is hitting their target internationally. Here is some of the commentary…

…a truly solid number for [Into Darkness]. It’s only perhaps Paramount was a little too eager for a hit, setting its Stateside expectations too high at $100 million-plus.

The iconic space tentpole grossed a lot of money worldwide…But came nowhere near the $80M weekend and $100M total predicted.

Star Trek Into Darkness topped the box office chart — even if it didn’t engage warp speed and hit $100 million.
Hollywood Reporter

"Star Trek Into Darkness" opened atop the U.S. box office, though its debut didn’t quite make the jump to warp speed that Paramount Pictures executives expected.
LA Times

The Enterprise encountered some choppy air in North America over the weekend — namely strong holdover ticket sales for “Iron Man 3” and “The Great Gatsby” — but hit warp speed in foreign markets…
NY Times

Fans leading the way

Analysis also shows that fans – such as readers of – are leading the way and a key part of the Paramount’s hopes for the continued strong returns. Here is what Variety says of Trek fan contribution to Into Darkness:

[Domestically] the film played above average with Trekkies, who contributed a higher-than-usual percentage of the pic’s total gross.

With franchise fans driving online chatter for “Into Darkness,” word-of-mouth should be especially strong for the sequel.

Reuters also picks up on this, noting:

Paramount said the film’s audience was comprised largely of longtime "Star Trek" fans, but was optimistic that good reviews and word of mouth would bring in a broader audience in coming weeks.

More interesting IMAX sales data:

Should it have done better? And why didn’t it?

So even if it is "solid" domestically and "strong" internationally, clearly Paramount was hoping for more on the domestic side. And the analysis from Forbes takes this on saying that not meeting these higher expectations is a disappointment:

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.

The reasoning for Into Darkness not making big (domestic) gains over the 2009 movie had analysts scratching their heads, as noted by BoxOfficeGuru:

The underperforming numbers of Into Darkness were downright baffling. Paramount made a good product and picked a fine time to release it giving it two weeks distance from the summer’s other action tentpole Iron Man 3. Reviews were mostly positive (more than good enough for a sci-fi sequel) and audiences also liked the film with opening day ticket buyers giving an A grade from CinemaScore. The marketing push was strong and normal for May action tentpoles.

Guru offers a suggestion, pointing to the four year gap between films, but also noting that maybe it is competition more so:

Most franchises in recent years have not taken [4 years] off in between installments including Twilight, Harry Potter, Iron Man, Transformers, and the Star Wars prequels. Even newer ones like Hobbit and Hunger Games have told fans that they will get a new chapter every year. Last year, however, there were a pair of films that came out exactly four years after their last installments and opened bigger without even needing 3D – The Dark Knight Rises and Skyfall. Both were threequels to a reboot and followed sequels that were also very successful so audiences were more hooked to the brands. The love shown for 2009’s Star Trek could have been somewhat of an anomaly. It certainly brought in a broader more mainstream crowd, but many may have lost the excitement this time around especially with popular alternative options from Mr. Stark and Mr. Gatsby out there right now.

Box Office Mojo also focuses on competition was more of a factor, noting:

It seems more likely [Into Darkness] fell victim to the incredibly competitive May schedule. There’s only so much money to go around, and following the strong performances of Iron Man 3 and The Great Gatsby—and a week ahead of a jam-packed Memorial Day—Star Trek Into Darkness just wasn’t a compelling enough proposition for casual moviegoers.

Trek’s demographics tell an interesting story that contributes to that theory: the audience skewed heavily male (64 percent) and older (73 percent over the age of 25). In comparison, the first movie did a better job reaching women (only 60 percent male) and younger audiences (only 65 percent over 25).

Another issue may be demographics. Deadline reports exit polling shows that 64% of the audience was male and only 27% was under the age 25. For the 2009 Star Trek movie, 35% were under 25. And in comparison Iron Man 3 had 45% under 25. So with all the talk of this not being your father’s Star Trek, there may be too many fathers in the audience. Speaking to The Wrap, Exhibitor Relations vice-president and senior analyst Jeff Bock said:

It didn’t grab the attention of young moviegoers, and you’re not going to get your movie over $100 million with just older folks. It’s tough to figure, because with Abrams doing it, it’s really not your father’s ‘Star Trek.’ But it needs to find that young audience in a hurry.

More to come

TrekMovie will continue to monitor box office results globally for Into Darkness along with the industry analyses as the film moves into its second weekend and beyond.


1. Philip - May 20, 2013

Paramount was originally predicting 65-70 mil opening, weeks b4 this half-cocked idea this film would make 100 million plus for opening weekend. This is crazy talk, nothing more.

This film will prove to have legs, something Hangover 3 and FF6 won’t have. And don’t underestimate all the busy people this past weekend dealing with graduation ceremonies who will be out in full force to the movies this weekend………..and to see what? See the film that has good word of mouth and for most of those busy folks, they wanted to see it opening weekend but were too busy with more important family related activities.

2. Philip Dunlop - May 20, 2013

I didn’t think it was that great a movie, to be honest. That could be why.

3. Daniel - May 20, 2013

I saw Trek 2009 12 times in the cinema. During the second viewing of STID I got bored. I’m not surprised it is not doing as well as they hoped. Still, it’s going to make a lot of money and I can’t wait for the third installment.

4. USSEXETER - May 20, 2013

I took my kids (ages 11& 8) and they loved it! Then again dad has exposed them to Trek at every chance I get. ;)

5. Forge - May 20, 2013

Why was Into Darkness weaker than 2009? Because we hadn’t seen Star Trek (2009) before, but most of us saw Into Darkness when it was still called The Wrath of Khan.

Seems old movie + lens flare excess does not equal mega box office.

6. Karen Brown - May 20, 2013

Too high expectations can really do damage. A solid, or even excellent showing can look weak just by comparison, so people who were on the fence go ‘well, maybe it isn’t so good’. It is tempting to play something up REALLY big, but it can backfire. Lots of things can make a movie need to build, like economy, other movies opening, even weather, or if schools are still in session.

7. Kregano - May 20, 2013

Personally, I think that the word of mouth has hurt it a lot more than analysts think. I know I see a lot more lukewarm/negative reactions than overwhelmingly positive ones to this movie, as opposed to the previous one. I think the third act REALLY hurt the movie because soured people’s opinions.

8. Dave Thornton - May 20, 2013

Could it also just possibly be
that it’s Just not that great of a Star Trek movie? Granted if one goes in and does not think too much of “disect” it, It’s a fun movie.
But for some of those that are being called haters and Trolls,
It comes across as a $180.000.000 feeling of,,,
“Been there , Done that and seen it done better somehow before.”

9. Sagart - May 20, 2013

I loved ID and ST 09, but I think it’s time for Trek to return home, to TV.

10. Terence T - May 20, 2013

So earlier openings in the U.S. compared to other countries decreases the box office in other countries, but when they have earlier openings in other countries it doesn’t decrease the U.S. box office?

11. TardisCaptain - May 20, 2013

Who at Paramount pulled the $100 mil number? The movie is fine (as a movie) but not the problem of a wrong estimate at Paramount.

I would also agree that there was way too much time between movies. This is why we need a television show to continue to grow the name recognition with all audiences.

12. Captain Sanders - May 20, 2013

The marketing for the film was too dark. When I watched STID it had the same feel and tone of the 2009 film. However that was not reflected in the trailers and marketing materials. I think what the new Trek team did well with the 2009 film was buck the trend of making it dark. And the adventurous tone of the 2009 film was well reflected in the advertising. P.S. Bob, you finally did it, you made my 10 year old son love Star Trek with this movie. I never thought he and I would ever be sitting around watching trek together till now. He is running around the house with my Phaser and Communicator that I had when I was his age dreaming of being Captain Kirk. So thank u!!!

13. Rose - May 20, 2013

Since when does 84 million dollars=bad? Geez, Paramount, learn to manage your expectations.

14. Michael Hall - May 20, 2013

Putting aside my own feelings about INTO DARKNESS–they can be read about on the first domestic reaction thread, for anyone whose interested–it’s a little beside the point to claim the film underperformed because it too much resembled THE WRATH OF KHAN, or because the story had plot holes, or because you didn’t like Alice Eve’s character, or pretty much anything else actually related to the film’s quality. None of that explains why audiences were not fired-up to see the film on its opening weekend. In truth, Paramount had plenty of great reviews to pull quotes from, so the only issue in terms of ticket sales that quality would affect is word-of-mouth, which would not be a factor on Friday, the day which most contributed to the shortfall. (And if anything, the film’s CinemaScore would suggest positive word-of-mouth, too.)

Again, I’m not saying the movie deserved to do better; I’m just noting that issues with the story or other things being tossed around on these threads have nothing to do with why, at this point, it didn’t do better. But I can say this: those who were convinced that J.J. Abrams “saved” the Trek franchise for all time with the wonderfulness of his 2009 reboot may do well at this point to reconsider just how fickle audiences can be.

15. Clinton - May 20, 2013

I think the long time between sequels was a factor. They need to build on the momentum a bit more. Granted, 3 years is a long time, too, but it’s better than 4. And yes, as the economy shrinks, shelling out for blockbusters several weeks in a row is not an option for some people. I know friends who just couldn’t swing Iron Man AND Star Trek. First movie out of the gate wins.

I do think “Star Trek into Darkness” is a great, fun movie. I hope it has legs at the box offfice. And I am encouraged by the overseas numbers. We will get a third installment, but I’m hoping for 2016 more than ever.

16. cgrest - May 20, 2013

@ #9. You are absolutely right. My belief has always been that Trek is best on the small screen because it is far my character driven than blockbuster movie driven.

Is it possible the movies would do better if the super crazy fans that dress up to attend the theaters would stay home and not scare off the casual movie goers?

17. NCC-73515 - May 20, 2013

I can well imagine some fans not even giving it a chance because they read misleading information in some early spoilers. People who would’ve gone and now won’t, simply because the plot snippets were revealed in a very negative way. So maybe secrecy does not help at all as soon as you have a bad quality leak that everyone takes information from.

18. Anthony Pascale - May 20, 2013

guys. this is a non spoiler thread. Some ppl have still not seen the movie.

19. CaptainDonovin - May 20, 2013

@ 11TardisCaptain

Agreed. This was (in this fans opinion) a great movie. Did it reuse a few things from the sacred text that is TWoK, a little, but that didn’t take away any of the enjoyment I had. Maybe 2009 WAS a fluke non-Trek fans are finding other things to do, or maybe not as many people went to the movies this weekend.

I agree, Trek needs to come back to TV. Where I don’t know because I still have doubts a Trek-like show does more than two seasons on network (ABC,NBC, CBS, FOX). Maybe CW would be a good fit, or USA or TNT or something.

20. Satisfied Fan - May 20, 2013

Well, I am a female under 25, and I loved it. I’ve been waiting four long years for this movie (knocked out college and graduated while I was waiting) and was very pleased with it.

My guess as to why it didn’t do as well? Possibly because it came too soon after Iron Man 3 and maybe should have waited until Memorial Day weekend. I know a lot of people who are finishing finals during this time and leisure stuff is put aside. Memorial Day weekend might have brought in more people. Just my opinion…no real proof, but hey, it’s a thought.

Already looking forward to a third movie…

21. Phil - May 20, 2013

I knew I was not going to be able to see it opening weekend, so I read the spoilers. I’m on record for expressing I’d prefer to not see JJ do Treks Greatest Hits (Yeah, I read the IO9 STID FAQ), but that’s what they chose to do – so, when I go I’m expecting to see a well crafted movie. Nothing more, nothing less. But that’s the entire problem, the younger audience that came out to see ST09 stayed away this time, and that same audience will be out for FF6 or H3 next weekend. Four years between movies, and consistent negative comments about this being a fanboy flick isn’t the direction the franchise needed to go.

22. BRF - May 20, 2013

Anthony, sorry for the spoiler in the now deleted post. If I can walk a line here, I’ll just say that some of the mystery built up by the promotion doesn’t in my opinion pay off. I think that not just one but various twists in the plot deliver an initial jolt of satisfaction, but that as the surprises/recognition settles they leave one with a feeling of inevitability and even disappointment, rather than surprise and satisfaction. The movie is a solid piece of diversion, and I think better than the last outing, and maybe it will grow on me as my expectations for it adjust, but put it this way: I didn’t leave the theater feeling that I had gone where no man (or no one) had gone before.

23. Forrest Leeson - May 20, 2013

Don’t forget inflation. says $79.2M in 2009 = $85.84M today.

24. Alt-Spock - May 20, 2013

For all of those that are desperate to say STID did “better” than ST09 (but don’t understand the time value of money), it did not.

$79.2 Million in 2009 is worth ~$85.84 Million now. Thus 2013 did not make more than 2009 in real dollars.

As for why, it could be people like me, a long-time Star Trek fan, who have seen every movie including ST09 on opening day but got turned off by the JJ-verse. I will not be seeing STID.

25. Dave Thornton - May 20, 2013

Does anyone remember when there was only 79 episodes of Star Trek?
79 episodes that were in reruns non stop until Star Trek the Motion picture came out in 1979?
There was also a time where a Star Trek movie was an event and actually special because it was rare.

Then after Star Trek 4 The Voyage Home, came 7 years of Next Generation on television along with the original series. Then as next Generation was nearing it’s end, we got 7 Years of D.S.9. followed by 7 more Years of Voyager.
Finally we had the “prequel” that was Enterprise.

So with 696 episodes among the various Television series as well as 12 Movies,

Does anyone think that maybe, (just maybe) what has damaged Star Trek or has made it LESS special was it being oversaturated?

It should also be noted that
overtime, the bumps on the Huminoid foreheads grew and the technobabble increased to cover the lackluster/Dull stories and flat/bland characters .Be it the regulars as well as the guest stars.

So perhaps after all 12 movies , 23 cartoons and 696 T.V. episodes,
There’s just nothing new left to write about thats
new, inspiring, motivating as well as intriguing when it comes to 7 people on a spaceship either exploring strange new worlds or stopping some evil being from starting a war ,getting revenge or destroying the universe,

But as long as one doesnt “think” too much or disect the Movie ,,,
Or stop at certain points in the film and say,
“That just doesn’t make sense”
It’s a fun film.

not all those that truly dislike this latest Star Trek Movie are “haters & Trolls.”
Nor are all those that truly love it “Studio Plants” either. LOL

As with Beauty,, so it is also with what Star Trek is.
For what is defined as true (or acceptable) Star Trek is very much
in the eye of the beholder.
Live Long and prosper :-)

26. Alt-Spock - May 20, 2013

darn – #23 Forrest Leeson beat me by a minute.

But my response is more fleshed out, :p

27. Th Keeper - May 20, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness was simply the wrong name for the film, compounded by word of mouth that the villian was a retooling of Khan.

Don’t make the mistake of following what “Batman” or any other super hero film does by re-inventing the best known villian over and over again.
That;’s comic book stuff..
And stay away from workds like “Darkness” or any other dreary envoking discriptive word.
In space, it’s always dark, we don’t need to remind people.

Your real challenge would be if you guys can make a fun filled ride with all the humor, action, adventure, exciement and mind blowing visuals using a stoiry that actually makes the viewer think along the way with out knowing they did.
And if possiable, whip a little life lesson in there…nothing much, you don’t need to rub any one’s nose in it like TNG did. No point of insulting peoples emotions you know. or our intelligence.

28. sterj - May 20, 2013

I wonder if STiD would have done better had it actually OPENED in global markets simultaneously. I read some spoilers when it first opened, and now I’m in no rush to see the movie. Why the slow rollout, which had reporters (and mean-spirited posters!) spilling the beans.

Now I know why they are called spoilers. >=^(

29. D-Rock - May 20, 2013

I liked it well enough while watching it, but have no strong desire to see it again.

That bothers me.

30. Dee - lvs moon surface - May 20, 2013

This movie is absolutely GREAT I watched together with young people … at least much younger than me and they loved the film!

;-) :-)

31. Alt-Spock - May 20, 2013

I must say this is hilarious:

***Do NOT read if you care about spoilers and do NOT read if you are offended by mild adult language.

32. Govna - May 20, 2013

My 14 year old brother in law, who is typically glued to a screen(tv, computer and video games) did NOT know that The film was released.

His words, “Star Trek’s out already?”

33. Lt. Dakin - May 20, 2013

Graduation is a huge reason versus 2009

34. Dee - lvs moon surface - May 20, 2013

Btw, I want to see a lot of times! ;-) :-)

35. WillH85 - May 20, 2013

It’s dumb of them to set their US expectations as high as they did when they had the movie open up just about everywhere else first, kinda ruins the fun of rushing to see it. And also to agree with what some others have said, it wasn’t promoted as well as it could have been. I kinda woke up on the day of the midnight release and realized some time during breakfast that it would be out that night.

36. Devon - May 20, 2013

What I personally think happened was when Paramount moved the opening day up one day, they really didn’t advertise that too much. It was really those who are following the movie closely that new that it was opening up one day early. So what happened was that the people who were planning to see it originally on that Friday ended up just going to see it on Thursday instead. That’s why there was a softer opening for Friday. It still did very solid but paramount didn’t do enough to get extra people to go the extra day, which was the whole point. I know some people who were surprised that I’d seen it Wednesday night because they thought it was opening up Thursday night.

37. Devon - May 20, 2013

That being said I don’t think people should really get to worried. It’s a very solid movie and deserves all the success in the world that it can get.

38. PaulB - May 20, 2013

I’m waiting to see how much STID drops off next weekend. I think it’ll be a huge decline, over 65 or 70%. Bad word of mouth will hurt this film.

It’s simple: some of you will go 5 or 6 times no matter what. That money is in the bag. But many of us (as previous comments confirm) have little or no desire to see it again, so unlike Trek’09, we won’t see STID multiple times. That’s already affecting it: I, for one, spent only $9 on STID this weekend instead the $45 or 50 I had planned.

As word of the film’s derivative nature and less-than-wonderful third act spreads, many fans will have a similar reaction. Not everyone is willing to pay repeatedly to see plagiarism and unoriginality.

39. James - May 20, 2013

I am surprised to say the least at all the grousing about how it’s NOT a good movie. I just saw it for the 2nd time last night and I think it’s a GREAT movie!

The writers and director clearly listened to the fans and gave them what they were begging for over the last 4 years, and guess what? Now they don’t like it. Everyone screamed for Kahn, and they got Kahn. It just wasn’t the Kahn they wanted because he’s a Brit and looks nothing like Kahn. BUT, he’s clearly a great actor, and the scenes with Spock & Kirk handling death were superb. Pine and Quinto acquitted themselves well and showed range. The effects were great, the dialogue was great, but Star Trek fans are a lot like Star Wars fans, NOTHING makes them happy. Be careful, you got what you wanted, now you bitch about it and the box office disappoints and you may not get another Trek. Abrams is clearly a great director, and if this Trek doesn’t cut it, no future Trek may either.

Quit your bitchin’ and enjoy the fact that you got a big, beautiful Star Trek movie.

40. Jon - May 20, 2013

I fell like they should have publicized the villain a little more. Batman didn’t have the Joker in it and not tell everyone about it. Also, there was very little tie ins for the movie. Most of the people that I knew of that were only casual fans didn’t realize the movie was coming out yet. In comparison, Iron Man 3 had a ton of toys, shirts, posters, etc. Everyone knew about it because it was everywhere. The people I talked to figured the movie wasn’t out because there wasn’t anywhere near the exposure as the last one.

41. Larry - May 20, 2013

To further the inflation point, when you adjust for inflation, ST:TMP cost only slightly less and grossed only slightly less than ST09. Khan and Voyage Home also would have done more than 200M in today’s dollars. In 1979, that was seen as a disappointment and Paramount decided to make Treks on the cheap. In 2009, similar numbers were seen as a commercial breakthrough, and they threw a ton of cash at STID. Obviously business practices are different now, but it seems that a successful Trek film will take in about 200-250M domestic in today’s dollars. The better overseas performance is good news though, and I anticipate the next one to get a budget of around 100-125M.

42. Jon - May 20, 2013


43. Dr. Image - May 20, 2013

It kills me that some think that the film is “just not that good.” What do you think IS good? Episode 1? The thing that probably hurt the most was the FOUR YEAR wait. That sucked. A new tv show- or miniseries, or hell, a WEB series, would have helped with momentum.

44. Bender Bending Rodriguez - May 20, 2013

I think the reports of the the death of STID are greatly exaggerated.

“And 7th ranked films have brought in $210-$260M in the last 3 years.” (not including international receipts).

Probably as of today or tomorrow it will have made back it’s production budget. Give it another week and that should wrap up all of the other expenses. Paramount in NOT going to lose money on this. This movie will be in the theater for at least three more weeks. Worst case scenario: STID makes as much as ST:09.

Not worried that this is the end of Star Trek.

45. mhansen0207 - May 20, 2013

I still think it’s a fantastic movie and this supposed “bad word of mouth” that people seem to be throwing around are only coming from fans posting on message boards. The packed audiences I saw it with on Friday and Sunday seemed to really enjoy it, and all the conversation I heard following was pretty much all positive.

I just hope this makes enough to get a 3rd film.

46. Dee - lvs moon surface - May 20, 2013

#31. Alt-Spock > This article is not hilarious, who wrote that thing just thinks it’s funny but is not, definitely not!

And people who are not going to see the movie because of having seen spoilers before, they have not the faintest idea of ​​the great fun they are missing!

The actors are at their best and lose this moment is very foolish!

All this blah blah blah about box office failure is just blah blah blah … keep spinning around failure only guarantees failure … The movie just began its history in the U.S. … and is the same film that had great reviews until last week, as far as I know it remains a great movie this week and next …

47. Jefferies Tuber - May 20, 2013

As I’ve said many times on this site, all this because of SUPER 8. First the creative disappointment of the delay, now the economic impact of the delay. Someone at Paramount should lose their job over this. It was like a reverse KOBIYASHI MARU–the no lose scenario. But JJ found a way: delay the sequel four years to diminish enthusiasm. And Paramount found a way: market the film to a generic ‘no one’ with relatively unknown actors in generic action poses, with no evidence of ’embarrassing nerd stuff,’ like space travel, aliens and fooling around with sexy cat women. They all found a way, with a title “Into Darkness” that sounds like nothing else, like no previous iteration of Trek, and references the fanboy tease of Khan. But it all comes back to JJ. He let the embers go cold when he went off to direct SUPER 8, and then used the franchise like a Motel 6 floozy to get to STAR WARS. It’s just ugly and ugly gets the blame.

48. Gary Makin - May 20, 2013

Bigger film franchises than Star Trek have underperformed in the third weekend of May for several years now.

49. bardicjim - May 20, 2013

In 2009 people had more disposable income. Now we are nearly 5 years into the manufactured economic downturn as our great leaders line us all up as either cannon fodder or workhouse slaves and I am left unsurprised that the film has been seen less so far. If you really want figures see how many times it is pirated compared to the 2009 film.

50. Captain, USS Northstar - May 20, 2013

I think the $100MM projection by Paramount was an attempt to “whistle up the wind”, basically saying: “Hey, we think this movie is so red-hot we’re going to up our prediction to $100MM opening weekend.”

If they had just kept quiet and let the movie perform for itself, the weekend receipts would have led to analysts saying — “met expectations,” “solid performance,” etc.

So, what were they over-compensating for — the secrecy, the overseas spoilers revealing the villain, the four-year wait, all of the above?

At the last minute, I think someone at Paramount ordered: “Fire everything!”

I saw the movie twice during opening weekend, the second time with friends who absolutely loved it. They are mild Trek fans, but I learned they never went to see ST ’09! If I’d known that, I would loaned them my DVD to ensure they were up to speed.

They won’t see it again, mainly because they have a large family and they rarely get to the movies, but I’m sure they would if they could. Me? Will I see it again?

Not just “yeah”, but HECK YEAH!

This movie is off the hook (in the vernacular of the youth). I’m not worried about a third movie getting made, but if we have any hope of perhaps a TV series, new books (other than comic books), and more I think we need to talk it up. Some of these so-called fans are acting like “Admiral Buzzkill” and talking down a movie they haven’t seen.

If they would give it a chance, follow the morality play, and pay attention to the story elements they’d find quite a bit to love.

51. Alt-Spock - May 20, 2013

@46 Dee,
If you enjoyed it and thought it was great, good for you. I am not going to see it no matter what the spoilers said, because I couldn’t stomach ST09 and will not be supporting any more of this “reboot”.

The fact the spoilers confirm a lame plot (typical Hollywood liberal slant: the evil gov’t is the real enemy, the terrorists have a reason we just need to “understand” them… blah blah) and lazy retelling of a familiar story instead of coming up with something original just confirms my decision is correct.

52. Gary Makin - May 20, 2013

Re: “bad word of mouth” – that’s only coming from fanboy sites like AICN. Read the comments on YouTube from more casual viewers. They’re mostly very positive.

53. Tomar Re - May 20, 2013

…Because its not that good a movie…

54. MJ - May 20, 2013

I can tell you exactly why this movie is under-performing domestically, and it relates to factors I have bringing up both this Spring and over the past 1.5 years:

(1) Others have touched on this one as well — the time between the movies of four years was too long; this perhaps might have been addressed through better fan engagement (like show up at Comicon last year…DUH!) and marketing short of a movie (e.g. novels in the nuTrek universe, and releasing the video game a year ago), but we know that those opportunities were largely missed. And I would not underestimate the negative impacts of the decision forced by JJ/Orci in 2009 to not let nuTrek adult Trek novels be published (in fact they sequestered 4 novels in 2009) until the 2nd movie cam out — this missed a huge opportunity to keep more casual fans excited about the new Trek adventures through the novels, which sell extremely well. I have covered this in the past, and Anthony and others have chastised me for it, but I really believe that their was some significant procrastination that went one here that delayed this movie for a year — the Supreme Court guys seem to be doing so many projects, and picking up new deals on sometimes a monthly basis, that they were just too busy to get together to make progress when they should have for this movie; and this “excuse” I hear now from JJ, that “we wanted to sit on this for awhile and then come back to it” seems like utter bull in my opinion. (and because of this delay, they had to jump on BC for Khan in Dec 2011 with the start of filming just 3 weeks away, when if they had had more time, the could have found an actor which translated better to Montelban’s/TOS Khan) In summary, most people outside of Trek fans thus “forgot” about this by two-years ago, and the factors I have mentioned here certainly points to how this could have mitigated significantly — this is a missed opportunity.

(2) The domestic marketing campaign waiting to long to get going, and was lame. Compared to the roll-out for Trek 2009, this marketing campaign on the domestic front felt lackluster and felt forced. The obvious “it’s dark” marketing went against why people in the general public want to see a Star Trek movie. It’s no accident that the two most positive and accessible Trek movies in history — STIV and Trek 2009 — were movies in which ticket sales increased most significantly from the previous movie. And the smart phone app and the video game never really caught on, with the video-game getting trashed in reviews everywhere.

(3). Paramount and JJ took the domestic audience foregranted. For the past month, as Trek fans in North America, which is the #1 market for Trek in the world, we have sat by and seen all these lavish premiers, releases, events, and general openings of STID weeks ahead of the U.S. and Canada. By the time LA had the North American premiere, it seems old news and inconsequential. What does this mean — well Marketing 101 teaches us that if you don’t treat your core customers well, then your core customers will not be as interested in buying your product. In short, it felt like Paramount was treating North America like “sloppy seconds.”

(4) The Secrecy policy of JJ Abrams, in particular in regards to Khan, really hurt the marketing for this movie. For this movie, which is essentially a “love letter” to Star Trek II, not only should Khan have been revealed last December with the first trailer, but the whole marketing campaign for the movie should have been focused on Khan. They missed a Golden opportunity here. And then, this deal where JJ had apparently convinced basically everyone on the crew and cast to deliberately lie about Khan rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, and seemed lame at best, and asinine at worst.

Because of these factors above, the pretty darn good movie will never realize its potential audience size in North America.

55. greybar123 - May 20, 2013

gross is low because they waited too long between movies.

56. Devon - May 20, 2013

#51 – Exactly. The “bad word of mouth” is a line of B.S. that PaulB is spreading. It has 86% Approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, 8.3/10 Rating on IMDB, 93% approval rating on this site (via poll archives,) 90% approval rating on’s Grading and Discussion poll, etc.

PaulB will have to accept that he is wrong.

57. Oct - May 20, 2013

The film has an A Cinemascore. There’s no bad word of mouth. Just bad marketing and release date.

58. Dennis C - May 20, 2013


It’s viewed as bad when you drop $190 million and you fail to outperform the previous entry. Add a pile of cash on top of that to market it and you’re looking at a film that will likely just break even for all parties (except theater owners and IMAX who start making cash as soon as that first ticket is sold).

59. al - May 20, 2013

I really would go with the 4 year gap as the main reason. Seriously…I am a die hard trekker…and I wasn’t even excited to see the film due to the long wait; but oncfe it arrived; I had my IMAX 3-D ticket ( $21.50 at Lincoln Square in NYC ) for wednesday the 15th. The Imax was sold out on my show; and everyone had a great time.
There was even a trekkie who was giving out free copies of his book Captain Kirk’s Guide to getting women ( Seriously. He sells it through amazon)
I will be seeing it one more time in IMAX and one more time in native 2d…just supporting the film so we can get another.

60. MJ - May 20, 2013

Please stop with the negative word of mouth nonsense. Check the sites with public reviews/ratings — Yahoo User Reviews, IMDB, Rotton Tomato users, and you can definitely see that STID has better word of mouth than Iron Man III. So the word of mouth thing is pure bull crap.

The marketing, secrecy and other factors I mentioned above are why it is under-performing. Marketing wise, on the domestic front, they blew it. As far as domestics marketing goes, his is Trek’s version o John Carter, in my opinion. It could have easily made $100M this past weekend.

61. Check the Circuit - May 20, 2013

I don’t think it’s completely apples to oranges in the comparison to ST09 box office. True, there was an extra day for STID…but no one knew about it. Only the hard core types. (That would be me.) So instead of packed midnight showings, crowds were light. Had they NOT started a day early, the hearty souls that ventured out early would likely have all just crowded into showings on Friday. Since the early opening was poorly marketed, all they wound up doing was spreading out the crowds over two days. The incremental business was minimal.

So if you collapse STID Wednesday-Thursday business into Friday and roll up the rest of the weekend, “apples to apples” the box office is very similar to ST09.

62. Al - May 20, 2013

56 and 57:

I question the validity of Rotten Tomatoes scores. For example, go read Richard Roepers review which is listed as fresh. Its not exactly an glowing endorsement. Ad for cinemascore, people usually feel good after they leave a movie…give it a few days to set in.

63. AyanEva - May 20, 2013

I’ve been doing informal polls of theater patrons around me each time I’ve seen the film. The word of mouth has always been positive with people wanting repeat viewings, even from non-Trekkies. That’s not a scientific survey by any means but it’s enough to make me believe this “bad word of mouth” idea is total BS.

That makes me sadface about the lack of women movie goers. Well this lady is more than happy to make up for at least a few of her fellow women who stayed home. LOL

Sadly, I’m no longer in the under 25 crowd, since I’m 29. Ouch. :(

I think the gap in years might be the main culprit but I’m still pretty pleased with the numbers. Good thing the next film will happen sooner.

64. MJ - May 20, 2013

@62. Thanks for your anecdotal opinion.

This site seems to attract so many people who will never believe numbers and data…..very sad!

65. MJ - May 20, 2013

@63 “That makes me sadface about the lack of women movie goers.”

I believe that the ill conceived”it’s dark” marketing campaign is why less women are seeing this movie than Trek 2009.

66. 750 Mang - May 20, 2013

Bad word of mouth from non-fans. I know several non-Trekkies who “loved” (I’m not sure why) Trek ’09, but did not like Darkness.

67. Al - May 20, 2013


Of course I made a casual observation. There is nothing scientific about Rotten Tomatoes, however. Pick 20 reviews that are “fresh”…mind you how Rotten Tomatoes determines a movie is good…and I would challenge that half are lukewarm.

As for not believing in numbers and data, I live in the south…numbers and data dont make sense to me…;)

68. Bender Bending Rodriguez - May 20, 2013



Fun on a bun, baby!

69. BRF - May 20, 2013

@31: Alas, it’s not hilarious, it’s just true. “HERE IS SOMETHING YOU HAVE SEEN BEFORE WITH A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE SO YOU WILL LIKE IT” is the killer line.

70. Anthony Pascale - May 20, 2013

There is a lot of monday afternoon quarterbacking going on. There is another theory, maybe there is a hard limit on how well a Star Trek movie can do domestically and ST2009 actually broke through the barrier a little bit due to the weak May 2009 lineup.

Maybe a 2011 movie with less secrecy, more happy meals and all the rest would still struggle to break through $300M or even $250M (domestic)

The problem is that Trek doesnt appeal to young teens. The last one really didn’t either. And you have to ask yourself. Do you want them to push hard to make the next one appeal more to 14 year olds? On one hand yes becuase I would guess 95% of the people reading this were trek fans by the time they were 14. But on the other hand, do we want a movie that is mostly geared for 14 year olds?

It is a question to ponder.

71. MJ - May 20, 2013

@66. Another “statistician” at work — we are fortunate to have these experts here. LOL — I am going to nominate you, Al and Paul B for the annual “I’ve Got a Bad Feeling About This Award.”

72. Jack - May 20, 2013

These stories become self-fulfilling prophecies. God, even Perez Hilton was writing about Trek’s disappointing box office (just aping the other stories).

73. Al - May 20, 2013

70: Excellent point

74. New Horizon - May 20, 2013

I saw Trek 2009 in the Theater twice and bought the special edition DVD.

I will not be seeing Trek 2013 a second time, nor will I buy the bluray.

Had I known that Cumberbatch was playing Khan, I would not have stepped foot in the theater period.

I was led to believe that Cumberbatch would be a character from the original series, someone other than Khan though. When Cumberbatch said he was Khan in the brig, I nearly got up and left. My friends just shook their head. When the movie ended we all felt the same way….disgusted.

The John Harrison character did not have to be Khan, and I found him much more compelling, mysterious and intriguing before the reveal.

There were some really great moments in the movie. The realism of Pike’s death and a few other well handled character moments, but overall I found the weaknesses and stumbles of this film threw it off kilter. Too many borrowed lines littered throughout for my liking too.

75. Bender Bending Rodriguez - May 20, 2013


76. Kirk - May 20, 2013

The movie was great. I think many people are deliberately waiting to see it when they think it won’t be crowded at the theater. Most people I know expressed strong interest in seeing it, but they all said “I want to wait until it’s not crowded.”

77. Hat Rick - May 20, 2013

“Why Not Even Better?”

Let us not be greedy, my friends. This is a spectacular movie, a wonderful ode to the Creed of Trek, and a fantastic summer movie. Artificial thresholds — $100 million! That sacred thing! (For some reason!) — these things are not important.

I love this new movie. It’s a thrill ride and a half.

This new Trek has made many millions, and has brought new international prominence to our Enterprise.

No Iron Man? Should it be? Should we want it all?

We have more than enough. We have it all; we have Star Trek. :-)

78. Everybody is Now an Analyst -JoeTrekFan - May 20, 2013

I, too, am disappointed with Trek’s opening numbers. The thing is you’d never know it from the fan sneak on Wed night. The IMAX-lite showing was practically filled, which is unusual for a mid-week show and the line waiting was the longest I’ve ever seen for an opening show since the install. On top of that, the audience was a mix of younger, middle aged and a few older.

All the previous posts pretty much say the same thing or a variation of; Paramount sucked at the marketing, with confusion with the opening dates, a longer than usual 4 year wait, reworked Wrath of Khan in the alternatie timeline, etc etc.

The bottom line is and I think we can pretty much agree that STID is not a BAD movie. It has everything a popcorn movie should be; decent action sequences, decent characters who care about each other, some T&A (Alice Eve in her skivvies) and a relatively short running time. As with the last movie, its Star Trek : ADD/ADHD.

As with the last movie, it had steady grosses well into summer. I think the word of mouth will keep this movie alive, but if the newer releases that open BIG and gain traction, it will happen at the expense of STID. Remember, too, we will be losing the best auditoriums/venues.. THX, IMAX-lite, Dolby Atmos… to the newer releases.

Lets see what happens after the holiday weekend. If Trek can stay in the top 3, we should be okay.

To be honest, I got more out of my second viewing on a flatscreen, in 7.1, in a THX certified theater than in IMAX-lite. I still need to see it in the Dolby Atmos format to see what the differences are in the sound mix, if any.

So everybody stop being so critically negative, be happy we have a new Trek film out there and support it where it needs it.. AT THE THEATER! Boldly Go!

79. Gary Makin - May 20, 2013

Re: #62 – I didn’t feel good after I saw Iron Man 3.

80. MJ - May 20, 2013

@70. You bring up another good point, Anthony. And I must admit here that your long idea of doing a Trek animated series might be a way to build up the younger fan-base.

81. Al - May 20, 2013

71: I’m all for going back to my freshman year at uni and take Ststistics 101 again;)

82. CmdrR - May 20, 2013

Wonder if Paramount purposefully overstated its estimate in order to cheat people out of a share by saying it underperformed.

Just sayin’… it’s a sea of numbers.

83. Clsss - May 20, 2013

I loved the 09 film greatly. And while I like Into Darkness, I feel it suffers from as many holes and convienences/contrivances as Nemesis did. It just hides them behind a bigger budget.

It’s a shame that after such a promising start by JJ and the team, that the follow up would be such a let down. Hopefully for the third film they’ll try breaking some new ground and take the sort of risks that they took in the first film.

Stop playing it safe. Be bold. That’s how you crossover into the mainstream and make the kind of money Paramount had in mind.

84. MJ - May 20, 2013

Al, you crack me up, dude. You are good people!

85. HubcapDave - May 20, 2013


What a wonderful way for Paramount to shoot themselves in the foot.

86. AyanEva - May 20, 2013

#70- Anthony

I think this is also a good point. And I’d rather have the box office that we have and not the one that we’d get with Star Trek: The Twilight Hunger Games. I’ve been a Trekkie since I was three years old and I’m under thirty so I’m always baffled as to why teens just aren’t into it. But I was a pretty atypical teen though, so I’m probably not a good example.

87. Al - May 20, 2013

84: We try…:)

Hey I want Star Trek to prosper just like everyone else here. I’m just a little concerned the bean counters at Paramount might have other ideas if this movie doesn’t meet certain criteria.

88. HubcapDave - May 20, 2013

Personally, I think it’s a bad idea to take one’s personal experience and try to use it as an overall reason as to why STID didn’t do better. First time I went, I was at the midnight showing with about 20 people in the audience. I was the only one that laughed at anything, and no one clapped. Second time I went, I went with some friends and was in a theater about 95% full. People laughed at the same things I laugh at. There was no reaction to the villain revelation, and people clapped at the end of the movie. All the people I went to the movie with loved it.

The only conclusion I can safely draw is that the movie is much more enjoyable to watch in a dark room with a couple hundred strangers.

89. Dee - lvs moon surface - May 20, 2013

#54. MJ

I agree with you about the promotion of the film in North America … I saw some things that really seemed not to be helping to promote the film, lost time in some TV shows for example!
But who am I here in my world to say that was a mistake … just wonder if young people in U.S. saw that boring TV Show of Letterman… I saw at live stream and was really boring despite Chris Pine and I’m not a teenager, btw…

;-) :-)

90. HubcapDave - May 20, 2013

Oh, and there was a big pop from the audience when Spock threw his final haymaker.

91. Wes - May 20, 2013

I liked Into Darkness, I felt like the story was better than ST09. I felt like it was everything that The Wrath of Khan and “Space Seed” should have been in the prime timeline. But, that being said, I think it could have been better. I think it was a combination of both the long wait (but understandable given the producers’ other committments) plus the last-minute decision to change the release date just based on opening-day IMAX numbers, hurt the film’s domestic gross. I think it will surpass its budget of $190 million, but Paramount made a huge mistake in promoting the film… seriously. I have one question for the film’s reviewers like Empire and Rolling Stone, “how many of those are actually truthful?” After being told about the fact that the video game released three weeks before the film had people lie about how good THAT was, it makes me question it. I think Paramount is slowly trying to kill the franchise again (seems like history is repeating itself) by having the next one be just as bad and then word of mouth will say “don’t go to Star Trek (insert title here). Bad.” Then, we are back to an anemic franchise with NO movie, NO video game, NO TV show. Is that what they want? I don’t want that. The fans have gone through so much that they don’t deserve to have the franchise crash, burn and die. I tell you, if I was in charge, I wouldn’t have waited 4 years to release this film! I would have released this last Winter.

92. porthoses bitch - May 20, 2013

Hey haters….

As you stand up in disgust and walk out of the theater……..
Be a dear, and try not to block my view..

93. Jack - May 20, 2013

It’s a seemingly dark movie being released late-spring — and Paramount added last-minute earlier showings, which always seems a bit sketchy. I still wonder whether it would have done better had they released it everywhere at the same time. Or everywhere a week early, and then US/Can when they did. I admit I’m an armchair quarterback and have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about…

I still wish the answer to ‘who is John Harrison?’ Had been a bit more compelling than ‘he’s ____”

My marketing advice — play up the Khan stuff in the marketing, play up Kirk wondering whether or not the guy can be trusted… Play up them working together etc. “I’m pretty sure we’re helping him.”

94. Al - May 20, 2013

It’s interesting how well this movie is doing overseas. Can any of our British cousins that frequent this site share any observations they may have made?

95. Sailor Moon - May 20, 2013

It was a fun movie, but relied too much on stuff we’ve already seen. It did not boldly explore strange new worlds and instead fell back on reinventing an already perfect villain and reenacted iconic scenes we are familiar with, only just not as good. Really, besides the time travel element in the JJ Abrams universe have we seen the crew yet deal with a supernatural phenomenon we don’t understand? No, because STID has been too focused on “action” and not character development. Cumberbatch Khan is not the plotting, intellectually superior, Moby Dick quoting, women seducing Khan that I know. In this film, Khan has been reduced to nothing more than a brute, roaring madman of superman physical strength – full of sound an fury, but signifying nothing.

96. Al - May 20, 2013


Cumberbatch Khan?!;)

97. Colin - May 20, 2013

For me, I am somewhere in the middle in my opinion of the movie. It isn’t the worse Trek I have seen, but it isn’t the best Trek I have seen. Again, for me, I am beginning to ask myself a question, is Trek capable of telling stories where revenge isn’t a motive for one of the principals? This is the third film in a row with a revenge-seeking character.

98. Ozma - May 20, 2013

Sites like i09 and The Mary Sue weren’t kind to it. Wired’s review was also negative.

And even a lot of the good mainstream reviews said the plot was…bonkers, to put it nicely.

I dunno…it could have an impact.

99. Moby Dick - May 20, 2013

The storyline would have been more compelling if John Harrison turned out to be a treacherous “second in command” crew member of the Botany Bay who seizes an opportunity when Khan dies from a botched effort of McCoy to awaken him from stasis. John Harrison would have had his own agenda to prove himself as leader of the eugenics warriors and summons a secret ally from Earth’s past to help him defeat the Federation…

100. Kevin - May 20, 2013

I went to a Real 3D showing on Wednesday night at 9pm thinking there would be a packed theatre but only 12 folks were there. I thought it was a pretty good flick but I really left feeling empty. I will go again to see if on vacation next week to see what I missed as it seemed more like a non stop video game than a movie. As for the ticket sales, why the heck did they open the movie overseas? I know several of my friends who read the spoilers from the overseas reviews and decided not to go. There might be a strategy to that approach but Star Trek should open here in the States. As another poster mentioned too, the Darkness theme, albeit an attempt to gain a larger audience, I think alienated some. The “terrorist” theme was very well timed with the Boston incident. I have a feeling I’m not going to like the movie as much the second time I see it.

101. Mad Mann - May 20, 2013

@70 Anthony.

Ok, ok, I see your point. We don’t want Star Trek to be geared towards the kids, cuz then it will just be Bay-formers in space. I guess I was just trying to figure out why STiD underperformed, and those were my educated, but un-testable, guesses.

But I look at the lower box office of STiD as a good thing: it will force the film-makers to look back at what makes Star Trek successful: and that is more intimate story telling and compelling, well defined characters and relationships. Not that I didn’t like STiD, I loved it’s allegory on current events, I just felt it was missing something.

Paramount will most likely cut the budget for the third movie, but I strongly believe that Star Trek is in it’s best form when the creators are forced to work on the cheap. (For example: ST II: TWOK and the original series.)

Here’s hoping…

102. MC1 Doug - May 20, 2013

I don’t care what JJ, Roberto, Alex or Damon says, a transporter cannot move someone from Earth to Q’onos! If this is so, why have starships?

103. MC1 Doug - May 20, 2013

AND still I loved the film!

104. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 20, 2013

@101. Mad Mann – May 20, 2013
“… Not that I didn’t like STiD, I loved it’s allegory on current events, I just felt it was missing something.”

What it was missing, in my opinion, was enough time to tell the story properly. The pace is absolutely frenetic – and maybe I’m too old for that sort of stuff.

I saw the movie the first time and decided I quite liked it – not the best Star Trek, but one of the better ones. The 2nd time I saw it, I was able to pay more attention to the character interplay and the themes, rather than be bombarded by the action. I’ve seen it 5 times now (about to be 6 in approx 1 hour), and each time I get more out of it.

I’m a bit obsessive, so I was going to watch it multiple times anyway, to tide me over until I can get the DVD. But the point is, I should be watching it multiple times because I’m an obsessive trekkie, not because it takes more than once or twice to actually understand and digest what I’m seeing.

105. kmart - May 20, 2013

I thought the whole idea by bringing TheAbramsBunch in was that they would deliver films that hit the target 16-25 main moviegoing audience.

Yet that’s the crowd that didn’t go see it this time.

So it isn’t just a matter of dumbing it down to appeal to more people … there has to be another factor for the juvie/YA draw.

Reading all that kind of made me remember when the San Jose Mercury let two 15 year old girls review TSFS. They could not relate to anything in the movie — why you would put yourself out for a friend, any of the thematic material, and they certainly didn’t find it exciting enough. They DID love Indiana Jones though, and FLASHDANCE (can’t fault them on that last one … )

30 years later and perhaps nothing has changed … at least in terms of how trek is perceived by some of the mainstream.

106. kmart - May 20, 2013

Now you know how we feel about ‘starships’ being built on the ground, supposedly because the warp engines have to be calibrated in a gravity well (!!!!!????)

107. Bob Mack - May 20, 2013

I’m with #87. If Paramount ain’t happy, Star Trek ain’t happy. The studio doesn’t make a $180 million movie without a strong expectation that they make some serious returns. Break even doesn’t cut it. Future films are not guaranteed.

Honestly, the box office is disappointing right now and Paramount should be concerned. Doesn’t mean this is a bad film, but it is reasonable for Paramount to expect a real increase over ST:09. We’ll have to wait and see what happens over the coming weeks. Hopefully the money comes in.

As for Star Trek for teens, I don’t want that either. The upside is that there are other, cheaper properties out there waiting for those sorts of films.

108. Pensive's Wetness - May 20, 2013

after reading on MSNBC about today’s Tornados in Oklahoma, is perhaps the lower numbers due to some folks, simply having more pressing concerns than to go watch a movie (in some parts of the nation)?

109. Commodore Adams - May 20, 2013

Canada does not have a huge population like the US, but today is Victoria Day, a national holiday so it’s a long weekend and droves of us go out to cottage country. I know many people who would have seen the movie on the weekend if they were in town.

110. Al - May 20, 2013

Would anyone hate me if I said that, despite enjoying STiD, I’m still more excited about the blu-ray releases of Star Trek Next Generation…?

111. Hat Rick - May 20, 2013

Folks, there is only so much you can expect from any human endeavor.
Are we looking for perfection here? Then you won’t find it.

Nothing human is perfect.

I’m sorry that some people don’t like this movie. I feel that as a fan, I have skin in the game and I have a lot of emotion invested in the Trek universe, because I’ve thought about it a great deal and I want to think that all that effort hasn’t been wasted. I want to feel that I’m in good and popular company and that this is a terrific movie. Yes, I WANT to think that and so you’ll naturally see many of my comments as accentuating the positive.

But in fact this movie, for all its flaws, is one of the best things ever to happen to Hollywood in a long time. It’s told a story that needed to be told, containing allegories aplenty about life and death, and paradise, and the ubermensch that we want to be and fear.

It’s packed a gigantic philosophical wallop, and it’s done so in an in-your-face action-filled way.

So what I don’t get is why there are fans out there that might want to dissect this movie to death.

You can say a lot of things about this movie — that its plot is too convoluted; that it retold a story that didn’t need telling; that it didn’t make sense.

But even if we grant these things, how in blazes can you overlook the great things in this movie? How, as fans especially, can you not appreciate this true gem of a movie?

To see the universe in a grain of sand….

This universe presents us with ideas that will not die. To fixate over over little things — pecuniary things — is idleness.

The head of Paramount says he is pleased with Trek’s box office thus far. Believe him? Don’t believe him? That’s your choice.

I am not a bean counter.

I only know what I love. And I love Star Trek. And I love this movie.

The End.

112. Jason - May 20, 2013

With four years of inflation and the 3D surcharges, It should have outmatched the 2009 opening.

I think the four year gap was too long.

113. William Bradley - May 20, 2013

Fast and Furious 6 just opened bigger in the UK, home of Benedict Cumberbatch, than STID did the previous weekend.

STID dropped about 57% from its opening weekend, down to third behind Fast 6 and Great Gatsby in the British market.

114. Bob Tompkins - May 20, 2013

Why is it missing its projections? Why will it not approach the $500m required to offset the budget, take from the theater, and advertising? That’s easy.
Yeah, even worse than Nemesis.

115. Philip - May 20, 2013

You’re insane if you think Nemesis is better than Into Darkness… Just INSANE!

People were falling asleep in that pile of dong in 2002, meanwhile Maid in Manhattan was outdoing it at the box office lol

116. Bob Tompkins - May 20, 2013

Duh, it almost met the 85m projection because it was a 4 day release not 3. Getting $84M in 4 days does not equal getting a projected $85m in 3 days. They projected $100m in 4 days. They missed by 16%.

117. mhansen0207 - May 20, 2013

The only thing I keep being nervous about is will there be Star Trek ANYTHING in the future? I just would hate for this film “underperforming” for Paramount and CBS to pull the plug on any new endeavors and be right back where we were in 2005 with no future in sight. :(

118. Exverlobter - May 20, 2013

@113. William Bradley – May 20, 2013

“Fast and Furious 6 just opened bigger in the UK, home of Benedict Cumberbatch, than STID did the previous weekend.

STID dropped about 57% from its opening weekend, down to third behind Fast 6 and Great Gatsby in the British market.”

Lol, maybe Star Trek needs Fast and Furious director Justin Lin to save the next franchise. Remember a few year ago that franchise was on the verge of becoming Direct to DVD material, but was saved by Lin.
And JJ Abrams is gone for Star Wars anyway.

119. Dilithium_doublebock - May 20, 2013

Big fan of STID
Not a fan of the title or the marketing.
I get no sense of adventure from the commercials, no description of the challenge or the stakes.
Wish that had been handled better. But the movie was a blast. Seen it three times so far and had a non-trek-fan tell me this was so much better than the ’09 film.

120. martin - May 20, 2013

I am no marketing genius, so here is my opinion of what should have been different:

1) Have a single worldwide release. Instead, this was like a slow bleed, and it killed some anticipation in that this place or that place saw it three weeks ago. And you can do a world premiere in Australia or Tokyo and then do one in LA later that day. Have some of the cast do a London gig too.

2) Don’t have your big poster with the Enterprise smoking and falling, look almost exactly like the Iron Man 3 poster of Iron Man smoking and falling in the opposite direction.

3) When your expectation for the US is $75-80m on April 30, don’t a week later up those to $100m +. If you get the $100m+ then go apeshit crazy about how it obliterated all expections, but don’t set the expectations so high that if the film doesn’t make the number, then we have all these stories about how the film is failing.

121. Kev - May 20, 2013

You make a 165 Million off of it in 4 days in the US, 75 million of it from the rest of the world in 2 weeks AND COMPLAIN?!

jesus christ guys relax, next week you’ll have all your money back and then some.

and it was pretty stupid to put it in theaters a week ahead of fast and the furious 6 along with the others but so what? it did this well even with this competition and that boat anchor you call 3D, that probably cost you 30 million of the 190 million budget.

Only in america would they complain about a film ONLY pulling in 85 Million Domestically.

122. somethoughts - May 20, 2013

My trek friends and non trek friends loved it, I think STID will have legs and be fine. $83mil is good imo for a new movie and it was #1 at box office so ppl no need to panic.

123. Th Keeper - May 20, 2013

Star Trek films to me from what I’ve seen over the years don’t track or make money in the same pace as other films. That will never change no matter who’s in control or what the marketing dept does.

Remember, this film doesn’t have to have a smashing opening weekend, it just needs to keep a steady pace and perform well to achieve it’s ultimate goal of turning a handsome profit.
It will likely in the end make more money then ST09 securing a 3rd film.

Over all it’s a very professional film production with great character development, strong actors and some powerful dialogue.
The title is misleading., which may have hurt it’s opening days, but word of mouth will fix that problem.

I am only disappointed in one aspect of this film, but that’s me.

124. William Bradley - May 20, 2013

I hear good things about Justin Lin.

He was attached to do the next Terminator picture, so I went and watched Fast 5 to check it out. (Those films are not my cup of tea.)

He’s a good action director, doesn’t get caught up in jerkycam, the plot made (enough) sense, keeping in mind what a wacky thing the whole deal is.

They brought him back to do this Fast 6 picture and I’m not sure what his status with Terminator would be going forward, though there will be a T5 at some point when they have the script figured out, which they did not last I checked.

Maybe Michelle Rodriguez can be a troubled Ensign Ro type on the Big E and … :)

>118. Exverlobter – May 20, 2013

125. DJ Stinky Pants - May 20, 2013

Could it be that this film is actually garbage and some people stayed home?

I know that in 2009, I went to see the film because I was curious. Curiosity led to disappointment. Disappointment kept me away from the theater this time around and I won’t pay to see this movie.

I have seen the film, though.

126. Exverlobter - May 20, 2013

I like the new direction of Abrams (although i hope that the scripts improve)
so i hope that Paramount will not again change drastically the attitude towards the franchise like after The Motion Picture. Yes, the Wrath of Khan is a great film but it almost looks like a TV-movie by now, in contrast to the flawed but great looking Motion Picture.
I think Paramount has to learn the lesson, that the May-timeslot only works if the competing films are failing like in 2009.
Take the next film out of the war-zone. It should be released during August, when most of the summer-blockbusters are already gone.

127. MJ - May 20, 2013

@119 “Big fan of STID. Not a fan of the title or the marketing. I get no sense of adventure from the commercials, no description of the challenge or the stakes. Wish that had been handled better.”

@120 ” Have a single worldwide release. Instead, this was like a slow bleed, and it killed some anticipation in that this place or that place saw it three weeks ago. And you can do a world premiere in Australia or Tokyo and then do one in LA later that day. ”

Well said, guys. These are covered in two of my points in post @54, where I provide my assessment of the four main reasons the film is under-performing domestically.

128. MJ - May 20, 2013

@125 “Disappointment kept me away from the theater this time around and I won’t pay to see this movie. I have seen the film, though.”

So you saw STID without paying for it?

So this is why the movie isn’t doing so well — “the haters” are not paying to see it.


129. 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!

130. MJ - May 20, 2013

@129. You are right, $1B was never going to happen. That was a fairy tale.

Nevertheless, if they had not made the marketing and other errors that I covered in my post @54, $500M+ was definitely achievable — in my opinion.

131. Exverlobter - May 20, 2013

Some of your points are valid but i disagree with the Khan thing.
TWOK is 30 years old, besides the fans nobody remembers who Khan actually is. Do you really think that putting Khan in the advertising would have made a difference for mainstream-audiences?

For example, i am just a casual batman-fan and i remember sitting in the Dark Knight Rises, where there was a comparable reveal with Miranda Tate/Talia AlGhul. I had no clue who Talia AlGhul was, so it did not make any difference for me if she was Miranda or Talia

132. FarStrider - May 20, 2013

@39 James — Right on. Almost everything that “fans” claimed they wanted, they got in STiD, with very few exceptions. . . hell, starting from the first week of ST09’s release, you couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting reporters or fans asking the writers about Khan and doing WoK “part deux”. . . some people are never satisfied. . .


39. James – May 20, 2013

I am surprised to say the least at all the grousing about how it’s NOT a good movie. I just saw it for the 2nd time last night and I think it’s a GREAT movie!

The writers and director clearly listened to the fans and gave them what they were begging for over the last 4 years, and guess what? Now they don’t like it. Everyone screamed for Kahn, and they got Kahn. It just wasn’t the Kahn they wanted because he’s a Brit and looks nothing like Kahn. BUT, he’s clearly a great actor, and the scenes with Spock & Kirk handling death were superb. Pine and Quinto acquitted themselves well and showed range. The effects were great, the dialogue was great, but Star Trek fans are a lot like Star Wars fans, NOTHING makes them happy. Be careful, you got what you wanted, now you bitch about it and the box office disappoints and you may not get another Trek. Abrams is clearly a great director, and if this Trek doesn’t cut it, no future Trek may either.

Quit your bitchin’ and enjoy the fact that you got a big, beautiful Star Trek movie.

133. MJ - May 20, 2013

FarStrider and James,

Just to be clear, I am very happy with the new movie. What I am assessing here is why the movie is not making more money domestically. Perhaps you guys both may have forgotten that his article and thread are discussing the domestic box office under-performance issue?

134. somethoughts - May 20, 2013

Im one of the best star trek fans and love stid! i just ignore the haters as unpleasant people who I dont give a dam for lol

My friends are hard to please movie buffs and I consider myself one also, so to hell with the haters lol

135. somethoughts - May 20, 2013

I think it is underperforming because movie theatres are being hacked, their cpus show seats sold out but if you go in, its half filled, boggles my mind. It is almost like some people do not want star trek to do well, conspiracy!

136. MJ - May 20, 2013

@134. Sheesh, I would think that people who want to comment on the movie should go over to Anthony’s new weekly thread. The topic here is the box office performance, right???

137. The Original Spock's Brain - May 20, 2013

I’m just too busy to see it, as have been many of my trekker friends. Going Memorial Day.

138. JT - May 20, 2013

My main issues with STID stem mainly from the lack of any semblence of a coherent storyline. It’s great fun to see fresh takes on iconic characters–really wanted to see Commander Kirk on the bridge as first officer to Fleet Captain Pike. The geriatric Spock cameo was unexpected. Increased use of star trek sounds and props we’re used to were unexpected and appreciated. However, the entire storyline has as many holes in it as the Enterprise herself. Sulu & Chekov especially had very little screen time; Scotty, a wee bit more. Would like to see everyone in their original uniforms just once, and even see the big E shine. Any STAR TREK given the complete absence of anything other than Abram’s version is appreciated and entertaining. A bit heavier on story and a bit lighter on camera shake and lens flare next time. Lets’s see the gang explore the cosmos for once in this incarnation.

139. Nick - May 20, 2013

Well, in my opinion the movie is great but not as good at 2009, so maybe the figures are in tune with that.

Some heavy overseas marketing obviously corresponds also.

140. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 20, 2013

People who don’t like something but will see it anyway without paying for it and then pat themselves on the back because they are so clever…

– they are nothing but F*CKING THIEVES…

I am amused by people who say that they found the Harrison character a really good villain etc until he said his name was “Khan”. I guess it is not true about the saying that “a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet…” ie a rose is a rose is a rose (even if you call by every other name)…LOL

A lot of people have been throwing the word “lame” about. Now what I have noted above is what I call “LAME”.

141. somethoughts - May 20, 2013


My post does relate to box office numbers as I am saying the miss of projected numbers has nothing to do with the quality of the film.

STID missed the 100mil domestic figure due simply to the fact that people are busy, and the iron man movie coupled with avg movie posters and a unknown villain in John Harrison.

I rather they show the cryo tubes, botany bay in the stid poster and just say, darkness is coming may 15,16 or 17 whenever usa and canada got sloppy seconds.

142. MJ - May 20, 2013

@140 “People who don’t like something but will see it anyway without paying for it and then pat themselves on the back because they are so clever…- they are nothing but F*CKING THIEVES…”

Exactly. That “DJ Stinky Pants” troll somehow sees it for free, but then says he would never pay to see it. Guys like him are part of the problem, not part of the solution. That lacks integrity and is without class.

143. The Original Spock's Brain - May 20, 2013

People stop talking about the plot!

144. somethoughts - May 20, 2013

I admit, I was pissed off other parts of the world got to see it first but I understand their international strategy. I just wished they had a world wide release date.

I think the domestic figure may have broken 100mil if they released stid in usa and canada first.

145. Scott Gammans - May 20, 2013

@143: The movie has been out since last Wednesday in the United States. If you’re too busy to go see it, I suggest that you stay off the internet until then.

146. JM - May 20, 2013

My daughter and her friends went to see it before I did. They all liked it well enough, but none were very enthusiastic. Couldn’t get into any details as I was still avoiding all spoilers, but I don’t think their word of mouth will drive many new tickets.

I wanted, really wanted, to like the movie. Pine, Urban, Cumberbatch were great, I was OK with, but never enthralled with Quinto in ST09, but thought he was better in STID (still, I couldn’t help but ponder a Cumberbatch Spock).

I really enjoyed it up until the “contact New Vulcan” line. Everything went down hill fast after that point. Echoes and homages turned into almost comical parody, no twists, no turns, 100% predictability. I was to the point I was actually cringing before each scene, hoping they weren’t going to do the obvious but always disappointed.

147. Red-Shirted Monkey - May 20, 2013

ST09 had Spock/Uhura transporter humping, Delta Vega shifted across the galaxy, Scotty trans-warp beaming into a Galaxy Quest-inspired water ride, a maitre d’ station installed on the bridge, Kirk and Pike reprising the roles of Maverick and Viper, plot holes bigger than any chasms in Iowa, and a director who wanted to openly taunt fans of TOS by driving a ’66 classic off the side of a cliff. Take all that, wait four years, add magic blood and recycled dialog and what do you get? Box office failure.

148. T'Leba - May 20, 2013

I’m concerned that these “disappointing” numbers may lead to some unwanted results for the next film, dictated by Paramount.

On May 15, we went to the theater and saw a crowd much larger than I’ve seen in many years – the theater was mostly full. This was so impressive! However, I was surprised to see the movie also listed as showing in 2D and regular 3D that night. I had only seen it advertized in IMAX 3D and the sneak peek was only available in 3D when I ordered advanced tickets. When was it decided to run these other formats?

For one problem, many people said they didn’t have nearby theaters showing IMAX 3D, so they weren’t going until the weekend. Then, the last-minute Thursday opening was poorly advertized. Why did Paramount and other sites raise their estimates with such poor advertizing? What were the expected numbers for Wednesday and Thursday?

Is Paramount looking at some of the strategic errors made with this film? The villian’s identity was the number one problem for my husband and me. I never wanted this character 4 years ago (I kept saying no to this), and I still don’t want him no matter what. However, putting a white guy with a British accent in this role made this all the worse for me.

Because of this, I haven’t posted anything about the movie on my social media. I’m conflicted. Parts of this movie were great and parts were so disappointing. I would have to say, “It’s great in that…, but…” This is so sad to me because it feels like classic Trek. I want to see more films, but I want the stories to be original. Any familiar characters need to look, act, and sound somewhat like the original. I’m not giving this movie a positive word-of-mouth endorsement.

The 3D was disappointing, except for the beginning. Therefore, I’d like to see this in 2D for comparison. The IMAX was way too loud. Some of us spent about 1/2 the movie with our hands over our ears. Not the most enjoyable way to watch a movie.

The writers took other liberties, too, like warping and transporting across the galaxy without regard to distance. (They did that with getting to Vulcan in the first movie and that bugged me.) Then, what does a guy from the 20th century know about 23rd-century weapons?

While setting up a new universe in the first movie to get away from knowing future events, the writers failed in this category with STID. Kirk’s death and resurrection were completely foreseeable.

It seems to me that the audience is being whittled down for various reasons. Is there a cap on how much a Star Trek movie can make? Perhaps, but this movie has a lot of flaws that have disappointed or angered many fans. Lots of little problems start adding up for some people.

I would hate to see a Star Trek film geared toward 14 year olds. TOS tried bringing in that demographic by adding Chekov. That didn’t help the series because that wasn’t the real problem.

149. The Last Maquis - May 20, 2013


I Knew it!! Anybody Remember “New Coke?”

Hey JJ Abrams… You Suck. That is all, Thanks.

150. MJ - May 20, 2013

@149. Thanks for that DJ Sticky Pants…whoops… I mean “The Last Maquis”


151. BobOrci Is A Crazy Hack - May 20, 2013

This movie was dumb, insulting and contemptuous of trek fans. These people are paid million of dollars and they churned out what amounts to bad fan-fic. This is very reminiscent to me of the response I saw when The Phantom Menace was released. Blind, unthinking and almost zealot like devotion to a product and name. I guess nostalgia is a hell of a drug.

152. MJ - May 20, 2013

@152. Worst post in the history of

It’s got my vote.

I suspect that all these rants right now are from the same person.

153. Red Dead Ryan - May 20, 2013

I agree with MJ concerning his comments at #54. Paramount frakked up big time with the North American marketing strategy. There is barely any merchandise apart from some K-Reo toys no one cares about. No making-of/art-of books, zippo fast food/cereal tie-ins, and the soundtrack cd was pushed back two weeks.

Then there was the early release dates for overseas countries. Up to three weeks ahead of North America. That resulted in the web being flooded with not only reviews spoiling the whole movie, but torrent sites pirating copies of the movie for download.

Then there is the fact that May is crowded with numerous other blockbusters. “Iron Man 3″ has cleaned up at the box office, and both “Fast & Furious 6″ and “The Hangover 3″ promise to do the same. “Star Trek Into Darkness” will finish #3 at best next weekend, possibly even lower.

Someone at the Paramount marketing department screwed up big time, and needs to be fired immediately. He/she/they possibly cost the film at least $50 million in revenue by the time its run in theatres ends.

154. Red Dead Ryan - May 20, 2013

I find it interesting that people who claim that the sequel has gotten poor reviews are the same ones who hate the movie, despite the fact that the film has gotten generally good to great reviews.

These haters went into seeing the movie (illegally, most likely) already hating it. They had their minds made up already.

These goofs can’t stand the fact that they are vastly outnumbered by the “likers” of the movie, and are doing their darnest to dissuade as many from not seeing the movie, and trying to distort the facts. And some here have clearly resorted to sock-puppetry.

This is pretty disgraceful.

155. Phil - May 20, 2013

Look, yeah, the numbers are disappointing, but when this is all done it’s going to gross 400MM – an even split, 200 here, 200 foreign. Not much of a profit, but a profit, none the less. And probably enough to get a third one made. However…

Four years between movies is two long, two, three years tops.
You have to get back the under 25 audience. You won’t hit 100MM opening weekend without them…that means marketing and merchandising. Bad Robot, you just assumed that segment would be there, and they wandered off, primarily because you gave them no reason to stay.
And like it or not, the foreign box office is now our new best friend. North America had better get used to this.

Oh, and no more fan boy flicks. James Cawley needs something to do. If you can’t deliver an original story in four years, bring in someone who can. You have demonstrated that Trek’s Greatest Hits is creatively bankrupt, no one wants to see your take on space whales…

Have a pleasant evening…

156. ironhyde - May 20, 2013

Problems: The foolish marketing that annoyed rather than embracing. And turned Into Darkness into bickering back-and-forth fights wherever it was mentioned about “Khan” / “not khan”… because nobody had anything of substance or value to discuss! Which meant non-trekkies got weirded out and alienated, not even knowing who Khan is or caring. It was a mistake to wait 4 years between movies and in the meantime, to punish interest in the movie.

My 2 cents.

157. Missing Point - May 20, 2013

STID good or bad, I can think of one major factor that is likely affecting the US numbers – people are broke & out of work. Who can afford 20 bucks for an IMAX ticket? “It’s the economy, stupid.”

158. BobOrci Is A Crazy Hack - May 20, 2013

I saw this movie at the 9 pm Wednesday screening. I actually think the first hour works fairly well in spite of itself. The movie got quite a bit of applause at the end, which perplexed me. The last act is the greatest hits of TWOK. Like someone already said on here, it’s like a bad cover band. And all of the “homages” in the last thirty minutes just reinforce the other flaws in the movie.

I think the horrible title and marketing that misrepresented the tone of the movie hurt it. The stupid secrecy of who the damn villain actually is didn’t help.

159. Phil - May 20, 2013

Can’t blame the economy, IM3 hauled in 170MM plus it’s opening weekend, Gatsby exceeded expectations, and FF6 and TH3 will do well next weekend. 71MM isn’t a bad opening, and the foreign box office is doing well, it’s just that the studio get a bit ahead of itself with the 100MM weekend chatter.

160. Elias Javalis - May 20, 2013

Here’s to a good haul fellow trekkies…”Raises glass”!!!

161. Daniel - May 20, 2013

i think we here abroad (greetings from germany) have to save Star Trek…;-) but to be honest, Fast & Furious 6 gets released here this week. I really don´t get it, but the younger audience love this kind of shit.

I saw STID 4times. it´s simple, i really love it. ( I love every STAR TREK Movie by the way) I always saw it with non-trekkers…i am the only trekkie in my circle of friends. They all were surprised how great Star Trek could be…not boring…no Tech-bla bla…you know, average audience thinks, Star Trek is some kind of lame….

So, it got fantastic reviews (rotten tomatoes) got everything what a great movie has to offer……but it don´t get its audience. i mean, IM 3 was boring, but get his money. maybe it´s competition and people at the moment are more into Superheroes than into Sci-Fi.

i am no expert, but i think, they are enough people out there, who simply thinking, STAR TREK isn´t worth a ticket…..Image Problem maybe ?

Maybe it will got strong legs and get the money back, paramount wanted. STAR TREK needs to go back to TV to have more time for character development and stories with depth.

But same here. A lot of competition. With Dragons, Crystal meth cookers and zombies….and soon, S.H.I.E.L.D Agents…..

162. Red Dead Ryan - May 20, 2013

By the way, I can’t wait for “Fast & Furious 6″. The series has only gotten bigger and better as the series has worn on. “Fast Five” was the best one yet.

163. William Bradley - May 20, 2013

I’m sure you will enjoy the speeding cars and exciting punch-ups …

164. William Bradley - May 20, 2013

The first movie did $385 million global, so $350 million would be a significant step back.

I expect STID to something over $400 million, maybe in the high 400s. International should double, so it will depend on domestic, which clearly will not be what ST09 was, $257.7 million. STID should do something over $200 million.

I think expectations for a mega-hit were driven by the sky-high enthusiasm that ST09 engendered and the sense that the sequel could be much bigger than the original, as Dark Knight was to Batman Begins. I saw ST09 5-6 times in the theater, and knew many people who simply gushed about it.

This one doesn’t have that energy about it.

Iron Man 3 is the movie that has that energy about it.

>129. 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!

165. - May 20, 2013

The best thing they can do now is get that 11 minute preview that they put on imax and get that out on the internet.

A lot of fence sitters will go see trek once they see that.

Even try to get it on tv if they can.

166. - May 20, 2013

You know when I saw the remake of total recall I felt that it played out expecting that the audience already knew certain things because of the original Arnie version.

So there was a kind of shorthand that would have left anyone not familiar with the first film feeling left out.

There was some of that with Into Darkness. I loved the film but I have a knowledge of Khan’s backstory. This film gave so little on his origins that it felt he was put there for the trekkies but not enough information for the casual observer to really get him.

Some backstory of who he was, his place in earth history could have gone a long way to carry weight and make Khan more engaging to the wider market.

167. Buzz Cagney - May 20, 2013

They should have played up the fact that it was Khan. JJ’s ego got in the way of what should have been their biggest weapon. Its such a shame that they didn’t embrace it. Secrecy, it seems, doesn’t always guarantee success.

Oh, and they really should have got someone more recognisably Khan too. Maybe that was why they didn’t have the balls to shout it out?
Still, its doing ok, perhaps as good as we can ever really hope a Trek movie to do?

168. ironhyde - May 20, 2013

#166 – YES. I hear a lot of buzz about how great this villain is, but he’s a piece of cardboard that expects us to have seen him elsewhere and learned about him elsewhere. The entirety of the villain is missing from the four corners of the movie. When he reveals that he’s Khan, if I haven’t watched 1 tv episode from the 1960s and immersed myself in a clut classic from 1982, then I’m like… just a regular guy giving his name. They totally and completely failed in every way on this villain! You are SO right with your comment!

Plus, #165 – get that 9 min preview out. NOW. JJ needs to open up his mystery box pronto. It’s like he’s playing in a sandbox.. grow up. get out. It’s NOT helping.

169. MJ - May 21, 2013

@156. You have demonstrated that Trek’s Greatest Hits is creatively bankrupt, no one wants to see your take on space whales…

Phil, this is both hilarious and 100% correct! ;-)

@156. “The foolish marketing that annoyed rather than embracing. And turned Into Darkness into bickering back-and-forth fights wherever it was mentioned about “Khan” / “not khan”… because nobody had anything of substance or value to discuss! Which meant non-trekkies got weirded out and alienated, not even knowing who Khan is or caring. It was a mistake to wait 4 years between movies and in the meantime, to punish interest in the movie.”

Ironhyde, I agree completely

@158. “The movie got quite a bit of applause at the end, which perplexed me.”

That’s because most people, including me, but obviously not including you, think it is a pretty good Trek movie. Check out the polls here or anywhere. You are in the minority, and you name is insulting and rude to Bob Orci, who has just been trying his best to give us a good product, whether you like his work or not.

170. Mitchell - May 21, 2013

@ 2. Philip Dunlop:
@ 8. Dave Thornton:
@ 3. Daniel:

Hit the nails on the head. Amen^

171. Photon70 - May 21, 2013

@ 167. Buzz Cagney – May 20, 2013 .

Agreed! They keep saying you don’t need any knowledge of Star Trek to understand STID!

What rubbish!

Why else would it matter that the bad guy was Khan if you didn’t know anything about Star Trek?

How would you understand why Starfleet had started aggresive short range sweeps and came across the Botany Bay, if you didn’t know that Nero had destroyed Vulcan and altered the time line?

There was so much shorthand in STID, it wasn’t funny.

172. Larry Nemecek - May 21, 2013

Excellent breakdown and sourcing, Anthony. Thanks much!

173. ken1w - May 21, 2013

The 2009 movie had “long legs.” It was in theaters for an EXTENDED run. It also got repeat viewings from fans. I saw it three times (plus a few more times later on my TV screen).

I predict STID will similarly have a long life in the theater. I thought it was a better movie, and a much better STAR TREK movie, compared to 2009’s Star Trek. There’s so much I want to “catch” the second time; I’ll probably see it at least three times during its first run. In the last ten years, I think the only other movie I paid to see more than once was Star Trek (2009).

174. Tim - May 21, 2013

STiD gets better after repeated viewings. There’s just a lot of nuances here and there you’re not gonna catch because of CGI shock the first time.

I don’t know if this can be called a sleeper hit but I sure hope it holds!

175. Star Trek: Nemesis blows, is the point - May 21, 2013

@114. “Worst. Trek. Ever. Yeah, even worse than Nemesis.”

False. STID made more money in one weekend than Nemesis made in it’s entire release.

That aside, Nemesis was a terrible movie, and will always be the worst Trek movie ever. Even The Final Frontier is superior to Nemesis in almost every way.

The best parts of Nemesis were cut in fear of making the movie too long. Baird wasconcerned that if the movie were “too long,” it would become boring by default – a la some how evolving into TMP. Instead of making Nemesis a majestic send off for the crew of the Enterprise-E, as it should have been, it was neutered into a weak movie, with a weak plot, with a terrible villain. Really – the best parts of the movie were left on the cutting room floor.

176. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 21, 2013

@174. Tim

Absolutely agree. The problem is, will people say “well that was OK – there was a lot of action, but…” and leave it at that, instead of going back to pick up all the themes and character interactions that make this a very good Star Trek movie?

Also, we trekkies will nit pick it to death. Some of us can get past the ‘bad science’, but for others it’s a deal breaker. I’m not sure how the general public will deal with that aspect.

177. Goonies 2 should be made - May 21, 2013

Anyone get a Superman Returns type vibe with the movie?

178. VulcanFilmCritic - May 21, 2013

Maybe the marketing people are making the wrong assumptions because they are asking the wrong questions.

Is Star Trek really a tent-pole movie franchise? In the past, the Star Trek movies were profitable but never blockbusters. Star Trek (2009) may well have been an anomaly. The resurrection of something as dorky and declasse as Star Trek into an extraordinarily well-made action film was a feat on par with the Second Coming. I mean people were crying in the theaters. That’s the way it felt. And the general public was curious.

The sequel was really nothing special, the advertising half-hearted and kind of dismal-looking, and at the same time rather generic. Certainly nothing to get the media frothing at the mouth. Unless you are a diehard Trekkie, would you even care?

Is Star Trek really like the Marvel universe? The DC universe? Is it based on a string of successful children’s or adolescent novels? No, it’s based on a defunct TV series.

The folks who marketed the Harry Potter franchise and the Twilight series had editorial stories placed in the major media outlets to showcase the (at least partially manufactured) “pent-up fan demand.” Hoards of kids hanging out all night to buy the next book, camping out in the street to buy the first tickets, showing off their tattoos and other forms of fan-devotion and so-on. Even if you weren’t a fan, you’d probably want to know what all the hoopla was about. Many adults, and others not in the target audience, went to see the “Twilight” movies and “The Hunger Games” for these reasons.

That’s what was missing from the STID advertising campaign: hoopla.

Now going forward, I’m sure there will be enough box office to justify another movie, but should the long-term health of the ST franchise depend on hitting it out of the park every time? Is that really tenable?
Maybe the best plan is to aim a little bit lower, as the older movies did. Reasonable budgets, more frequent movies, less action and more story.

And please stop killing off the best characters and blowing up the most interesting planets.

179. Martin D. - May 21, 2013

Maybe the difference in terms of box office returns is that Trek 09 simply had more immediate rewatch value. Trek 09 left you exhilarated and ready to watch the film again the next day (like a good Star Wars episode I guess), whereas STID feels a bit emotionally draining. The last 30 minutes are just too much. When the Spock/Khan fight started, I was really just hoping for the movie to be over soon. At some point all that death and destruction becomes boring and you tune out.

If the destruction of the Kelvin, the death of Vulcan, _and_ the explosion of the Narada had all happened in the final 20 minutes of Trek 09, it would have felt very similar to STID I think.

People go the cinema to be entertained and get a buzz, and while I liked STID very much, I’m simply not as eager to see it again as I was with Trek 09. Perhaps if J.J. had left the superfluous and badly done warp core and Khan blood healing scenes on the proverbial cutting room floor, the ending would have flowed better and not have felt as overloaded as it did.

180. EnterpriseJ - May 21, 2013

– I don’t think we can blame the economy or people being busy: Iron Man 3 did huge box offoce

-The results are really disapointing. It was supposed to be our Dark Knight: successful reboot first film and mega successful followup.

– I loved the movie until we got to the TWOK copy and paste. Totally not necessary.. It took me out of the movie. .it was that bad. I’ve loved JJ since Alias, so I’m surprised by that part. I’d be embarrased as a writer writing that scene. I’d rather be arguing the merits of something new.

181. Mad Mann - May 21, 2013

Folks, movies have to make at least DOUBLE in the box office of their production and marketing budget to be make a profit: theater owners keep about half of the take.

SO: STiD will have to make at least $440 million worldwide just to break even! (prod budget: $190 mill, mark budget: $30 mill) And right now, I don’t think that will happen. It really looks like it will be losing money.

It might make something with DVD/Bluray sales, but not enough to justify another big-budget sequel.

182. Yanks - May 21, 2013

Couple money questions.

I understand they spent what, $185 million to make this thing?

Does that cover all the marketing, or does STID need to cover more than that to make money?


Here’s my opinion on why the numbers are “down”.

They released the thing overseas first. The cat was out of the bag. It all should have been done simultainiously. No way to hide stuff now-a-days. Can’t be done.

And that “cat” was a frakin rip-off of an old classic. The majority of the “trekkies” that normally would go see it multiple times are sitting at home after the movie going…


These numbers will be less than they should have been, DVD sales will be less than they should have been… all because there aren’t real minds behind this franchise anymore.

There is only one other time I was this upset watching a Star Trek production.


183. Lone Browncoat - May 21, 2013

As I said elsewhere, when the dust settles, Iron Man 3 will be seen as the better film as at least the story wasn’t a blown-up repeat of another. Ben Kingsley’s Mandarin was a complete surprise. In the theatre, I saw no one do a facepalm or a D’oh
or even mutter under their breath, as I would expect from any readers of the Marvel comic. Same couldn’t be said for the audience I sat with during ST:ID.

Though I will still enjoy ST 2013 for the blow ’em up summer movie that it is. May even see it again just to pick out details i missed seeing on the first day. (and less elbow bumping)

184. EnterpriseJ - May 21, 2013

Can I be the first to predict that we’ll see the Borg in the next movie?

185. jimgrant1701 - May 21, 2013

This mirrors a lot of the feedback I’ve gotten from my friends (both trekkies and non) that it was a good movie, but could have been a lot better. I agree with what’s been said (in reverse order):
1) Secrecy of villain
2) TWOK rip off scene
3) Too long between films
4) lack of merchandising and product tie ins
But I think the biggest problem was the title. For a summer popcorn flix, not many want to go “Into Darkness” especially when the movie was not that dark. It gave a mixed message of a fun summer movie, yet hinted at terrorism. (I think a terrorist movie would have been great, but I think it missed it’s mark). “Vengeance” might have been better or some other title that didn’t have “Darkness” in it.

186. New Horizon - May 21, 2013

178. VulcanFilmCritic – May 21, 2013

I agree 100% about the marketing of this movies.

Everything from the teasers to the promotional posters were all very uninspired….certainly nothing to grab your attention. It was generic to the extreme.

187. Mad Mann - May 21, 2013

RE; Lack of merchandising:

Quote from moviefone:
“Paramount missed some marketing opportunities at home. A merchandising dispute between J.J. Abrams and CBS (which holds the rights to the “Star Trek” characters) meant few licensed products on retailers shelves and a far less ubiquitous presence than the film should have had in terms of grabbing retail consumers’ attention.”

188. New Horizon - May 21, 2013

> 92. porthoses bitch – May 20, 2013
Hey haters….

Does another persons dislike of the film threaten you in some way?

I’m happy that you enjoyed it. You got your money’s worth and that’s great.

I didn’t. The reasons I disliked it are valid. Tastes will vary, but overall I felt the film could have been better. It needed fewer obvious ‘homages’ to scenes from previous episodes and movies. Heck, it even ripped off scenes from Trek 09 such as the Enterprise rising out of the clouds near the end. Things like that just pulled me out of the money because my mind is saying, ” they did that already, why are they doing an almost identical shot?”.

189. The River Temoc - May 21, 2013

@15: “And yes, as the economy shrinks, shelling out for blockbusters several weeks in a row is not an option for some people.”

Except that the economy is not shrinking now. And even to the extent that people perceive it is, or are worried about the effects of the sequester/Europe, it is certainly in vastly better shape than 2009.

190. Zip - May 21, 2013

Saw it Wed Night at the fan preview in IMAX 3D,( it was sold out ) saw it again Friday Night in Real 3D, ( theatre was 1/2 full, but it was a holiday weekend and MANY folks were at the cabin or camping for the long Holiday weekend ( just like every year here in Canada ) My friends and family Still want to see the Movie, ( when they get home from the cabin )
Folks, Any movie released on one of the largest holiday weekends of the year,,, when people who have family dinners, cabin get aways, and year long planned fishing trips are just not going to Stop all plans to go to a movie that will still be there in a few days )) Of course, I canceled my plans,,,, and loved the move. ( Still, TWOK is my favorite ) Tonight i will see it in the Theatre again, with my 83 year old Dad.
I just loved it, and so will my Dad. Now lets hope the move has staying power and makes lots of money. I want to see the Next one in 2 years…
Thanks Anthony Keep up the good work.

191. somethoughts - May 21, 2013


Are you kidding me? They ruined Mandarin and reduced him to some joke. I can say Iron Man 3 is the worst one in the series and only did well at the box office because of the traction gained from Iron Man 2 and the avengers.

192. Moputo Jones - May 21, 2013

Enough of the doom and gloom. If you thought that STID was a quality piece of work and you want to see a third alt-universe movie, then go see STID again or multiple times. I’ve seen it twice already (once in IMAX 3D, once in Real3D). Support it like any other product that you like.

193. Josh C. - May 21, 2013

184 – I’ve been wanting the Borg, but I think we’re more likely to get Klingons, especially after the “below predictions” opening for Into Darkness. I think they’ll want an enemy that pretty much EVERYONE knows about and would be looking forward to.

The Borg are famous, but not sure they’re that famous.

194. Paul (London) - May 21, 2013

4 years was too long the finished movie was appalling quality that bad word of mouth gets out. I am a lifelong TOS fan for over 40 years I regret seeing this movie once so you can forget my repeat business (which would have been at least 5-10 times for me alone along with family/friends) & I know plenty of other Trek fans of all ages who feel the same way.

3rd worst ST movie ever made IMO that is why the box office is not what it was expected to be.

195. Jamjumetley - May 21, 2013

I’ll tell you why the film doesn’t perform as expected.

I’m still waiting for STID to hit cinemas here where I live. I have plenty of time to read all those reviews and spoilers. While I was quite enthusiastic when I heard they were beginning production, my enthusiasm gradually dropped with every teaser, trailer and information about the plot.

If you put your film in an alternative timeline you have to stick to some old stuff while inventing something new. In case of Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness they toss away things they SHOULD keep unchanged and at the same time they copy ideas from the established canon.

Add stupid plot devices (for example transwarp beaming) and a dash of magic (sic!) and there you go – you have a movie with a stunning visual side but bland, unoriginal, forgettable, illogical and full of plot holes at the same time.

I like a good action-packed movie. But Star Trek from 2009 onwards isn’t the Star Trek I have grown to like over the years. It became shallow.

196. Lee Butterley - May 21, 2013

I saw Star Trek 2009 three times at the cinema, and though never feeling it to be “proper” Star Trek, really enjoyed it. Into Darkness left me feeling a little disappointed and annoyed, even though I sort of enjoyed it as it was going along. Not sure why, the dialogue is great, when the characters are actually given time to talk amongst the action, but there was a couple of points where the relentless action just got a bit tedious and I found myself clock-watching.

Also, as much as I like Cumberbatch, I feel he was miscast.

Anyways, I’ve got no strong desire to watch it at the cinema again.

197. Admiral Kent - May 21, 2013

“Come, come, Mr. Scott. Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant.” ;)

198. Mad Mann - May 21, 2013

@ 191. somethoughts

Ruined the Mandarin? For who? A very small group of comic book fans? I thought they handeled the character very well. I liked the twist at the end.

Back to topic: I also think the Klingons will be the main villains for the next movie. Lindelof already said as much. They are way more famous than the Borg or any other Star Trek alien with the exception of Vulcans. Also, with the clever new helmets they use, Klingons can be done on the cheap for the movie. Since STiD’s low box office will cause the next movie’s budget to drop, they got to look into what will get the biggest bang for their buck.

Here’s hoping for Kor in 2016!

199. - May 21, 2013

I know people hate the Star Wars comparisons but one thing that SW did very well was build other world’s in another galaxy.

Something Star Trek has not yet done yet has been one of the main reasons that Star Wars is popular.

I would be more than happy to see the next Star Trek film spend the first third of the film building a world and characters on that world that we begin to care about before introducing the height of the problem that they face and the crew of the Enterprise as they come along to save the day.

It could be a world not yet ready to be introduced to the current technology yet who are about to have their world taken over by the Klingons.

Perhaps it is a world about to be destroyed by natural causes so the Enterprise need to transplant a race of beings to another planet. In order to do so Kirk needs to spend time living amongst the people of that planet to select a chosen one (like Moses) One who will have certain knowledge yet with hold it to protect his people, one who will plant the idea among the people of a need to change, to move to new ground. A promised land.

I’m not actually suggesting those as story ideas but put them forth to provide context to my point that for Star Trek to hit a larger market it needs to get into building a new universe and new civilizations. Those things that Trek promised all along but Star Wars just delivered better.

200. VulcanFilmCritic - May 21, 2013

@186 New Horizon: Yeah. Except for the internet stuff pitched at fan-boys (and fan-girls) and a few brief TV ads (one week before the movie opened) all I saw were those grayish and black posters on the sides of busses.

The next film should be timed to be released shortly before or after Star Trek’s 50th anniversary. Hopefully, that should generate SOME favorable press.

201. The River Temoc - May 21, 2013

@185: ““Vengeance” might have been better or some other title that didn’t have “Darkness” in it.”

Interestingly, STID seems to have outperformed expectations in Russia, where the film was indeed translated as STAR TREK VENGEANCE.

202. Trek in a Cafe - May 21, 2013

Most salient points raised here:

1. Not selling the film as khan or changing the film’s villain to be Joaquin.

2. Overselling the $100 million expectation

3. Not enough screen time for villain and his rage filled
And humorless portrayal. The OG Khan was always smiling and funny. And so was Garth Btw!!

No one has talked about the editing and the music. 2009 played on TV right after I saw STID. I watched the spacejump sequence and marveled how intense it was because there was little or no score, meaning no giveaway that they were being heroic. We figured it out. The score on the jump in STID with the rocks flying at them was was overdone, and also made little sense.

In fact the movie just kept doing that. The only scenes that breathed were the ones with Pike and Kirk. And they created the emotional basis for the film. But there could have been a few slower scenes, which got the audience more involved. That would increase word of mouth and sell the film over the long haul. Even with the rehashed ending which is not even fan service– it’s sheer 1950s melodrama. If they want a younger audience they could have done that more honestly with a better result.

203. Philip - May 21, 2013

What a ridiculous headline. “but why not better??”— That just serves to show why humanity is never really “content” with anything…

Look, 2 weeks ago, Paramount was thinking a ballpark of 65-70 mil opening weekend…. fast forward and for whatever confounded reason the expectations blew up to 85 million for 3 days, and 100-110 million to 4 days…. I’m not really sure why because it hit on its original estimate this is a lukewarm success here.

People need to stop freaking out over the box office and rejoice you got a 2nd Trek film that still banked 70.5 million over 3 stinking days, and 84 total over 4. It also has doubled what it did Internationally the last time as well, something that’s being over looked by all the Debbie downers in the US over the domestic gross so far.

This film will have legs, mark my words. In a month, most will be looking back at this massive freak out the opening weekend and realize how discontent that was to begin with.

Nuff said.

204. USSEXETER - May 21, 2013

I do not want the powers that be market future Star Trek movies to kids, that is what Star Wars is for. I used to love Star Wars as a kid but then I grew up. Star Wars is always making doo doo jokes that as an adult I dont find amusing. He’s banther poo-doo, ha ha poo doo sounds like doo doo, OR Count Dooku sounds like doo doo, really? As Harrison Ford famously told George Lucas, “George you can type this sh*t, but you sure as hell can’t say it”.

I first fell in love with Star Trek in 1972 as a 5 y.o. watching the syndicated TOS. Trek felt and is more geared to the adults and even as a 5 y.o. I liked it!

205. Russell Meyers - May 21, 2013

To whover is saying reviews are good to great, I would say all you have to do is look at the NY market. One paper gives it 1 1/2 stars, the other gives it 5 out of 5. The reaction to this film is decidedly split. I am split and I am one person. Fun action flick but not a great Trek film for the lore and the reuse/rehash of the whole second half of the movie.

If you use Khan, market and structure the movie as a Khan film, don’t hide him. It is obvious that they wrote this movie to either be Khan or not, and it falls flat on that account. He doesn’t look, or act like Khan. He is a super soldier, not a ruler, a Prince, a tyrant.

Give me a post credit scene in the cryo tube hangar, showing one final tube in the corner and reveal a young Montalban cgi’d into the tube and you have a better movie. Khan, the legend is safe, and you have a great film and again a mystery as to who John Harrison was after all.

206. Russell Meyers - May 21, 2013

203 – Phillip – Is there a link to a Paramount statement or estimate of 65 mil? That seems low, and would send some pretty bad signals I think for a tentpole film. I worked there for 15 years, and low expectations was an old ploy by the old Paramount regime.

207. Stargazer54 - May 21, 2013

Apologies, for not reading all posts (too, many spoilers.)

I have not seen the film. Like most I am too busy to get to the theater until this weekend.

Word of mouth aside, I am horribly disappointed in the ad campaign by Paramount. What there is of it, builds no excitement. Combined with the title of the film, the whole package screams downer.

We live in depressing times. Who wants to go see something that is promoting struggle and conflict with a backdrop of global disaster, unless there is a hint at a satisfying payoff?

There is nothing about the promotional campaign that gives any indication that you will feel good when you leave the theater.

208. Mr. Anonymous - May 21, 2013

@ #2, 5, & 8:

You got that right.

209. Jamjumetley - May 21, 2013

I treat Cumberbatch’s character as another augment – not Khan, so I totally buy your idea of a lone cryo tube.

210. Much To Do About Nothing - May 21, 2013

As a 30 year trek fan, the idea that this series is alternate timeline based means that it has no bearing on the “prime” universe. Basically, there’s really no incentive to see it because it has nothing to do with anything. It’s like a two hour saturday night live sketch. Many people I used to line up at movie theaters with for Trek have also opted out for the same reason. This also means that a TV series based on the movies is not an answer.

Beyond that, I enjoy science fiction and am admittedly not into fantasy fiction. When someone puts the science back in science fiction, I’ll go get back to the theater.

In the mean time, I’ll wait for the prime universe stories to start again when someone else “reboots it” in ten years or so. There are plenty of ways that the Star Trek universe can be improved while staying true to forty years of set-up without trying to dry erase everything. It’s kinda a cop-out really.

211. Crusade2267 - May 21, 2013

#205: AMNY called it “boring.” When the free paper that pays people to shove it in the hands of commuters puts that on the front page, you know you’re in trouble. Other reviews were more positive, but I don’t recall reading a glowing one.

And at the theater I went to, half the people coming out of the movie had smiles, and half of us were shouting obscenities about how they ripped off the end of Wrath of Khan.

This does not seem to be a movie that will be as beloved as TWOK or First Contact. It already has a vocal group of people who really didn’t like it, despite having generally positive reviews. (I really genuinely enjoyed it up until the part where they started plagiarizing dialogue.)

212. Wes - May 21, 2013

I am beginning to see that Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof are the most hated people by the hardcore fanbase for their supposed ripoff of TWOK. If you really wanted them gone after seeing STID, then let your voices be heard. Tell Paramount to fire them, tell them that you are angry at them for it. They will listen and probably fire them all, but then, who would produce/direct the 50th anniversary movie?

213. Paul - May 21, 2013

The movie is not worthy of a Star Trek title, that’s why it didn’t do better. When my co-workers ask me how Star Trek was, I tell them it was okay. That doesn’t make them want to go see it, they will go see Iron Man 3 instead.

They lied about the villain, and aside from that they didn’t even get him remotely correct. They ripped off the death scene almost line for line and cheesed it up with that Galaxy Quest warp core.

I feel that they don’t think Star Trek should be taken seriously, that it’s just a campy fun show that makes people laugh and awe over laser beams and aliens. The Star Trek TV show was a little campy at times, but it was made in the 60s. The original movies 1-6 which had the same cast, were not that way, they were taken seriously and they were well done.

I’ll take Star Trek 5 over Into Darkness any day.

214. William Bradley - May 21, 2013

The New York Times absolutely panned STID.

So did the New Yorker.

>205. Russell Meyers – May 21, 2013
To whover is saying reviews are good to great, I would say all you have to do is look at the NY market.

215. Nathan Archer - May 21, 2013

94: While I can only speak for one screening here in the UK, the one I attended was a large screen packed with people, all of whom really seemed to enjoy the movie. One gentleman behind me even whooped and gasped in all the right places, a relatively rare thing here! My sister and brother in law, who aren’t fans, came along because they really enjoyed the 2009 movie – my brother in law thought STID was even better. I’ll be going again at the weekend with a few more friends.

Frankly, the fact that I was able to enjoy a Trek movie with my family – who usually don’t like Star Trek – means I’ll treasure the JJ verse just for that.

216. Picard, Jean-Luc - May 21, 2013

213 and those fans who will side with him: Grow up for the love of Shatner.

Star Trek Into Darkness not worthy of the title…. What a load of BS. What exactly do you expect from Star Trek? I mean Its this kind of mentality that you only find on the internet from people who hide from reality in favour of shouting out crap like this behind the safety of their computer desks with too much time on their hands to boot.

You don’t like Into Darkness? Fine! You’d rather watch an old age Nichelle Nichols fan dance in the nude, knock yourself out but whilst you and other fan-boys like you may look at yourself in the mirror and think you’re an intelligent person above the level of intelligence of JJ Abrams and co, everyone else on planet Earth, including those of us who’ve been given a bad name because of fans like you and those who went out to enjoy a great movie sees this:

You and others on the internet need to, like Francis here, gain some perspective on what Star Trek IS. It’s ok not to like something but man, just accept that like everything else that has a rich and resilient heritage there are going to be differences between a Star Trek done for today and a Star Trek done in the past.

217. Kevin Browning - May 21, 2013

I love the new Star Trek. I love the old Trek. I even like the lame ENT series. But Paramount needs to understand that Star Trek is NOT for everybody….Pure and Simple….

BTW…I love STID…but lets please return to the final frontier now that the origins story is over…I loved it but I am growing tired of “vengeance story lines”

218. Nathan Archer - May 21, 2013

As an aside to my precious comment, I’ve just found out my brother-in-law wants to come along at the weekend to see the film again, as he enjoyed it so much. Curiously, he’s a HUGE Iron Man fan (though only of the movies, he knows nothing about the comics), but hated IM3. I felt a bit sorry for him actually, as he was looking forward to it so much; while he surprised me by saying he wouldn’t even buy IM3 on DVD, he was already trying to pre-order a Blu Ray of STID. The Khan revelation didn’t bohter him in the slightest, as he had neevr seen TWOK, so didn’t even kow who Khan was supposed to be.

219. Nony - May 21, 2013

The title is too vague and conceptual and the marketing campaign was lackluster. I’ve been of the opinion all along that if Trek wants to reach a younger audience, they need to strongly market the characters as individual personalities audience members can be intrigued by before they even go into the theatre. People didn’t go out in droves to The Avengers, for example, because they were excited about the plot or the action sequences. It was a mediocre movie on that front. They went to see their faves, Tony, Thor, Steve, Loki, etc, who were all highly emphasized and memorable in the ads and had been since their film introductions. You know about them. You know their personalities, how they interact. The Trek campaign consisted of the creative team and cast talking up how deeeeeeep and daaaaark the movie was, then turning around and paradoxically praising how funny!!! and how fun!!! and look at these boobs!!! it was, and then some images that were like “here are people, one of whom is probably that ‘Spok’ guy with the ears and one of whom seems to be evil because he’s in a long coat, standing there looking determined and…going into darkness? What? Like actual darkness? Is that a place? Do they mean space?” The tone of the marketing was all over the place and I could never pin it down, and if I wasn’t a Trek fan already and didn’t know the actors, I wouldn’t have particularly cared about any of those random people in that movie about going into darkness and explosions and stuff.

220. somethoughts - May 21, 2013


I agree with you, god iron man 3 was horrible. What a waste of mr Kingsley.

221. TerranGuy93 - May 21, 2013

219, You know that is a very good point, I think you’re really on to why the film is not making as much. Combine that with the competition its facing, the long span between movies, and it makes perfect sense.

222. Kenji - May 21, 2013

Was it the concept? The trailers? Not being as fresh and shiny as the sideboot? Overusing the beats of Trek09 and feeling a little bit fatiguing?

I don’t know.

Also, Monday morning quarterbacking useful only to the studio. For those of us in the fan community, I find it simply gross, in the sense of being ungrateful and nitpicky, when the Trekaliban trashes the new Trek as though that somehow validates their suffering decades of Voyager etc.

I suppose my feelings are a little hurt that ‘my’ franchise isn’t doing better than, say, Iron Man. But if Paramount makes enough money to do another then that is all that really matters for me.

That said, I felt uneasy while watching this movie – the homages were so on the nose that I was shot right out of my suspension of disbelief, but I thought that maybe it was just me being too into Trek lore. I gave it a good review in the paper. But I can also see where people like Paul 213 would give it lacklustre word of mouth, which is going to be important for the next weekend – if the dropoff is more than 50% the next sequel will be in trouble, at least at this funding level.

Paramount spent $180M, it needs to earn $360M to get into profit once publicity costs and such are all in. The strong international open is a real bonus because (a) that is where the model is evolving and (b) Trek is traditionally not a big foreign seller.

The underwhelming perf could mean a scaled down third movie from the JJ team, in terms of expensive effects, but that is not necessarily a bad thing artistically.

223. That was me mate. - May 21, 2013

#215 that was me sitting behind you there mate. Sorry, the whoops and gasps weren’t for the movie, I was on a date with the local bicycle.
She’ll let anybody ride her.
What I saw of it the film was ok too though. ;)

224. Dennis C - May 21, 2013


Finding a new creative team to produce and direct a sequel is an easy enough task. If history is an indicator a new team may deliver a better film for far less money.

Bad Robot has a ‘first look’ option which essentially means that have first crack on a sequel. Paramount can either decide to buy them out and remove their option, wait for the deal to expire or move forward with Bad Robot and a much smaller budget.

225. Alex - May 21, 2013

IM3 wasnt the problem (young people), gatsby was. Its a movie geared at women (look at the demos), and it overperformed. That hurt star treks numbers much more. Compare the percentage of women for ow in 2009 and now. If i remember correctly, its 60 vs 25% or something, huge gap.

Im more interested in second weekend. First one usually just tells you how good your marketing department works, second weekend drop is the true indicator of the film’s quality.

226. Federali Aundy - May 21, 2013

I like this movie more and more with each viewing. And when I went agains last night, the theater we jam-packed. I know IM3 and Gatsby were big, but I really do think there were a lot of people busy with graduations over the weekend – espcecially Thursday and Friday. A lot of my friends just didn’t have time to make it last weekend and if the theater I went to last night is any kind of a sign, perhaps the movie will have a good week and a good weekend despite the big movies coming out.

227. James Sawyer - May 21, 2013

I think this review sums up nicely why it didn’t do better:

Maybe because it isn’t all that good?

228. Jack - May 21, 2013

From Wired, and I agree — the trouble is in the writing.

“For all of the teasing of serious commentary on the nature of terrorism and fear in the pre-release trailers, interviews and promotion of Into Darkness, the film itself shies away from actually saying anything interesting or new about the subject. Instead, it opts instead for a tired story about the value (or lack thereof) derived from gazing into the abyss of violence and revenge.”

Keep JJ, Paramount, but get new writers. Now I’m really worried about that Spider-Man sequel…

229. James Sawyer - May 21, 2013

Yeah, the writers need to be ejected after this. Feels like their Transformers films all over again… Where the first one kinda works, but then the sequels prove they are just making films aimed at the lowest common denominators. Huge plot holes hidden by a bunch of flashy scenes and pretty colors to amuse mass audiences.

230. Buzz Cagney - May 21, 2013

#184 you aren’t the first. MJ leaped on that on last weekend. ;)

231. Nathan Archer - May 21, 2013

223: That would explain it. Next time, wait until the film is over! ;)

232. Spock Jr. - May 21, 2013

It would be logical to see how Star Trek Into Darkness does long-term, would it not? Rather than worrying about and/or attacking the movie at this early stage?


I loved it, for example, and will tell people such… If, again for example, I hated it, I would keep quiet and let people make up their own mind.

233. Brett L. - May 21, 2013

I enjoyed the film, but it was aimed at a different generation of fan. I understand the need to bring in a younger audience, but vastly “expanding” and “broadening” an audience somehow feel like different goals than “growing” and “sustaining” an audience. Trek will never be Iron Man or Batman in terms of popcorn box-office appeal–something I don’t think current Paramount execs quite understand.

While I’m not advocating going back to the restrictive budgets that gave us Bran Ferren and co., I think Paramount needs constant reminding that you can only stray so far from appealing to the core fan base. There’s a reason why the old execs made 10 modestly-budgeted films tailored to fans. That formula worked for a long time.

There has to be a happy medium of budgets and expectations that the studio should pursue because the alternative is worse (perceiving the film as a disappointment and reacting by making a more dumbed-down product or mindless reboot in the infinite search for mass appeal).

234. celticarchie - May 21, 2013

Paramount and JJ Abrams would have to PAY me 500 billion to go and see another one of his crappy movies.

235. Spock Jr. - May 21, 2013

I disagree with any idea of a ‘core fan base’ – Star Trek should be for everyone… If this version is too flashy, for example, maybe some future Star Trek reinvention will be more grounded. Star Trek, however, endures.

If I were a kid seeing Star Trek now, I would WANT to see Star Trek TOS, more than anything – surely that is a good thing?

236. Mantastic - May 21, 2013

I’d say its just because it’s not a good movie. It’s not a bad movie either, but unlike the last one where it got a lot of repeat viewings from movie goers, most of the people I know are seeing it once, maybe twice, and calling it done.

I saw Star Trek ’09 4 times. I saw Into Darkness twice, and only the second time because I was invited with a group to see it and not because I wanted to see it again.

Overall, I’m just getting tired of summer blockbusters that are nothing but whiz-bang explodey lunacy that’s paced and edited super fast while containing a million plot holes and things that make no logical sense. I had hoped with movies like Inception that things would change and we’d start seeing some summer blockbusters that were smarter and more cerebral (which is one of Star Trek’s main qualities usually), but not so much I suppose.

237. Spock Jr. - May 21, 2013

Star Trek and allegory go hand-in-hand. I’m unsure what could be more cerebral and relevant than looking at ourselves through the Star Trek mirror, seeing how the best of us, in our utopian world of tomorrow, would handle such a savage and unexpected attacker. It’s about the War on Terror, and how we should conduct ourselves, even in our darkest hour. It’s a shame that all some people could see was fighting and explosions.

238. TrekMadeMeWonder - May 21, 2013

One word.


239. Spock Jr. - May 21, 2013


Hi. What exactly is anti-marketing?

240. Spock Jr. - May 21, 2013


Hi. Really should have capitalized ME rather than PAY.

241. LizardGirl - May 21, 2013

@ 38 PaulB

I like how you say “some of you” vs. “many of us”…clever… You’ve clearly made it known here that you dislike STID. I’m not sure if you’ve said even ONE measly compliment for the movie. *Shrug* That’s alright. But think about this: when it comes to word of mouth, maybe the negativity of a group of people could effect the overall excitement of others to see the movie? Especially when stated over and over etc.

242. Spock Jr. - May 21, 2013


Don’t worry, LizardGirl – the negativity of the few does not affect the excitement of the many.

243. psb2009 - May 21, 2013

I think this movie has legs, and while it may not reach some financial dream, it will become more and more loved as a movie and as Star Trek. While I was watching, I kept thinking “this is how I always I wanted Star Trek to look- sets and engineering sections with a sense of realism reminiscent of the early days of NASA (I am a child of the early 60’s and my imagination of Star Trek was always tied to the real space exploration happening at the time).
I think also, the themes and ideas of STID will resonant more as people look past the action and the silly nitpicks of who is wearing what color shirt. In fact, this is already happening. The New Yorker and NPR this week both have commentaries on the message and what is being said about our times- while, not exactly loving the film (especially in the New Yorker’s cas), it does mean that this Trek is worthy enough to make us examine our times. Not a bad thing for a summer movie.

244. Red Dead Ryan - May 21, 2013

Sheesh, I can’t believe that some people here want to go back to the days of low-budget, tv-quality Trek movies.

The problem with this movie isn’t the quality, it was the piss-poor North American marketing, and keeping the villain a secret. Plus there has been virtually no merchandise whatsoever, except for KREO building toys.

245. Mel - May 21, 2013

German numbers

9. – 12. May (Top 4):
1. Star Trek Into Darkness: 446.915 viewers in 627 cinemas (on average 713 viewers per cinema)
2. Iron Man 3: 379.467 viewers
3. Hanni & Nanni: 201.173 viewers
4. Scary Movie 5: 119.875 viewers

They had on the 9. May previews and double features with Into Darkness. So from the 8. May – 12. May the movie was watched by 526.828 people.

Star Trek 2009 was watched from Wednesday (including previews) to Sunday on its opening weekend by 421.593 viewers in 688 cinemas (on average 613 viewers per cinema).

So overall Into Darkness was watched by slightly over 100.000 more people in its opening week. The increase in revenue was thanks to higher 3D tickets and inflation even more impressive. There was a 82% increase.

3 of the previous 11 Star Trek movies had a better start in Germany though in regards to viewers, Star Trek 7 – 9:

Star Trek 7 Generations: 558.011 viewers in 401 cinemas (on average 1.392 viewers per cinema)
Star Trek 8 First Contact: 768.586 viewers in 583 cinemas (on average 1.318 viewers per cinema)
Star Trek 9 Insurrection: 825.741 viewers in 702 cinemas (on average 1.176 viewers per cinema)

Just because it is interesting:

Star Trek 10 Nemesis: 483.274 viewers in 740 cinemas (on average 653 viewers per cinema)

So the regular weekend wouldn’t have been enough for Into Darkness to beat Nemesis.

16. – 19. May (Top 4):
1. The Great Gatsby: 258.000 viewers
2. Star Trek Into Darkness: 242.000 viewers
3. Evil Dead: 231.000 viewers
4. Iron Man 3: 170.000 viewers

Star Trek’s revenue was higher than those of The Great Gatsby though. Into Darkness made 2,55 million Euro and Gatsby made only 2,52 million Euro.


So we have this so far:

1. weekend:
Star Trek 2009: 421.593 viewers (I think it also includes previews, but my sources are somewhat contradictory)
Into Darkness: 526.828 (446.915 viewers without previews)

2. weekend:
Star Trek 2009: 190.000 viewers (another site said 200.000)
Into Darkness: 242.000 viewers

3. weekend:
Star Trek 2009: 125.000 viewers

4. weekend:
Star Trek 2009: 80.000 viewers

246. Brevard - May 21, 2013

For what it’s worth here’s what I think:

1) People simply did not do repeat viewings over opening weekend because this is a really weak film. I saw ST 09 5 times during its opening weekend. I saw Into Darkness once.

2) Marketing has been sketchy. It seems more attention was paid to overseas markets, including opening the film overseas before it opened in the US. You can’t “bite the hand that feeds you.”

3) 4 years is way too long to wait for a sequel to a hot property. All involved should know that.

4) Calling the film Into Darkness was a big mistake. The film was not any different in tone than ST 09. I think this scared the causal move goer. They remembered the fun they had with ST 09 and probably thought, “I don’t want to see a dark ST film.” Too much reliance on The Dark Knight and The Empire Strikes Back as an example.

5) Don’t like to the public. Don’t deny the identity of a lead character and then expect people to want to see your movie. Lying has a tendency to make movie goers, fans especially, feel betrayed. The identity of Cumberbatch’s character should have been a part of the marketing. The mystery surrounding his character was silly. And the reveal in the movie was a let down.

6) If you say you want to make a film for “everybody” then don’t shoe horn yourself by creating a movie that only a die hard fan boy could appreciate. Rehashes of other movies just confuse those who don’t have a ST background. A non-trek friend of mine was lost with the big reveal. He just didn’t get it.

7) Remember that visual effects does not a solid movie make. ST has always been about a better world, space travel, and optimism. ST is not an action movie that goes from set piece to set piece with unrelenting energy.

It baffles me that Paramount is surprised that the movie is not doing better. Unfortunately, they are believing the hype that JJ and Co can do no wrong. I think this movie proves that they can.

247. Captain Ransom - May 21, 2013

STID was so god awful i couldn’t believe what i was watching. from mccoy trying to bring a tribble back to life while the enterprise was in ruins to spock’s pathetically out of character KHAAAAAAN at the end, this movie blatantly pissed on all that is trek. scotty conveniently quits so he can be on the vengeance later, cumby’s boring and one-dimensional khan was ininspiring. the only scene worth a damn was pike’s lecture to kirk at the beginning about consequences, but just when you think there’s gonna be some real character development kirk has the enterprise back 5 minutes later. so much for consequences. then at the end kirk is back 5 minutes later again.

By far the worst star trek movie ever.

248. weeharry - May 21, 2013

why not better box office?

1. too long between movies
2. villain choice and/or execution of said choice
3. relentlessly paced allowing little opportunity to tell the story
4. non-simultaneous openings in major markets
5. word of mouth

I actually enjoyed it more the second time I saw it in regular old 2D.
I don’t mind it so much, but the issues I have with it have been similarly echoed by many others here, so instead I will share what two different friends of mine thought…

I saw it on preview night in the UK with a sci-fi-genre fan who had some familiarity with trek but is by no means a trekkie – whilst he enjoyed it, he felt there was no need for BC to become khan – he was enjoying john harrison just fine, thanks! His main issue, and I quote: “I thought star trek was supposed to be the intelligent one”.

spoke to my complete non-trekker friend who went to see it on the back of watching the 2009 movie with me – her issues were with the fact that she thought they were supposed to be exploring space, but all she got was a run of mill conspiracy thing that could easily have been “like an episode of 24″. She also felt said she would have liked to have seen a long lingering shot of chris pine in his underwear – all in the name of fairness, she said!!

for me, if they decided to use khan, they should have made a big deal out of it and built the film round his character, and taken the TIME to show why he’s such an awesome villain, rather than hiding him away, and they could still have done the homages to old scenes had they decided to use an original character instead.


249. Maoman - May 21, 2013

1. Story (what there is of it.) lacks appeal to women and kids. (We will call this a lack of “adventure”)

2. Because story lacks appeal to kids, ancillary marketing and licensing is non-existent. (No food / beverage tie-in. No toys or other licensed items.)

3. Without ancillary marketing and licensing, the film has no presence outside of theaters and so it becomes dependent on word-of-mouth to generate income once launch week TV campaign is done.

4. Because of lack of story appeal, word of mouth fails and due to competition the box office begins to drop heavily by the 3rd week.

5. And we are done….

250. Mad Mann - May 21, 2013

244: Red Dead Ryan:

If you were referring to my post, then you misunderstood me. I strongly believe that Star Trek does not need a big budget to be high quality. Look at TOS: It had arguably the best episodes and characters of any Star Trek series but had an extremely low budget. Also, look at Star Trek II: TWOK: that had the lowest budget of any Trek film and is yet almost univerally accepted as the best one.

A lower budget can cause good filmakers to become great film-makers if they are resourceful. Yeah, I agree that some of the lower-budget movies (Insurrection) were made so cheap it shows, but sometimes magic can happen.

251. Tino - May 21, 2013

I think that some movie goers have had the following problems and therefore didn’t go watch STID.

1) Iron-Man 3, Hangover 3 and Fast and Furious 6 already targeted at the audience below 25 years of age. Four movies in four weeks? There’s bound to be one or two films to be left unseen.

2) I’m ALWAYS told that people haven’t watched the last movie so they don’t think they’ll understand this movie. When I tell them that each movie can be watched individually, they are astonished.

3) I feel that many fans have criticized STID too much. We all agree that it’s a great/good movie to be enjoyed by non-fans, but still we start exploding about the disrespecting details, the plotholes etc. I think that casual moviegoers are put off by that. When even trekkies attack (the creative choices of) this movie soo much, it’s can’t be that good.

252. Spoctor McKirk - May 21, 2013

Still mystified by the intense negativity from fans surrounding this release. I have been a fan since 1971, TOS being the ONLY Trek that I really got into. I’ve seen every episode multiple times throughout the years…bought the VHS copies, the DVD’s, and finally the blu-ray’s.

I lurked Trekmovie for any news on the film. I read every morsel, every rumour, and even every spoiler. I walked in pretty much knowing what was going to happen…and it still blew my away! Everyone I’ve talked to who went to see it had the same reaction. They loved it. It’s 86% on the tomatometer for crying out loud!

I think people forget that this is purely escapist entertainment. It’s not real-life or death. It’s two hours of movie magic that delivers thrills and laughs and tears for a measly $15. Hell of a deal, I think.

Looking forward to the next one. In the meantime I have other, far more important, things to do.

253. Peter Domingo - May 21, 2013

Speaking for myself and other like minded Trek Fans,The word of mouth on Cumberbitch being Khan really affected my enthusiasm on this one.Just the simple fact that Abrams and company blatantly LIED to the fans this time was despicable. I mean in the past we have been mislead or Paramount just deflected any possible spoilers but for Urban,Pegg and the rest to just plain lie is not worthy of some of the most dedicated fans in all of geek-dom. The only thing going Boldly in this one was a bold face lie. and No I didn’t misspell Benedict’s Last Name.
I did go see in the theater,but waited for the matinee (which was dead BTW)
Problem is they are riding a Bad script Plan and simple.
No amount of “Old School”references or Easter Eggs harkening back to the classic trek or over flow of Bright flashy lights in your face is gonna save a bad script and really Bad science BTW.
A portable Trans-warp beaming device pretty much says it all.Did they even have that advanced Tek in TNG?

254. Peter Domingo - May 21, 2013

On a side note I was also disappointed with Iron Man 3 thinking it was unnecessary in the franchise but after seeing STITD,……………………It’s not that bad.

255. drumvan - May 21, 2013

if paramount really wants bigger buzz and $$$$ for st13 we may get that shatner cameo some have been clamoring for.

256. Peter Domingo - May 21, 2013

All in all though I am glad to see these classic Characters still thriving at the box office and that Star Trek has a mass appeal to the regular movie going audience. It is great that we are still after all these years still bitching about Star Trek! I do hope the writers will listen to our concerns/complaints about this one. As far as the Star Wars Fans out there,best of luck guys I promise Abrams will break your heart next! May The Force (and patience) Be with You.

257. JohnRambo - May 21, 2013

who seriously cares for this crap?

The Movie was awesome, that’s all that matters.

258. Peter Domingo - May 21, 2013

I must have been watching something else then.Mr. Rambo as far as who cares? why would we be posting all this stuff if we didn’t care? I am glad you enjoyed the film but The topic was why didn’t Into Darkness preform better at the box office? I have given my opioin as to why.
It was awesome who cares doesn’t quite explain why it fell short of it’s expectations at the box office. Not trying to argue with you sir, just staying on topic.

259. David - May 21, 2013

STID made $7.9M on Monday up to $91.6M

260. Tombot3000 - May 21, 2013

While I liked this one better than the last NuTrek but the replay factor is probably low. You probably need a second view just to process what it’s breakneck pace zips by. My expectations were way low, already spoiled and past examining flaws- unless glaring.
Amazingly, I worked in a toy store around the time of the first one, and the toys gathered dust. All the updated things, the ships, tech devices, phasers were uglier and clunkier than classic versions; nothing I’d want to collect. And while the new movie is certainly gorgeous in it’s rendering, the Enterprise is still less than desirable, etc. The aliens, aside from Scotty’s pet, are blink and you’d miss them cameos. Heck, why didn’t Arex get his turn at the bridge? ;-)
Back when The Motion Picture came out, I was already getting out of the action figure age, but I did buy the Klingon Cruiser- my happiest model experience back then. Not one of the new ships in the new series has appealed much to me. Perhaps the Kelvin, somewhat, but even it is kinda an oddball with that one nacelle thing.
Star Trek can be re-invented again. Heck, Galaxy Quest re-invented it quite well as a comedy satire homage!!!
If there is a next NuTrek, and it’s likely, they need to get to dazzling the audience with a better story.
Heck, the Elysium preview before Star Trek has me way excited just to see something NEW!

261. Anonoymous Coward - May 21, 2013

‘…But Why Not Even Better?’

‘Cause people remember the experience of watching the first one?
The first one was awful and my expectations for this one were too low to bother.
I might see this for a dollar at the 2nd run theater near my house. I certainly don’t see making a special effort to see it.
I might just wait to buy a used DVD.

That said, I am truly intrigued by STID’s awfulosity.

Abrams keeps his stuff under warps for a reason. If you know anything beforehand, you won’t bother- and he knows it.

262. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 21, 2013

Why insult Benedict CumberbAtch’s name by using Cumberbitch (which is what some of his fans call themselves)? He was the actor and just that. He was not responsible for the marketing or what the studio(s) said about the character he was playing. Neither were any of the other actors.

Go for JJ Abrams…and Paramount – not the actors, who were/are? under a non-disclosure contract and who could say (or not) only what their bosses allowed.

The “dark” aspect of the posters may have put some people off – I don’t know. If I wasn’t a Star Trek enthusiast, I might have lumped it in with all the other dark, dire stuff that is around and given it a miss. However, with Star Trek being in the title, I would know that, even in the worst times, there will always be grounded, sympathetic and positively human moments that would want to make me check it out, especially since this film iteration is now about my favourite crew and “my captain”!
BTW, I saw the poster with Harrison/Khan in front in his black coat with Uhura, Kirk and Spock behind on the back of one of our local buses…for real!

263. T'Cal - May 21, 2013

i know why. I haven’t had a chance to see it again yet. I’m going tonight and this weekend at a special showing with TWOK and The Shat. We need to get out there…again!

264. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 21, 2013

Gosh, reading all the negativity and bitchiness could put anyone wandering into this site off seeing the movie.

Lighten up, people. It’s a movie and pretty good one, at that.

265. T'Cal - May 21, 2013

This is a great film that lacks the holes that the 2009 movie had. The 4 year wait might have hurt the box office but this movie rocks from beginning to end. I’m hoping that the next one comes in time for Trek’s big 5-0!

266. Moputo Jones - May 21, 2013

#264: I wholeheartedly agree. And then when Paramount goes back to the days of laughable budgets, Trekkers are going to be negative and bitchy about that.

267. Jimtibkirk - May 21, 2013

I loved this film and thought the writers did a great job of reimagining Trek lore in creative and surprising ways within the new timeline. On that note, I rather like the notion that maybe that was NOT Khan but one of his crew acting as a decoy, as others here have suggested. Now there’s a great twist that explains both the casting of a British actor AND any perceived “lies” from cast and crew. Now they can try to get Benicio del Toro again, or Havier Bardem. Just imagine those scenes in the third installment … yeah …

What I can’t get to sink in is this: Iron Man 3 just hit a billion dollars worldwide? What? IMO it was okay but NOT as good as the first two films. However, it’s this year’s Transformers so every male kid 7-17 will automatically see it, so that quickly adds up at the box office. Trek should’ve avoided IM3 by a month. Both franchises have a campiness but Downey’s cornered that market. Trek may have had better luck against Man of Steel, which looks a lot more serious in tone.

268. somethoughts - May 21, 2013

Worldwide: $172,184,816 as of yesterday.

Pretty good, it is on pace to reach $350-550mil.

I think the international will mirror or beat the domestic totals.

269. somethoughts - May 21, 2013

Everyone I know that has seen STID has loved it. My nerdy trek buddy who is hard to please and has seen everything star trek texted me the following;

At a bbq then a poker game. Also just saw star trek. That was freakin awesome!

Whenever I read something negative about STID I am shocked, the litmus trst is my buddy, the guy would have told me it sucked if he didnt like it.

I still want to go with him and watch it for a third time, I have not watched it in 2D format yet. Here is hoping that the box office numbers continue to grow and give the haters the good old vulcan salute.

270. matthew - May 21, 2013

Just to throw in my two cents, I never really cared for ST09 – it never really felt like Trek to me. I was going into this movie with very low expectations and was disappointed that the villain was most likely to be Khan.

With that said, I left the theatre loving it (and it was mostly packed in Seattle). It was a much better movie, IMHO, and it’s one I will go see multiple times in the theatre (something I did not do for ST09 – only saw that once).

The homages to TWOK didn’t bother me at all; I actually kind of liked them.

To each his own, to be sure, but I found this film to be a much more solid entry than the previous. The group I went with, a mix of Trekkies and non-Trekkies all loved the movie equally.

If my car wasn’t in the shop, I’d have been to see it again this week! Haha.

271. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - May 21, 2013

It needed to be MORE ORIGINAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2009 was original…. (I went 10 times in theaters)

Into Darkness was a copy of TROK…. (I have gone once and will go only one more time in theaters)



272. Jason - May 21, 2013

Stop telling me to quit bitchin’. If I didn’t like it then I didn’t like it.

273. Yanks - May 21, 2013

Well, I loved it right up to the inverted TWoK rip-off.

274. rickindc - May 21, 2013

Ticket prices are too high and people are broke.

275. demode - May 21, 2013

The movie was a lot of fun. I suspect it will do just fine in the weeks to come.

276. Mel - May 21, 2013

I once read, that a movie has to make 2-3 times as much as the production budget to be considered profitable. Probably because some extra money is spend on promotion and the cinema owners also keep part of the ticket prizes.

Of course they may later still make some extra money with the selling of DVDs, Blu-rays, TV airing rights, etc. But if they want to get their money back with only viewers in the cinema, a movie needs to make 2-3 times as much as the production budget.

Star Trek 2009: production budget $150 million
Star Trek Into Darkness: production budget: $190 million

So Star Trek 2009 needed $300 million – $450 million. It made $386 million, so slightly nearer to 3 times the production budget than to the 2 times production budget.

Into Darkness needs $380 – $570 million. To be considered similar successful to the 2009 movie, it needs about $490 million.

277. Burkie - May 21, 2013

Does anyone really think this is the end of Star Trek on film and that it really will lead to the third film not being made? Get a grip.

278. NuFan - May 21, 2013

I don’t think Star Trek is capable of being a billion dollar mega hit. It is Star Trek, after all.

279. Nony - May 21, 2013

I’m thinking a reduced budget for the next film could have good results. Don’t pad out the movie with interminable flashy chase scenes and space jumps and shoot-’em-ups and platform jumping and ship dogfights. Force the writers to spend the time on creating something compelling that doesn’t involve CGI, fistfights, or explosions. The entire time I was watching that Kirk and Khan video-game-jump-between-the-ships scene, I was thinking hey, that thirty seconds could have been spent giving Bones some character development. Another twenty seconds there, maybe Uhura and Carol Marcus could have met and had a little conversation and the movie could’ve passed the Bechdel Test (did anybody realize that this film did not contain two female characters speaking to each other about anything?). A minute cut from Spock and Khan punching each other all across San Francisco and bouncing on floating barges, and maybe one of the Kirk/Bones scenes could have been extended instead to better show their friendship, or Chekov and Sulu could interact a little, or Scotty and Uhura. An extra few dozen lines of dialogue isn’t nearly as labour-intensive or costly as an extra few minutes of CGI.

280. LizardGirl - May 21, 2013

@70 Anthony
I understand, that’s a valid point. But an animated series is a COMPLETELY different thing from a movie franchise. The writing for an animated series and the writing for movie franchise doesn’t have to be interchangeable. And that’s only if we’re stereotyping contemporary animation as somehow being lacking in substance.

281. Tomvla619 - May 21, 2013

If box office numbers are lower than expected, perhaps the acronym is to blame. Who wants to catch an STiD? :)

282. Anon - May 21, 2013

There were no advertisements for the Star Trek movie anywhere. Plus, some fo the die-hard fans are cynical, negative folks.

283. THX-1138 - May 21, 2013

Sorry I haven’t read all 3.5 zillion posts (282 as of this typing)

I have heard that a lack of young movie-goers was to blame in part for the lower than expected take. All I can say is that on opening day when I saw it at 7 PM the theater I was in was 1/3 full. That’s not good. I think the predictions of all of these “new” fans joining the Trek fold were exaggerated. Most of those who have been seeing the new movie have been the older Trek fans, but that normally we don’t go back to the theater multiple times like young fans do.

So don’t go blaming the older fans. We showed up. Even us “cynical, negative folks”.

284. Mirror Jordan - May 21, 2013

I love the direction of nuTrek, but a smaller budget and getting back to the old school style of a slower, more thought out plot will be beneficial to the next movie. I have a feeling that we’re only going to get a trilogy from this cast anyhow. Maybe Trek will head back to TV following that.

285. MJ - May 21, 2013

@272 “Into Darkness was a copy of TROK”

Huh??? What is TROK ???

286. Borjy - May 21, 2013


See, I don’t think Cumberbatch was miscast. He was misused… by naming him Khan. I mean, I love that he does seem like the dark side of Kirk and at the same time a perfect combination of Kirk’s and Spock’s best qualities. Do you really want Javier Bardem or Benicio del Toro in that cast? Cumberbatch has chemistry with them and at the same time exudes an exotic “there’s something wrong with this guy” vibe.

If he stayed as John Harrison, the film will be better in IMO.

287. K-7 - May 21, 2013


MJ, don’t you remember — The Raft of Khan (TROK), dude come on!

Remember that classic scene in TROK where Kirk Spock and McCoy all sang. Row, Row, Row Your Boat?

288. K-7 - May 21, 2013

BC should have been ID’d Joachim, and towards the end, that other guy they showed in that tube should have been a CGI replica of Montelbahn Khan. That would have been so much better.

Still love this movie though.

289. Dswynne - May 21, 2013

I personally think that the problem was opening the film elsewhere, 2 weeks ahead of the US release dampened enthusiasm, due to spoilers that JJ-Trek haters where posting with glee. I certainly lost enthusiasm when the reveal of John Harrison was made.

290. Jim Nightshade - May 21, 2013

I cant wait for the Raft Of Khan :Legacy to come out!!

You know…

TROK: Legacy?????

291. Jim Nightshade - May 21, 2013

Heres something Ive noticed just today and yesterday and sunday….not a good sign….the ads of tv for trek were heavy end of last week and even Saturday,,,once opening I expected the ads to lessen…but they have freaking disappeared off the face of the earth…

I haven’t seen one commercial for STID sunday night Monday or Tuesday on tv….like Paramounts so poed they are giving up on Trek already and not wasting another penny on it….????

292. Chris - May 21, 2013

Sure it wasn’t Paramount’s projections, and not that after leaving the film, fans grumbled, “It’s just a ‘Wrath of Khan'” remake?
Not Iron Man 3, or demographics, but an original storyline couldn’t be found?

293. Marja - May 21, 2013

Stargazer 54 said “We live in depressing times. Who wants to go see something that is promoting struggle and conflict with a backdrop of global disaster, unless there is a hint at a satisfying payoff? …There is nothing about the promotional campaign that gives any indication that you will feel good when you leave the theater.

Keachick said pretty much the same, with the opinion that as “dark”/gloomy as the movie appeared from the posters, she might not have gone had she not seen the words “Star Trek”.

Paramount did not market this movie well. I have remarked several times on its poor visual presence in theatres. For *months* before ST2009 there were standee boxes in the theatre lobby, which excited me: “They’re bringing out a Star Trek movie! OMG!” I have no idea why STID was not marketed this well.

For that matter, I have no idea why it didn’t open in December 2012 and why there was so much secrecy around it. Ridiculous. Mystery boxes work in certain contexts, but hiding the antagonist’s name seemed a rather silly thing to do – the antagonist could have had a completely different identity and been equally as interesting. As for the marketing gew-gaws for collectors, they do help spread excitement and some interest on the part of fans, but I doubt non-fans would catch the fever from that.

The Wednesday 15 May preview was sold out! No one laughed or groaned at the villain’s identity, nor did they laugh or groan at the climax of the movie after Kirk saves the day.

Things to Do Better Next Time:
*Don’t lie. *Don’t prioritize the “mystery” above selling the movie to its regular and its potential audiences.

*Release some AU-based novels, for heavens’ sake. I’d buy them and I haven’t bought a Star Trek novel in years – except for the entertaining “Starfleet Academy” series.

*Get the next movie out in under 3 years in time for 2016 Anniversary.

*Stop with the horrid “dark, depressing, gloomy” marketing. Times are not the happiest right now, so get a pulse on the general zeitgeist.

*Get the beautiful character posters into lobbies 2 months ahead of release as Marvel did! My god, take a cue from one of the most successful franchises in years!

*Open the movie worldwide in April, when there is no excitement over anything else, or in December, when character-driven deep stories are all competing for the Oscar – ST would be about the only Science Fiction/action movie out there.

*Don’t open within 2 weeks of a big-budget Marvel or other major franchise movie.

I’ve seen the movie 4 times despite the “scream” moment. I thought the rest was a good character arc “comparison” with TOS, and Kirk and Spock’s arcs within STID were intriguing and important character-wise.

WARNING Potential S/U SPOILER follows!

———- S P O I L E R ? —————-
I LOVE THAT SPOCK AND UHURA ARE STILL TOGETHER and will continue to be the caring and grown-up couple they have proven to be. While I didn’t agree with the public displays of affection in ’09 or the public negotiation of the relationship in 2013, I understand the “public” aspects were done to save precious movie time [though I would enjoy a 2-hour 30-minute ST movie]. I *love* the relationship and hope it will continue.

Like Quinto I’d love to see Pon Farr in the 3rd movie … ;-D

294. Phasers on Stun - May 21, 2013

@278 I don’t think Star Trek is capable of being a billion dollar mega hit. It is Star Trek, after all.

You have a point and I believe JJ and the team are aware of it which is why they told Paramount all or nothing (budget wise).

Similar to ST: Motion Picture, another opportunity has been lost to really grow the fan base. With STMP there was a lot of curiosity around a TV show going to a big budget motion picture. So casual fans and non fans attended, were put to sleep and rest is history (the fan base didn’t really grow). WIth ST2009, again alot of great buzz, people went and were game for the squeal. But not 4 years later! It needed to happen 2 years ago. So the growth from female viewers, youngsters (with even shorter attention spans) was lost.

Don’t get me wrong, there are many people who still plan to see the movie but I’m so feed up with Paramount (and production company partners) missing key opportunities to really expand the base. This will never be a Harry Potter but it could be much better if they learn to capitalize on real chances to grow the base. The 4 year wait was a major screw-up.

295. Admiral Ensign - May 21, 2013

Results not matching expectations? Blame marketing. They should’ve embraced the angle from the get-go. But that would have probably required a different approach to the writing.

The real victim here, assuming “Into Darkness” fails to catch the Original NuTrek? The budget for nuTrek³. Look for that budget to settle back down to where Original NuTrek was, possibly even lower, as I’m not sure what foreign markets “Into Darkness” has yet to open in.

(And you know what that’ll mean: more “Engineering by Budweiser”.)

If we’ve already seen the last of the big weekends in the overseas markets (IE, opening week, 2nd week, possibly 3rd week) the budget for that next movie could take a steep haircut indeed.

A look at the schedules for 2009 and 2013 raises another interesting question: was “Into Darkness” hurt by “Iron Man 3″ opening two weeks ahead of it? And to what extent does overall schedule crowding factor in?

This said, if the movies opening in the next two weeks underperform, it’ll be “Into Darkness” that reaps the benefits, so all bets will be off then.

Beyond that, you can chalk my near-total agreement with Marja @293.


On other fronts, I’d love to go blow-by-blow with what I perceive to be MAJOR cinematography screw-ups, but that’s just way too long for this format.

For me, the “Kirk is kicking the warp drive, let’s flip the camera around a bunch to cheaply simulate that gravity thing we barely exposited enough to make sense” thing almost killed the ENTIRE film, and that’s before you get into the fact that that entire scene is a borderline “GalaxyQuest” homage: it writes its own parody.

296. Gary - May 21, 2013

How to make money with Star Trek.
1. Don’t rehash TV episodes. Come up with something fresh and new.
2. Don’t make a million trailers showing basically the whole movie if you piece them together.
3. Open the movie in the United States first so that there are no foreign spoiler reviews to ruin it. Star Trek started here first. To show it first somewhere else seems disrespectful to the American fans.
4. Make a movie that makes sense and is not loaded with flaws in logic.
5. Respect Roddenberry’s vision of what Star Trek is all about. Star Trek is not Star Wars!
6. Get a director, producer, and writer who are truly fans and not Johnny-Come-Latelys.

297. Admiral Ensign - May 21, 2013

[sigh] Insert (OBVIOUS SPOILER IS OBVIOUS) into “embraced the [insert here] angle” above. Got caught in a filter, I see.

298. kmart - May 21, 2013

When you find someplace that you want to put that long post in about cinematography, leave word here — I’d really like to read it.

If you’re interested in the makers’ INTENTIONS with respect to the cinematography, there is a piece up on website.

299. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 21, 2013

The writers know that Star Trek is not Star Wars, otherwise we would have seen all-out war. War was averted.

Someone noted that this movie was a set up with a war with the Klingons. That, I don’t see. The main antagonist is gone. No doubt someone else will take his place – they always do, but for now, hopefully the five year mission can finally go ahead, unimpeded. Even if there are conflicts, let others in Starfleet deal with them.

The Enterprise and its captain needs to go exploring…

Supreme Court – Make it so. DO IT!!!

300. Jim Nightshade - May 21, 2013

yup….if they want bigger younger audiences……animated series on tv…..tron did it…..

301. Red Dead Ryan - May 21, 2013


Actually, TWOK was originally called “The Revenge Of Khan”, but was changed because the third “Star Wars” movie being made at the time was titled “Revenge Of The Jedi”. So TROK is not necessarily incorrect, only passe. ;-)


I had no problem with Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan. I saw the movie twice, and enjoyed his performance even more the second time. He really pulled it off considering the fact he was cast at the last minute.

What pissed me off, however, was how The Mandarin was made into a joke in “Iron Man 3″. The bait-and-switch storyline was awful. Marred an otherwise enjoyable flick.

302. Red Dead Ryan - May 21, 2013

I do think they need to drop the “madman out for revenge” plot for good. Time to come up with a different motivation for the villains in the next movies.

303. Devon - May 21, 2013

#253 – “Just the simple fact that Abrams and company blatantly LIED to the fans this time was despicable.”

Quotes and links please? The only person who said it wasn’t Khan was Simon Pegg, and Pegg may not have known at the time.

“Urban,Pegg and the rest to just plain lie is not worthy of some of the most dedicated fans in all of geek-dom.” Urban? When?

“your face is gonna save a bad script and really Bad science BTW.” Oh.. that line again.

“A portable Trans-warp beaming device pretty much says it all.Did they even have that advanced Tek in TNG?” Scotty is still alive, presumably, during “Star Trek: Nemesis” and probably perfected that formula. Thus why Spock had to give it to young Scotty. He even says “You haven’t invented it yet.”

304. Jack - May 21, 2013

“What pissed me off, however, was how The Mandarin was made into a joke in “Iron Man 3″. The bait-and-switch storyline was awful. Marred an otherwise enjoyable flick.”

See, and I loved that. But I’ve never read a single Iron Man comic book (I was a DC kid, except for Spider-Man).

This may have been said, but I wonder if 3D kept some folks away — heck, locally for the first couple of nights it was just IMAX 3D ($20 each) and Ultra AVX ($17 each). I know there werre 2D showings on the weekend, but not many. I also wonder if peopleavoided tefirst weekend because fans.

“Open the movie in the United States first so that there are no foreign spoiler reviews to ruin it. Star Trek started here first. To show it first somewhere else seems disrespectful to the American fans.”
Utter horsesh*t. And the U.S. reviews were the biggest spoilers.

305. Jack - May 21, 2013

This outcry over transwarp beamingis insane. Maybe Scotty kept it secret in theother timeline. Maybe starfleet confiscated it there too. Maybe it has extreme limitations. Maybe it kills everybody other than Khan. Maybe the energy expenditure is nuts. Maybe the transporter in that shuttle in Trek 09 was permanently destroyed by the procedure. There are ways to write around it — even though they haven’t yet. . Hell, the Space Shuttle can crossthe Atlantic in a few minutes, it still takes hours for the rest of us schlubs.

Lamer than that. Why was Scotty left to examine the debris from the crash? Marcus is keeping crazy secrets and yet he lets anybody access the crash scene (or, why not sfleet experts?) okay, you couldargue that he was planning to set wild card Jimmy up, so he assigned jim/Scotty to check out the wreckage…. Actually, that works…

Whati don’t understand is the torpedo business. Khan, because he’s smart and ruthless (apparently unlike anyone in Starfleet apart from marcus) is woken up after centuries to design advanced technology and his “crew” (seems like thewrongwords) is used to keep him in line. So he puts them in torpedos to keep them safe? 72 torpedos, cause Marcus will never figure that out. Sure the writers can go ‘but, Khan designed hundreds of drones, it was justthose 72 that Marcus put on theEnterprise….) So were they supposed to explode and start a war? Were they just supposed to kill Khan’s crew and start a war? Were they supposed to drop Khan’s crew off so they couldeff up the Klingons? How were they supposed to get there, without fuel (butthere was just enough in the secondary blah blah / the enterprise launchers were sufficient, blah, blah the writers say)?

306. Jack - May 21, 2013

God, we really are Trek’s worst enemies here.

307. Fil - May 21, 2013

@285. Tha Rath of Kaaan, my phonetically challenged phriend….

308. Jack - May 21, 2013

Just checked — the thing will have made its production budget back by this time tomorrow. Right now it’s at $90 million domestic and 80 million international. Considering that it only really fully opened on Friday (on a holiday weekend in Canada) and that it’s in a lot fewer theatres than Iron Man, it’s not bad at all.

As much as I gripe, it’s not a bad movie. I’m frustrated by that second half, because, well, “there’s greatness in these guys…” My expectations were raised like crazy. I was pretty mad at Bib for a few days there — you get all tge toys and you do a fanboy remake? In theend, it’s a popcorn flick with a bit of recycling (forget ____ for a sec — the space dive in the first one was way cooler).

Personally, i’ve only seen it twice because 3D gets expensive (i brought a date each time — so I’ve spent close to $80, not including snacks… Luckily I got lucky).

I still think the pronos should show H and K working together, and play up Kirk being unsure whether he’s being played or not. The cat/mouse stuff is interesting. Repeated shots of H crashing through glass doors and Spock diving off buildings? Not so much. Play up the conflict (Scott resigning, Chekov getting his job, uhura angry Spock’s trying to get himself killed, Mccoy questioning everything). People go see Iron Man for the people, not for the crashing — and the traikers give a better sense of that…

All the reviewers mention the humour — and the mrketing shows none of that…,

309. Admiral Ensign - May 22, 2013


Let me start with that scene, and work backwards, then. Then I’ll read the article you linked and see where I can put my foot in my mouth; I’m man enough to admit it when I’m wrong.

Personal note: Crap. You’re going to make me out one of my “Guilty Pleasure” anonymous IDs, because I can’t write something this long and not post it to my own damn blog.

Right off, I did lump some things under “cinematography” that belong under other headings, such as production design and set construction, but let’s look at the problem sequences organically…..

(Hopefully, Mr. Pascale’s system doesn’t get angry at shortened URLs, I don’t want my semi-partially-pseudo-sorta-professional blog tied to TrekMovie for eternity, lol.)

310. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 22, 2013

Jack – dating – cool!

Please don’t include me in the “we really are Trek’s worst enemies here.”…:) I have been one of the biggest apologists for this movie.

As I wrote before, I think that others have only themselves to blame for the Supreme Court going with a reimagined version of Space Seed/TWOK. I have always said that I did not want to see Khan again and in fact, I remember Anthony warning me to calm down when I got so sick of people forever going on about augments, section 31, Paxton, April and of course, Khan, Khan, Khan and on and on… This site has had so much Khan bloody Khan stuff that I really am not surprised at the movie’s outcome…LOL. So many were just so convinced that Khan or one of his lot would be the badboy of this movie (even if a lot said they did not want this character – yeah right) – I mean, honestly, what bleedin’ choice did the Supreme Court have?

I love you guys at the Supreme Court and now you are getting your asses kicked by many of the same people who did little else but obsess about Khan for the past four years. I love the fantastic irony. Brilliant casting choice with Benedict Cumberbatch as in “we’ll give ’em Khan, but he won’t be quite that Khan”. Now come the accusations of “whitewashing” along with the not so pleasant “whitebashing”. Ye gods.

Thank you. Thank you. Sincerely, Rosemary

311. Disinvited - May 22, 2013

#178. VulcanFilmCritic – May 21, 2013

Or is it really tentable?

#204. USSEXETER – May 21, 2013

You can’t have your cake still be there after you’ve eaten all of it. I think in your own example it isn’t a problem that Trek appeals to the younger set. What we don’t want is some mistaken belief that it has to be dumbed down to do so. I was a tween when I first saw an episode of original Trek and a big fan. Trek can and should return to its classic broad SMART appeal.

312. Admiral Ensign - May 22, 2013


In my case, I love the top-down choices. I don’t object to Cumberbatch playing Khan in/of/by itself. If I could condense my beefs into a single sentence (where I just expended 2600 words on the same subject) I just have a sense that this one got into budget trouble early, and never recovered, and that there were probably on-set scene re-writes and other problems going on, because the whole piece doesn’t mesh as well as it should for there having been so much lead-time and so much budget.

These are all technical problems that have nothing to do with the fans or their expectations. Then, the “let’s mess with ’em” approach to marketing has definitely, officially, 100% backfired.

These are all smart guys, who even their worst movies so far (and as far as I’ve seen) weren’t as “off” as this one was. (Notice I say “off” and not outright “bad”, though they flirted with it.) That’s another reason I don’t understand why this movie didn’t fire on all cylinders, but the good news is, it means there’s still cause for optimism about NuTrek³.


But there’s the rub: studios don’t bankroll big-budget flicks to break even, nor do anything less than double or triple their money, considering the timeframes involved from “budgeting” to “release”. If “Into Darkness” fails to outperform 2009’s original, there WILL be a decreased budget for #3. Count on it.

And that might actually be a good thing: consider all the better choices Nicholas Meyer made with one-tenth the budget Abrams and Co. had for this round.

I just came across this contrarian look at “Wrath of Khan”:

And I’ve gotta disagree with it 100%. I was TEN when I first saw Wrath of Khan, years after release, and it was the first Trek ANYTHING I watched beginning-to-end.

It’s what MADE a Trekkie of me. I wonder if a ten-year-old me in 2013 would feel so attached to “Into Darkness”, or if it’d just go on the “Meh, That’s Cool, NEXT” pile with everything else.

(That’s my long-winded way of saying there’s an entire meta-commentary on “disposable culture” waiting to be had here.)

313. Sagart - May 22, 2013

@ 296 – ” Open the movie in the United States first so that there are no foreign spoiler reviews to ruin it. Star Trek started here first. To show it first somewhere else seems disrespectful to the American fans.”

What?!? Considering that, in the past, we’ve often had to wait months for a movie to be released outside the US, I think it’s about time the huge global audience was recognised. Disrespectful of the American fans? What about some respect for the huge part of the world that isn’t America? We’ve had to put up with spoilers coming from the States. And so what if Star Trek started in the US? The Lumiere Brothers were from France. Should all movies have their world premiere in Paris?

314. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 22, 2013

I think you found it “off” because of your own (high) expectations/hopes. I really had no real expectations other than hoping it would be a good film and that Chris Pine would shine as James Kirk. My own hopes and expectations have been rewarded.

I agree that this film, like so many other films (no matter how good or bad they are) will become part of a pile, while people move on to the next. I think it is because there is just so much choice, so much tech, so much being pushed onto people…It is actually quite overwhelming. Everything has such limited shelf life, even when it shouldn’t. *Future shock is here – make no mistake about it.

* Future Shock was a book published in 1970 by author Alvin Toffler which spoke about the increasingly rapid changes going on in almost every sphere of our lives and the generally negative longterm impact it can have on people, socially, emotionally etc.

315. Mad Mann - May 22, 2013

308. Jack

No, it will have to make at least $440 million to “make it’s budget back.” Theater owners take about half, and you have to consider marketing budget.

316. Mad Mann - May 22, 2013

Man of Steel is a great example of the proper way to promote a movie. There are ads everywhere AND there is merchandise. We know who the villain is (Zod) and the general storyline (Superman goes into hiding, but eventually saves the world…again). These are no spoilers, as the trailers do a great job of showing it. I also see Man of Steel ads on cereal boxes and other items. Walmart has huge displays of Man of Steel toys and other items. Now that’s smart: put big displays in America’s largest retailer.

STiD had none of the above. There is absolutely no product for Star Trek nor displays in Walmart. No tie-ins with cereal or other grocery items (to promote it in food stores). And the STiD story and villain were unknown going into the movie. I don’t believe the four-year wait hurt STiD, but the piss-poor marketing did.

317. drew - May 22, 2013

301 – No the movie was originally titled ‘THE VENGEANCE OF KHAN’ not The Return of Khan.

318. Spock Jr. - May 22, 2013

I do not wish to cause trouble, but I wonder if the (lack of) merchandise-theory is an American thing. Maybe something is not seen as being big or important there, unless it has a lunch-box, mug and toys attached. By no means am I saying that that is a bad thing, merely interesting.

319. Spock Jr. - May 22, 2013

Worldwide: $172,184,816

So far…

Up, up, up! Like the Enterprise from the ocean! ;D

320. Spock Jr. - May 22, 2013

I like to listen to London Calling from Into Darkness while I walk around London. I stop and smile at people until they ask, ‘Who are you?’ Then, as the music grows, I just stand there, silent and mysterious.

321. Ralph Pinheiro - May 22, 2013

Paramount is releasing several previews in IMAX theaters in Brazil (10) and the demand is great. The movie will premiere on June 14th in 2D. I think that box office STID in Brazil will have a greater increase than ST 2009.

322. Moputo Jones - May 22, 2013

#306: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

People complained that Star Trek (2009) just completely crapped on long-time fans. Now people are complaining that STID was an exercise in fanwanking. No wonder the outside worlds looks at Trekkers and thinks we’re weirdos.

323. Gary - May 22, 2013

Read these critiques.

324. Capt. Quinn - May 22, 2013

I know they tested the name but I to me Star Trek and Into Darkness is an oxymoron . With all the death and destruction right now, the last thing most people will want is to go Into Darkness.

325. Capt. Quinn - May 22, 2013

By the way, my wife and I saw the movie last Wednesday and loved it.

326. Kathleen - May 22, 2013

@ 113. William Bradley –
” Fast and Furious 6 just opened bigger in the UK, home of Benedict Cumberbatch, than STID did the previous weekend.”

Funny that you seem to have a beef with Cumberbatch, I’ve read your several posts indicating Cumberbatch is not reaching his what? “B.O. contribution”? LoL! The UK B.O. performance is better that ST 2009, and I have to say it again, Brit or Cumberbatch fans are not brainless, the movie is a flat summer popcorn movie, and you expect a Cumberbatch fan like me to watch it twice or even more times for Cumberbatch’s poorly written role with only 8-10 min quality screen time and another 10 min screen time he’s just doing some badassery actions while the camera only gave him some glimpses in a FLAT SUMMER POPCORN MOVIE? You got to be kidding me.
If he’s not in the movie, plenty of people won’t even go in theatres to watch a Trek movie. Honestly, as someone new to the franchise, seeing all of you diehard fans either calling him “CumberBITCH” or trashing him in other ways and have no abilities to accept anything not exactly same as the original series, I can totally see why the audience of the movie skew old (75%) and the franchise may be…oh…well.

327. schinzon's lover - May 22, 2013

Tell that to the last BILLION dollar movies that had “dark” in the title.

328. nagus - May 22, 2013

i hate the idea, star trek is just business, just something, some people are earning their money with. for me it is so much more. star trek gives you something, money just cannot buy! at the same time its made by ferengi. ironic, isn´t it?

329. William Bradley - May 22, 2013

Well, you’re really not reading what I write then.

I’ve stated repeatedly that I love Cumberbatch as an actor, think he is brilliant in Sherlock (all of which I have and have watched repeatedly), and think the only problem with his performance in STID is that we don’t see enough of him.

The only problem with Cumberbatch with regard to STID is that he’s not Khan, for very obvious reasons. As John Harrison, he’s fantastic.

The point I am making, which eludes you, is that the breakthrough in the UK is short-lived, and that is the market in which BC, a Bafta winner, has the most salience.

>326. Kathleen – May 22, 2013
@ 113. William Bradley –
” Fast and Furious 6 just opened bigger in the UK, home of Benedict Cumberbatch, than STID did the previous weekend.”

Funny that you seem to have a beef with Cumberbatch, I’ve read your several posts indicating Cumberbatch is not reaching his what? “B.O. contribution”? LoL! The UK B.O. performance is better that ST 2009, and I have to say it again, Brit or

330. Kathleen - May 22, 2013

#329 For most casual moviegoers, whether he is Khan or John Harrison is irrelevant, such thing only matters to Trek fans who knew the character Khan. To casual moviegoers who think he’s fantastic as what he played in the movie, it doesn’t matter whether his character’s name is Harrison or Khan. The script didn’t handle the revelation well, and by and large that character is underwritten and underused; and it doesn’t matter that character is played by Cumberbatch, even if it’s played by the other actor, I’ll say the same and feel the same.
Your point is clear in your previous comments, and I think I have make it clear about my opinion. He’s a popular star and a quality actor (BAFTA nominee) in the UK, and people or his fans would go in theatres to watch the movie, in which his character (the darkness) has been heavily advertised, but imagine how people would be let down to find out that character has very little to do in a 133 min movie, which has a quite light tone, not much darkness. The B.O. success of a movie can never rely on its stars, see how the B.O. of The Great Gatsby dropped (50%) on the second week in the US. and L. DiCaprio is one of the biggest global star at the moment.

331. William Bradley - May 22, 2013

So then you do finally understand that I am not blaming Benedict Cumberbatch, who is obviously one of my favorite actors of the time?

330. Kathleen – May 22, 2013

332. Kathleen - May 22, 2013

@331 William Bradley
I have to be honest, I didn’t feel that you weren’t blaming him in your previous comments, but if you say so now, I’ll take it as is. Thanks for your clarification.

333. William Bradley - May 22, 2013

I love the guy. You know, in a manly sort of way. :)

I was thrilled when he was cast as the villain. I think his performance — what we see of it — is outstanding.

He’s caught in this Khan thing, which is a backfire, but certainly not a reason for him as an actor not to take the part.

After all, everybody’s talking about him!

332. Kathleen – May 22, 2013

334. SoonerDave - May 22, 2013

I personally think the AICN critique of STID is a little harsh. I really don’t think that the writing crew “crapped” on the Trek core audience, either. They made the Khan backstory an echo of the prime timeline. There, but not there. Present, but not present. Reflective, but not identical. Same goes for Kirk/Spock’s relationship – its reflective, but not identical of TOS.

If you put too much of Khan’s backstory in, the writers get accused of pandering *too much* to the fan base and trying to drag too much exposition to the story for the “new fan. ”

I remembered settling back into my seat and thinking how thoroughly entertained I was by the movie, and just enjoying it. Okay, fine, there are plot holes. Yup. I just enjoyed seeing these characters back on the screen again, and hope they might get one more big-screen shot.

After seeing debates like this, and then seeing the destruction in Moore, OK, and knowing I was *in* that Warren Theater last Friday night, makes these discussions seem just a little silly.

Its. Just. Entertainment. Folks.

335. Philip - May 22, 2013

The uber-nerds love crapping on this film it seems. Go over to AICN and majority of them just do nothing but whine and complain about most films that are released. Now they’re hoping Man of Steel doesn’t “let them down” the way Iron Man 3 and STID did, lol. But, I’m sure it will. It’s impossible to make that audience happy for some reason.

I was thoroughly entertained by Star Trek Into Darkness and haven’t walked out of a theater feeling that happy in a long time. That’s the mark of a good film. Keep it simple!!

There’s mega plot holes in every other Trek film as well. First Contact was loaded with them, BUT, the acting, and the overall story was exciting, so that is an example of another entertaining film where one can overlook nitpicking certain things because it’s an overall enjoyable experience for two hours in a darkened movie theater:)

336. Keachick - rose pinenut - May 22, 2013

Who is calling Benedict Cumberbatch Cumberbitch? I do not believe anybody here has called him that.

Anyway, I thought that was the name that some of his fans call themselves.

I guess you are first and foremost a Cumberbatch fan, so I suppose you would of course want to have more screen time – don’t kid about here. If his character were more used, then other characters would get less. Star Trek has to be tight, due to the numbers of characters. It has always been a balancing act. Some fans of the Spock/Uhura relationship complain that this couple do not get enough character development and screen time. I think the couple got enough time.

The fact remains is that Benedict Cumberbatch, along with Peter Weller and Alice Eve, are guest actors in a movie where the main characters are Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura and so on. The main characters make up the crew of the Enterprise, which is basically what Star Trek is about – the adventures of a crew aboard an explorer starship called the USS Enterprise in the 23rd century. This is their story, or more correctly, a young Captain Kirk’s story about how he manages to deal with a Harrison/Khan who is one of his main adversaries.

337. Kathleen - May 22, 2013

@ 336
You only have to press Ctrl+F and type “Cumberbitch” to see it. Oh, I happen to see you protested such an insult in your previous comment. Thanks.

” 253. Peter Domingo – May 21, 2013

Speaking for myself and other like minded Trek Fans,The word of mouth on Cumberbitch being Khan really affected my enthusiasm on this one.”

For the record, I have said it before that I didn’t expect his character’s screen time would be more than 30 min, that’s already a pretty low expectation considering how heavily hyped his character was. Also, I made it clear that even if the character is played by the other actor, I’ll feel the same. I am a fan of his work, but I am foremost a movie buff, please don’t insult me as if I am a whining fangirl. . There are many crtics indicating that the villain is underused and underwritten. This is a movie, not a TV series, there’s no such concept as “guest stars” for a movie that needs effective storytelling, and a blockbuster is too expensive to make that the filmmaker shouldn’t do it to only satisfy its diehard fanbase, it has to attract casual moviegoers.

338. Kathleen - May 22, 2013

@ 336 BTW, I’ll say it again, I think Pine and Quinto did great great jobs to hold the story, and all cast members deliver.

339. Peter Domingo - May 22, 2013

OK,Before this Cumberbitch thing get outta hand, let me say that I do think He is a fine actor,I have seen enough of his work in other films and televison to know he has earned his chops.
I also feel he did a adequate job considering the material he was given to work with.But He is not Khan.
He would have been a great addition to the ST rouges gallery as just Harrison, a Black Op for M-13 Or whatever they are called.
Unfortunately,It seems that the Khan twist only serves as a means to ending this film.As Abrams and Co seemed to have written themselves into a corner (Kinda Like Lost) and the only way out was to Rip the entire ending of TWOK or TROK as some here are calling it.
If you’re going to re-interpret a classic iconic villain then give him something more to do.Give him more or at least better dialogue make us care about who this character is and why he is doing what he is doing.It seems the back story here of Admiral Marcus finding I presume the Botany Bay(Who knows how he found him and in what state they never say)they just assume the “Old School” fans will fill the newbies in I guess.
On physical appearance it would have been nice to perhaps Spray tan Benedict and perhaps give him slightly longer hair.Trying to at least capture the Look of Khan.follow Khan’s origin,He is Indian or Middle Eastern,to ignore that about the character is like taking off DSarth Vader’s Cape.
I see enough of Khan in him if they did that but then again I guess that would have ruined the weak reveal in the films second act.
I was one of those guys who personally wanted Nestor Carbonal.

As far as the plot goes I would have preferred a big budget send up of “Space Seed” rather than “Wrath of” perhaps establishing him as a manipulator of some of the other crew members of the Enterprise first.
trying to take over the ship rather than just waiting around in the Brigg till Kirk Needs Him.

To those looking for Quotes,Urban did in fact call him Gary Mitchell at a press junket for DREDD don’t believe me? Look it up.
and Abrams did say on multiple occasions The Villain is Not Khan!

The Trans warp beaming thing is ridiculous.I mean if he had that thing he could of just simply beamed directly onto the bridge of the Vengeance when it was docked off is a much shorter trip than Kronos and he could have done the same for his crew that were ridiculously housed in Photon Torpedoes? (Laughable)
If the Vengeance was already rigged up to be piloted by a minimal Or in this case a single crew member. completely eliminating the Pod race to Kronos! LOL!

What I would have liked to see is more exposition on the Klingons,and what exactly started the War with the Federation in the first place.

But I am sure all that may make no sense who were simply looking for a “Pop Corn Movie” so let the “Who Cares? It was Awesome!” replies Begin……….

340. Peter Domingo - May 22, 2013

Dsarth Vader = Darth Vader, I know, I hope you people get more out of what I said than the Type-O

341. Kathleen - May 22, 2013

339. Peter Domingo


342. Peter Domingo - May 22, 2013

HA Ha sorry, Cumberbatch Cumberbatch Cumberbatch Cumberbatch Malkovitch!

343. Peter Domingo - May 22, 2013

Sorry I am a fan of Khan not the actor playing him!

344. Kathleen - May 22, 2013

343. Peter Domingo

You don’t have to be a fan of Cumberbatch. There should be basic respect to an actor who turned in a, according to you, decent performance, and according to many moviegoers and critics, an outstanding performance, and actually brought in some new audiences.

345. Chris Doohan - May 22, 2013

Box office mojo: Domestic Total as of May. 20, 2013: $91,684,816

Not too shabby.

346. Spock Jr. - May 22, 2013

Not the movie – the movie is awesome, on every level. But here, this, above – all of it – makes me ashamed to be a Trek-fan. We’re all so far away from being the hopeful vision of intellect and togetherness Star Trek is all about.

347. Peter Domingo - May 22, 2013

344- If you Don’t want to be referred to as a Whining Fan Girl! Stop acting like one. The topic was “Why this movie has fallen short of the expectations at the box office?” not “Do you Like Benedict Cumber-Whatever?” I am sure there is a Benedict appreciation thread somewhere here Perhaps your insight on How great he is would be better suited there.

” Really, Dr. McCoy. You must learn to govern your passions; they will be your undoing.”

348. Kathleen - May 22, 2013

My first post on this top is to respond to the possible let-down of the UK B.O. posted by William Bradley, and the rest of my comments are only to responding other people’s comments. Surely I didn’t post something like “OMG OMG MY BENNY IS SO CUTE~~~~~” . Moreover, I certainly didn’t insult any cast member and the franchise, but using the term XXXXXBITCH.

It will never matter to you, but you just own back a little bit respect from me by admitting your are wrong to insult Cumberbatch by calling him Cumberbitch, and then you just lose it again by your new post. I will not respond to anyone on this topic again; it’s just a waste of web space and everyone’s time.

349. EFFeX - May 22, 2013

I think the movie was superb. This is coming from a long time fan who didn’t read any spoilers and walked into the theater with a positive attitude. I thought it was just as good if not better than 2009’s film. I couldn’t believe there were Trek fans who didn’t enjoy it. Certainly the best film I’ve seen in a while. Can’t wait for a third!

350. Peter Domingo - May 22, 2013

Kathleen, No body wants you to feel that way I am truly sorry if you feel this was some sort of personal attack I am simply striving to keep this on topic. I did try and give factual instances of The Producers and cast lying to the fans about the character and for that I do have little respect for. Benedict,to his credit only said that he was playing a character named John Harrison and that is all he could say. So for that he gets a pass from my venom.

The Cunber**tch moniker is a name many have referred to when speaking about said Thespian on several sites and to be honest with you, I had no clue or care that was what the fans of Ol’ Sherlock refer to themselves as. Kinda makes me miss the term Trekkie.

Unlike other fan bases you must understand we are all very passionate when it comes to Star Trek and I more than most fans want to see the franchise flourish and Thrive well into the next century. Rodenberry’s vision was always one of Hope and understanding.
While I do think that all franchises do need the occasional face-lift.
I feel that this particular installment of the franchise used deception and just plain Lies to try and sell this Turd to the fans.Albeit a shiny polished, fast paced, big budget Turd.
Let’s just agree to disagree about Mr. Cumberbatch’s greatness and please keep this on topic.

351. AJ - May 22, 2013



How old were you when you discovered Trek? I am 48, and I discovered the show in reruns when I was six on WPIX in New York. I was not pandered to by the show as a kid. Star Trek, by definition, does not pander to the kids. It asks big questions, and as one grows up, continuing to watch,it is like a gift that keeps on giving, with grand themes, and ties to real life which I needed to go to school to recognize.

When TMP came out, I was 14, and I struggled to stay interested after the wormhole event and Spock’s return. TWOK restored my faith, as did TNG after college. No pandering to the kids. Ever. Even TAS didn’t do it. I do not think JJ would start, though all the rumors of a “Starfleet Academy” flick under Harve Bennett ruffled feathers within fandom until JJ actually made a decent film about it. Again…No pandering to 14-year olds.

I think Star Trek fans get hooked when they are young because they have been brought up to be intellectually curious. I used to cheer when Kirk didn’t have to punch someone to make a point, but could make it by speaking eloquently truth to power. Mr. Spock is like an onion which one peels to find out about the layers, and his family is awesome. McCoy is McCoy, and when the writing was good, it was REALLY good for these three actors.

I still have to see STID, but no “Trek” films for kids, please.

352. TUP - May 22, 2013

I know so many casual fans or non Trek fans that have not seen the movie but have it at the top of their list to see. To the extent that during a discussion at work between me and another person, everyone else stood up and, in unison, told us to shut up so as not to spoil them.

So on one hand, a ton of interest,. On the other, they havent gone out and seen it.

Will Paramount feel that Nimoy drew in the audience in the first one and since his appearance was a surprise this time, will they, in conjunction with the anniversary, demand Shatner be in the next one? No matter how you feel about that, Shatner’s inclusion would create a lot of buzz.

353. Red Dead Ryan - May 22, 2013

Guys, STID should be judged on its own merits, it was a terrific movie. And yes, Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan does work. At least for me. The movie is excellent, but I did have a couple of quibbles.

But overall, a fun time had by me at the theatre…..twice, hopefully more!

354. Yanks - May 22, 2013

Simply put, the expectations where too high.

They were right on track until a week or so before the release.

They they vaulted to 100M+.

Why? What changed?

I think it’s performing about as one would expect.

Especially because the ending is going to piss off 95% of the trekkie’s.

I know they lost a couple viewings in the theater from me because of that.

Do to foriegn market expansion, I think STID will beat ST09; but barely.

355. TUP - May 22, 2013

Why would the ending lose viewers? It was masterful.

356. NotConvinced - May 22, 2013

The movie hasn’t even broken even yet! Including both domestic and International gross. Right now the box office is about 172m and the decline is coming faster than warp speed! This move will be lucky to reach 250m before it ends it’s theatrical run. All the stupid secrecy and lies surrounding this movie botched what could have been a power-house for marketing to new and old fans alike. For all intense and purposes this movie is a fail of epic proportions! …but that’s all well and good since Abrams got what he wanted out of it all, a golden ticket to a galaxy far, far away.

357. Spock's Bangs - May 22, 2013

#323 “Read these critiques.

Ok… Now read this from the same site.

An so ends today’s lesson on critiques, subjectivity and opinion.

358. TUP - May 22, 2013

I tend to agree that there was no point in hiding Harrison’s true identity. Marketing him as Khan would likely have been a positve thing to be honest.

359. David - May 22, 2013

STID took in $6.7M on Tuesday for a domestic total of $98.4M so far. $178.9 Worldwide.

360. somethoughts - May 22, 2013


I agree, happy the majority loved it and it is on pace to earn. The 2nd week should be around 250-275mil worldwide, very good numbers.

361. The Transformed Man - May 22, 2013

@ 356 I’m sorry you have no clue what you are talking about. This movie has performed virtually identically to Trek 2009. It’s 1st two weekdays following opening weekend are running ahead of where Trek 2009 and the film is some $4-5 million ahead of Trek 2009’s box office take at the same point in it’s release. Additionally the film is looking to almost double the international take of Trek 2009 which made $127 million overseas.

This film will wind up making somewhere north of $450 million in worldwide box office, some $70 million more than the 2009 entry.

362. Jim Nightshade - May 22, 2013

Tonite Wed 5-22-13 at 900pm on H2

History2 channel brand new from makers of stid

Star Trek Secrets of the Universe

Must be a science behind trek show

363. TrinaInUS - May 22, 2013

STID , despite its faults, is really good. A fair amount of it is great. It’s intelligent, funny and, for me, compelling. Perhaps it helped me that I couldn’t keep away from spoilers; my expectations weren’t extremely high and I was happily surprised by how much I liked, and even loved, it. It worked even better for me on my 2nd viewing than on the first. I hope to see it at least once more in-theater, would see it more times if I had the money, and have pre-ordered it on DVD.

I’m female, though in the middle-aged demographic, have watched Star Trek since I was a kid and have watched all the series and movies. It’s never been perfect, but it’s thought-provoking and fun.

The four-year gap is an issue, for sure, and in terms of box office, the 16 May opening was a poorly followed-up choice by Paramount. I think the film has legs, though.

Word of mouth seems to be running about 75% highly positive (I’ve hung-around on Twitter, watching comments). Among my own friends, both previous Trek fans and those who are new to it, that number’s nearly 100 percent.

As to sites like Rotten Tomatoes, there’s little rhyme or reason to what they do. That applies to both their ‘fresh’ and ‘rotten’ designations.

I don’t see why people who haven’t seen STID, and don’t intend to, are judging it. It simply isn’t, well, logical to do so based only on teasers and what is apparently a rose-colored-glasses view of early Star Trek iterations.

364. Jim Nightshade - May 22, 2013

357 Spocks bangs…a interesting 3rd article onthat aint it cool site is
Spoilers truth behind blockbuster we are seeing….

It goes into deep detail about why Harry K. Loves the movie and details behind what happens in the movie etc…kinda trying to explain plot and khan etc….it makes sense

Further I don’t see a problem reading both reviews a while back parts of Both articles are exactly right on correct….

STID is a conflicted Movie and so are most of us! hahaha
But u cant say its not spectacular visually, epic in scope with both funny and heartfelt moments by our franchises favorite characters….

I plan on seeing it once or twice more before it leaves imax on may 31 for the new will smith movie also scifi….

Not a lotta time left to see it in imax people…

365. Jim Nightshade - May 22, 2013

Heres the article from Harry K bout why he loves the new trek movie

366. Jim Nightshade - May 22, 2013

Warning Harry Ks article bout trek is very Political and many may not agree with his opinions but most of what he says seems to be about right and I think were intended by the writers of STID to reflect some of todays news re drones, 911, etc…

367. Jim Nightshade - May 22, 2013

Also lots of spoilers so don’t read if you haven’t already seen the movie

368. Jim Nightshade - May 22, 2013

I don’t agree with harry that Khan is not the bad guy he certainly is….theres just more than 1 bad guy haha

369. Buzz Cagney - May 22, 2013

#352 they won’t include Shatner because, by their own admission, they don’t know how to include him. But more than that I don’t think they even want to. Remember, this is the team that used magic blood to bring another dead Kirk back. They’ve already scrapped around the bottom of the barrel on resurrection so could easily have come up with something to bring back ShatKirk that couldn’t possibly have been less contrived. If only they’d wanted to. Which they don’t.

370. William Bradley - May 22, 2013

There will be a new team for the next Star Trek film.

371. William Bradley - May 22, 2013

He wrote that for access to the new Star War production.

>365. Jim Nightshade – May 22, 2013
Heres the article from Harry K bout why he loves the new trek movie

372. Ahmed - May 22, 2013

@ 370. William Bradley – May 22, 2013

“There will be a new team for the next Star Trek film.”

Is that a hope or news ?

373. Pintoman - May 22, 2013

Since the film opened overseas before domestic, word of mouth for the domestic opening would have played a roll (and probably did).

There are a large group of “other trekkies” who knew ahead of time what the spoilers were and likely decided not to give this film group the benefit of the doubt this time around. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice…

374. NotConvinced - May 22, 2013

361. NO you have no idea what you are talking about!!! How does
$172m worldwide make you think this movie can somehow make 450m? What kind of math are you using?

375. Flake - May 22, 2013


376. James - May 22, 2013

#374. Um, the films now taken 180mill, give or take. It’s following the trajectory of the 2009 movie pretty closely and foreign is waay up. It should easily do $400million by the end of it’s run. That’s about $200 domestic (low end of estimate) and the same foreign.

Please educate me as to why 361 is incorrect.

377. The Transformed Man - May 22, 2013

@374 Ummmm, the film hasn’t even opened in half of it’s foreign territories, including major countries like Japan and China. Right now the film is running over 80% ahead of Trek 2009’s foreign total, and some of the upcoming territories are expected to put that percentage at nearly 100%. Trek 2009 took in $127 million in overseas dollars, if these numbers overseas hold (and there’s no indication they are going down) STiD is going to take in over $200 million, that’s simply a fact.

Into Darkness has performed better every day of it’s release than Trek 2009 with the exception of Friday as a lot of that demand was swallowed up on Thursday. But’s it’s percentage increase from Friday to Saturday was better than Trek 2009, and the drop from Saturday to Sunday, Sunday to Monday. Monday to Tuesday’s drop was virtually identical so Wednesday and Thursday’s numbers should be about the same as Trek 2009 which would put Into Darkness at $109.5 million going into the 4 day weekend. The film will easily make over $40 million for the Memorial Day weekend which put Into Darkness over $150 million after two weekends… again, right on pace with Trek 2009.

I know… math is hard.

378. china - May 22, 2013

I was very disappointed at the lack of screen time for Cumberbatch. I duly went along to support the film for HIM only to find he had 20 minutes screen time max and even then very few lines. I’ve now seen the few a number of times mainly to help the box office. But do feel Benedict deserved better. He did an amazing job considering the dire lines he was given to speak. I’m still astounded it took 3 writers to come come up with such bilge.
I had hoped Cumberbatch would work with JJ Abrams on Star Wars but with this mediocre level of script and uninspiring work from JJ Abrams I’m no longer keen. I used to dislike the idea of Cumberbatch working with Marvel and was relieved he was working with JJ. How wrong I was.

Fast and furious is doing well in the UK as its a teen film and thats the age group that has the money to go to the cinema. Star Trek skews very old. It doesnt appeal to women and was never advertised that way in the Uk. If for instance Cumberbatch’s character had been fleshed out and advertised properly with some relationship aspect to his storyline that would have grabbed a larger share of the female audience. However I have closely monitored twitter, tumblr and facebook to get an understanding of who was seeing it and a large % of feedback in the UK stressed they were seeing the film for Cumberbatch. I’m sure Paramount are aware of this and if they arent then they only need to check back through records. Its that obvious. Look back to the week of release and just after.

379. Phil - May 22, 2013

@374. 200MM domestically, and 250MM foreign. That seems to be what is trending now. I suspect that anything over 300MM is profit, so that should get the third installment green lit….assuming a decent hold this weekend. FF6 will be competition, but TH3 is getting shredded in reviews. After that nothing of substance opens up until Man of Steel.

On a good day, 500MM is still a possibility….

380. Michael Pruitt - May 22, 2013

First let me say its comical how many posters seem to project their personal interest in Star Trek as representative of your average movie goer. Your average movie goer doesn’t read movie sites, obsess over spoilers or watches trailers over and over again in obsessive detail. So the idea that people were turned off by CumberKahn is ridiculous,

Also, the idea that the movie suffers from bad word of mouth is hard to reconcile with the high scores its getting from critics, rotten tomatoes and post-viewing surveys. Whether or not you like the movie, the vast majority of viewers are giving it the thumbs up.

Allow me to propose a structural explanation. Many companies arranged pre-screenings of the movie. I think this was pretty common and led to booked up theaters. When paramount moved up the opening date they expected a boost they didn’t get because the actual number of screens that were not booked we’re limited. So the potential bump was much smaller than the extra day implied (and my recollection is ST09 also had a lot of pre-screenings so it’s a closer apples to apples than the extra day might lead us to think). Additionally because these were no longer pre screenings many of the theaters issued refunds for the booked screens since they were no long as advised but still couldn’t open the screening to the public.

381. Jonboc - May 22, 2013

Saw it again last night and it was a love/hate affair. Loved it that the theater auditorium was packed. But because it was packed, I was forced to sit on the second row from the screen all the way off to the right. Watching a 3-D movie from that angle SUCKS. And yet, I still enjoyed the hell out of this film. Rock on Star Trek and disregard the doomsday predictions,myoure doing just fine!

382. BillyBoy - May 22, 2013

I would argue the Man of Steel also counts as “nothing of substance”.

I had a bad feeling about that one from the start, and decided to skip the film when I found the villain would be General Zod. It’s even more of a rehash than Into Darkness (which at least rewrote Khan to the extent that the only thing he had in common with the original Khan was the name) They confuse changing things that aren’t broken (let’s make Jimmy Olsen a girl so we can pretend this story is “fresh and new”!) with creativity. I won’t be seeing Man of Steel for the same reason I didn’t bother with the not-so Amazing Spider-Man. Hollywood simply retells the same stories and uses the same villains over and over again rather than be risky and try something different and new with their franchises.

383. Phil - May 22, 2013

Walking through K-Mart this morning, and how about that – Man of Steel toys everywhere. Not a thing with Star Trek on it….

Was up in Big Bear (yeah, that Big Bear) over the weekend, and found the Yeoman Rand Barbie…in an antique shop….next to the Teddy Bear Café, is a local wants to run up there and buy it…

384. Disinvited - May 22, 2013

#313. Sagart – May 22, 2013

I think you may have fingered the reason previous Trek’s do poor global. The spoilage from advance screenings elsewhere. Paramount needs to open Trek everywhere at the same time.

#317. drew – May 22, 2013

Meyer’s shooting title: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY

Over his protests Paramount changed title to: THE VENGEANCE OF KHAN

Outraged, Meyer pointed to Lucas and Paramount changed it to:

I also recall what I believe was the first test screening was christened by Paramount with the title, THE REVENGE OF KHAN:,2083999

385. Matt Wright - May 22, 2013

@ Phil – yep they totally biffed it this time. Action Figures are always a good thing when it comes to getting kids and collectors roped in. Where’s the phaser and communicator play set this time?

They also totally screwed up the (lack of) talk show appearances if you ask me.

386. William Bradley - May 22, 2013

In part a prediction, in part old news.

JJ is gone from the director’s chair. Most major directors have their own ideas about screenwriting and screenwriters.

>372. Ahmed – May 22, 2013
@ 370. William Bradley – May 22, 2013

“There will be a new team for the next Star Trek film.”

Is that a hope or news ?

387. Disinvited - May 22, 2013

#334. SoonerDave – May 22, 2013, 335. Philip – May 22, 2013

For the previous installment, back in 2009 fans of Bad Robot Trek were saying things like;

” Word of Mouth is the best advertising.

The fact that this third trailer has won them over at AICN is hugely important. When the Nemesis script leaked, they tore it apart at AICN and that began the process of killing that movie. Now, the people at AICN, and what’s more, the COMMENTERS, are lining up behind the film. They see a quality effort at good storywriting mated with good special effects, and that will leak out to the General Public.

AICN is huge. It was important for Bad Robot to win them over.”

So it’s probably a little disingenuous to start questioning their credibility, now.

388. Disinvited - May 22, 2013

#385. Matt Wright – May 22, 2013

And I don’t get this trying to paint the CBS merchandising rights as if it was any different back in 2009 when merchandise was all over the place. It didn’t sell but I don’t think JJ can point to any hard evidence that that was because it couldn’t compete with the older Trek merch.

Also, I didn’t see anyone dictating to Hasbro to pull all non-movie tied GI Joe merchandize off store shelves.

389. Matt Wright - May 22, 2013

@ 388 – Exactly, this “CBS not cooperating thing” is BS. It’s not like there’s TOS merchandise on the shelves of Target/Walmart/Toys R Us right now.

390. No Khan - May 22, 2013

Could people be tired of the terrorism theme after boston?

391. DJT - May 22, 2013

I was watching Great Gatsby and thinking, if they made City on the Edge of Forever with this much $$, that would be awesome. All they’d have to do is replace the green screen from Into Darkness with effect shows from Gatsby and booya! Just need to find an Edith Keeler. It could be Edith Keenser in this timeline!

392. Jonboc - May 22, 2013

Looks like CBS could be the bad guy after all. This article makes perfect sense….now with JJ headed to Star Wars, I’m afraid we may never know the potential this reboot had.

JJ had vision and wanted to do the right thing…the world embraced it but CBS said no. And JJ said bye. I often wondered why the movie based novels were scrapped. Oh what could have been…

393. Disinvited - May 22, 2013

#392. Jonboc – May 22, 2013

That story’s facts are as off as their $100 million Domestic estimate.

Les Moonves was the one who dictated to Paramount’s Gail Berman in 2005-2006 to get the ball rolling on a movie or lose the license to make Trek movies. This led to Paramount turning to Bad Robot.

If Paramount retains any rights to Trek, it is their film library which at best may give them a right to refilm their old scripts but it is very clear they can’t make new Trek without CBS’ approval. And Paramount isn’t “giving” merchandising rights to CBS – It’s CBS’.

Look at the bottom of this page:

“STAR TREK® and its various marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc.”

394. Mel - May 22, 2013

German numbers:

1. weekend: 446.915 viewers
2. weekend: 246.776 viewers

Into Darkness was watched by 905.758 people until the last Sunday.
Star Trek 2009 had in the same time frame 760.137 viewers.

395. Tombot3000 - May 22, 2013

@ 392, the toys were there in ’09… Trust me. I had to move them from the feature shop to the regular aisle; it wasn’t easy because they didn’t sell down. Yes, the Enterprise sold, as did the phasers, I believe… but the figures, which weren’t too bad as I recall did not hardly budge! My nephews were all about Clone Wars, Beyblade, Transformers, videogames, videogames…. not a peep of interest for Star Trek.
All that article says to me is that CBS was not going to take a hit for the sake of something that already failed to materialize once before…
I liked the new movie better than the 2009, but I didn’t see anything cool enough to translate to a broad media appeal. In some ways, STID verbally addresses some of the complaints against the new Trek, but that’s also more of a problem than an answer when the reality is what you’re given is more of the same. To appeal, Star Trek has to show a Universe that you WANT to live in… heck, Star Wars has always had it easier in that department; imagine all the people desiring to live in a galaxy at civil war!!! LOL!

396. Pintoman - May 22, 2013

1) It’s almost impossible for the general public to glean what the story is for STID. No one is sure what it’s about. What’s the setup? Where is it leading and who is the bad guy?

2) There is a large group of older Trekkies who don’t want the JJ verse and they are avoiding the film this time around.

3) Any older Trekkies on the fence were able to read the spoilers since the film opened late in America. This is where word of mouth will affect the film.

397. Son of Captain Garth - May 22, 2013

It’s frustrating that this Trek was such a hash.

The resources put into play were wonderful; Paramount spent money and the actors are really good, the effects are good, etc. However, Paramount erred by putting them into the hands of a man whom I believe to be utterly contemptuous of the the franchise, using it only as an opportunity to further his career. The writing, too, was derivative, and almost sarcastic, amounting to little more than a pastiche of highlights glued together in an ill-conceived attempt to please existing fans and yet give less-committed viewers some sort of primer for the world of Trek. This franchise needs new directors, producers and writers. Keep the actors, however.

398. Jim Nightshade - May 22, 2013

387….at least this time aicn has mixed r e views. harry k. lovin stid the other guy loathing it….heres a question…do they deserve to be that powerful…

399. Disinvited - May 22, 2013

#396. Pintoman – May 22, 2013

How about the possibility that uberfans of the 2009 effort, falsely believing there where hordes of new fans to back them up, alienated the rest of the fanbase at each and every turn when any evidence of less than fervent appreciation for its awesomeness appeared, by telling them to stay home and watch old discs because, “We don’t need, you!”? And/but they did.

The good news is that since that STAR TREK didn’t do anything significant in the international market the slate’s clean for STID there and it looks like Paramount’s efforts are going to generate a significant uptick in those returns. Whether it will be a return to TMP’s numbers or a blowout only time will tell.

400. Bernd - May 22, 2013

Well it is so obvious:
There is ZERO advertising for the movie:
– no ads wathsoever (except TV)
– No Fast Food Promotions
– no other Food Promotions (Kelloggs, other food)
– no toys (or even worse – not arrived in time! )

PARAMOUNT can´t handle this kind of event movie – period

The movie was just awesome ! Thanks JJ

401. William Bradley - May 22, 2013

What CBS said “NO” to, as the article states, was JJ’s plan to eliminate merchandising featuring the Original Series cast!

>392. Jonboc – May 22, 2013
Looks like CBS could be the bad guy after all. This article makes perfect sense….now with JJ headed to Star Wars, I’m afraid we may never know the potential this reboot had.

JJ had vision and wanted to do the right thing…the world embraced it but CBS said no.

402. - May 23, 2013

I think some of you guys that think the fanbase that don’t like JJ Abrams version of Trek are a large enough group to have made any dent in ticket sales are dreaming.

I respect your right not to like Abrams Trek but I doubt there are enough of you to fill a single theatre session.

403. Rw - May 23, 2013

Ricardo Montalban aka Khan was Mexican and they hire a white British actor. It does not work. JJ were suppose to be progressing in movies and you just took us 3 steps back. Khan was a man of color and should be portrayed as one. Ricardo Montalban spent money on a school in his country to support acting. I’m sure he was looking down puzzled and the white Khan and asking why???

404. PBOONE - May 23, 2013

@2, @3, @5, @6 – you’re bang on. Characters crying who shouldn’t be crying (imho), assumed relationship from the original series (we haven’t actually SEEN these characters bond), and too many 1/2 parallel “plot-ins” (Spock yelling a character’s name…REALLY?????).

Is there nothing new under the sun?

405. PBOONE - May 23, 2013

@397…what you said.

406. Disinvited - May 23, 2013

#402. – May 23, 2013

It’s not the ones that don’t like it that are affecting domestic ticket sales is the ones that simply don’t care.

407. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - May 23, 2013

According to the poll on this site, 8% or 487 people out of 6,095 on this site rate this movie ‘Bad’ or ‘Worst’ Star Trek movie.

Given how diverse and opinionated we trekkies/trekkers are regarding the relative merits of TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and the various movies, I would have thought that a Star Trek movie that actually manages to get less than 10% of people on a site like this totally disgusted with it, must actually be doing rather well with the Star Trek fanbase in general.

I agree with Chris Fawkes on this, I don’t see any fanbase backlash as being big enough to be a cause of any percieved US box office failure.

408. Disinvited - May 23, 2013

#407. ObsessiveStarTrekFan – May 23, 2013

The domestic is not a failure but a backpedal and a clear indication that the supposed hordes of 2009 were never real and therefore the product’s marketing campaign was incorrectly planned and executed.

409. Disinvited - May 23, 2013

#403. Rw – May 23, 2013

Ricardo might have been born in the nation of Mexico but that no more makes him an ethnic Mexican than my being born in the United States makes me an Amerind.

410. William Bradley - May 23, 2013


ST09 was a real breakthrough. I know plenty of non-Trekkers who saw the movie and liked it and were excited about the rebooted Star Trek.

Then it just sat there for four years.

There WAS tremendous enthusiasm around Star Trek. But that dissipates when there is nothing new for four years while the supposed Trek team is off pitching dozens of mostly forgettable TV shows having nothing to do with Trek, making a pastiche Spielberg “homage” movie (sound familiar?), more Transformers movies, a pallid reboot of Hawaii 5-0, etc., etc., etc.

>408. Disinvited – May 23, 2013
#407. ObsessiveStarTrekFan – May 23, 2013

The domestic is not a failure but a backpedal and a clear indication that the supposed hordes of 2009 were never real and therefore the product’s marketing campaign was incorrectly planned and executed.

411. Curious Cadet - May 23, 2013

@379. Phil,
“TH3 is getting shredded in reviews.”

It’s playing out almost exactly like TH2 did, yet that film earned $85 million it’s opening weekend and grossed almost as much as the original. There’s no reason to assume it won’t have a similar impact.

So FF6 will get the action dollars, TH3 will get the comedy dollars (of which there’s yet to be one this summer), Epic will get the family dollars (the first of the season). Prior to this, IM3, Gatsby and STID were the only new wide releases each weekend. Now there are three. And there’s only so many dollars to spread around. Following is After Earth, a Will Smith Avatar-looking movie that should attract some significant box office, and then a Vince Vaughn/Owen Wilson comedy, followed by Superman. So not only will STID get lost in the crowd this weekend, the spotlight is firmly swinging away from it with many other popular offerings, which continue right on through the Summer.

Is STID getting enough positive word of mouth to stem the tide of that onslaught? Somehow I don’t think so. The first one opened in a relative vacuum of action films, and stood out as being fun and positive against Terminator, Angels and Demons, and Wolverine, followed up by Night at the Museum and Up. It stood out amongst the crowd. STID though looks an awful lot like its competition, and the good feelings people had about ST09 are hard to recall from 4 long years ago.

412. James - May 23, 2013

Well it is not going great because lets face it, it was already done back in 1982 (The Wrath of Khan).

Sorry but a bad rip off is still a bad rip off no matter how many special effects you use to cover up poor writing.

413. Disinvited - May 23, 2013

#410. William Bradley – May 23, 2013

Don’t dispute that. Dispute that those non-fans were a horde and of a number that eclipsed the pre-existing domestic fanbase which could be ignored and not targeted in marketing because “they don’t matter any more.”

414. William Bradley - May 23, 2013

So your evolving position now is that the people behind this movie took the fan base for granted.

>413. Disinvited – May 23, 2013
#410. William Bradley – May 23, 2013

Don’t dispute that. Dispute that those non-fans were a horde and of a number that eclipsed the pre-existing domestic fanbase which could be ignored and not targeted in marketing because “they don’t matter any more.”

415. Theatre Historian - May 23, 2013

Early estimates for today show Hangover Part III was the number 1 movie today at the box office.

And now that Fast and Furious 6 and Epic are now open as well, look for a 4thplace finish in the 30-35 million dollar range this weekend for Into Darkness domesticly

416. Theatre Historian - May 23, 2013

Also just want to point out that when you compare the first 7 day of Trek 09 and Into Darkness Into Darkness is 1 million dollars behind 09’s 7 day gross at this point.

104.6 million for 09 compared to 103.7 million for Into Darkness.
A million dollar difference might not seem like a big deal but once you factor in the higher ticket prices for Into Darkness with 3D and 2D, it does seem to indicate that we shouldn’t really be expecting to see the new movie do more than 09 did at the box office.
And there is no way that with the 3 big openings this weekend that Into Darkness is going to match 09’s second weekend gross of 43 million

Again this has no bearing on the quality of the movie.

Really think Star Trek XIII should return the series to Thanksgiving/Dec release period

417. Disinvited - May 23, 2013

#414. William Bradley – May 23, 2013

Not evolving, just a constant tactic to which Paramount returns. Never taken the position that some new people didn’t show up – just quibbled that there was a significant horde of them that was driving 09’s domestic grosses over fervent fans repeat viewings a la TMP.

However, if you want an evolved contention from me how about: If the horde did exist, Paramount would have taken them for granted in 2013 as well.

418. Phil - May 24, 2013

@411. I think my bigger point, though, was that the movie is tracking very similar to Trek09. To many people drank ‘The Dark Knight” Kool Aid in drawing the conclusion that STID would perform similarly in the box office, which isn’t the case. If STID holds a 50% drop this weekend, and knowing the next few weeks are a bit light on the schedule, STID will end up performing just fine. It’s just not a billion dollar movie, and for reasons that are not reflected on the screen….

419. William Bradley - May 24, 2013

That’s a big fat excuse, and you know it.

Research indicated the film would play much better than it is, and it is getting fewer viewers in the US than the first one, despite much more money being spent on it.

420. I am not Herbert (retired) - May 24, 2013

“/sound of facepalm”

…says it all =(

nu-trek sucks

421. Theatre Historian - May 24, 2013

when you compare the gross between 09 and Into darkness after 8 days each, Into Darkness is down by several million as of yesteray Into Darkness sits at 108.8 million while 09 after 8 days was at 116.3 million

And so far based on early to midday matinee ticket sales Into Darkness is looking to be in 4th place for Friday. of course this could change by end of the day, but thus far Fast 6, Hangover III and Epic are selling more tickets today than Into Darkness is (atleast for the early and mid day matinees

This was just the wrong time to release this film, a November/December period would have been a better choice. But thats just my opinon. There is just to much competition this time of May to see significant increases over the previous movie.

422. Theatre Historian - May 24, 2013

I do want to note that 09’s 8th day was a friday compared to Into Darkness’s 8th day being a Thursday so that accounts part of the difference in what each made on their 8th day of release. But still after 8 days the movie is falling behind more than the last movie.

423. James Spock - May 24, 2013

After seeing the 2009 trek, which I consider as a brainless action movie, trek in name but not by concept, that is why many of the fans have not returned, which is understandable.

424. Jonboc - May 24, 2013

“I agree with Chris Fawkes on this, I don’t see any fanbase backlash as being big enough to be a cause of any percieved US box office failure.”

I agree… the squeaky wheel will continue to squeak while the other four keep rolling along content and satisfied. :)

I know a lot of people wanting to see Into Darkness that haven’t simply due to choice. They don’t see a movie every week and, at this point, are opting for iron man 3 because, they have reasoned, it will be leaving the good big screens soonest…so they have to catch it now a before it moves to the crackerbox and discount theaters.

425. Theatre Historian - May 24, 2013

Deadline’s most recent box office update article backs up what i said here earlier this afternoon in my post 422
something else I have noticed also is that gatsby and into the darkness are pretty close today in terms of ticket sales for atleast the first 2 matinee shows anyways.
If that holds through the evening then there is even a chance thatI INto Darkness will be number 5 for the day.

FIRST BOX OFFICE: ‘Fast & Furious 6′ Easy #1 With $35M Friday And $100+M Memorial Weekend For Franchise Biggest; ‘Hangover III’ $14M/$50M; ‘Epic’ $11M/$50M; Records?

426. rickindc - May 24, 2013

Just seen Into Darkness tonight, very, very good, I found it better than the first.

427. Theatre Historian - May 24, 2013

Did my part this evening to help, by calling the LAPD on the jack@$$ selling Bootleg DVD & Blurays of Into Darkness, Iron Man 3 and Fast six
Infront of the Hollywood and Vine Redline station.

428. portablebox - May 25, 2013

Why I haven’t seen it.
As I write this comment I am about to finish DS9 for the second time on Netflix. (What great writing!) Therefore, I ask myself how come I don’t go out and see the new Star Trek Movie?
I don’t know exactly why but there are several factors:
1. The director doing Star Wars. This really makes me angry. It seems that directors are now the stars of their own movies but he is not a “genius” as Hitchcock. His name is no guarantee. Remember “Super 8″? and what about the ending of “LOST”? There seems to be that his production company has more to do with his jobs than his talents as a director. I actually feel, if I had the time, to start a boycott on the New Star wars movies, why not a young director that can connect to the new generation of kids?
2. As I talked to the friends of my younger kids, they grew up with Iron Man and The Fast and the Furious. I asked my own kids about the new Star Trek Movie, and they don’t want to see it. Then don’t care about it. However, the Fast and the Furious or Iron Man 3, all their friends are talking about it. Hey, Iron Man is “cool.” Kirk? Kirk who?
3. There was a comment made by one of my co-workers: “I like the movie soo much, all the characters sounded and acted exactly like the old Star Trek! I loved it!” That is exactly a problem. I mean, with so many possibilities on the Star Trek Universe, why “copy” characters created by other actors? Spock is probably the most interested and well done, but, in the back of your mind I’m thinking, who am I seeing? A young kirk imitation of William Shatner? (Does he get money for somebody copying his character?)
4. There is the question of Khan. Who is going to care for a “alternative” universe of him? Ricardo Montalvan made him famous and he was, well, from Mexican descent and now in this “re-make” he is from England? I know I am talking about the “illogical” in an “illogical” situation, but again, what am I seeing, a copy or a new copy or a deconstruction of a copy? Somehow this doesn’t make sense.
5. Last, Visual effects. There has to be more to a movie that visual effects and the trailers only try to get me by showing me the enterprise being destroyed (several times), but do nothing for the characters. Is there really anything new or different from the 2009?
Last, last….If I take my family to the 2D showing, I will spend at least 50 dollars (including pop corn), but I want to see it in 3D, so you are talking about 60 to 70 dollars….mmmhhh…I can wait for the blu ray release.
And to JJ, Kirk said it best:

“Genius doesn’t work on an assembly line basis. You can’t simply say, ‘Today I will be brilliant.’
— Kirk in ‘The Ultimate Computer’

429. Gary - May 25, 2013

Another great review…

430. Valenti - May 25, 2013

It could’ve gone even better internationally if the movie was released everywhere at around the same time instead of these spread release dates.

Spreading it out over several months (from May through August) really kicks the hype in the shins, IMO.

That, and it’s a huuuge pain to avoid the big spoilers for those that are forced to wait.

(11 days until Into Darkness finally releases here in the Netherlands.)

431. Theatre Historian - May 26, 2013

Well glad to see that it pulled up on Friday enough to supplant EPIC from the number 3 spot.
But still is in the 3 day weekend range that I mentioned in my post above.
I do think that the estimated 10 million for monday is a bit on the high end, think it will actually settle closer 7 million for tomorrows ticket sales.

Then Tuesday will be in the 3-5 million range, wed 1-3 million range and thursday in the 800,000-2 million range.
And next weekend will probably be about 15-18 m range for the 3 day

The good thing is because the marketing overseas worked in increasing sales abroad that the world wide gross has earned the production budget back

432. Goran'agar - May 27, 2013

Trek Holds! Number 3 for the weekend with 48million…Let’s keep going baby

433. Disinvited - May 27, 2013

#432. Goran’agar – May 27, 2013

This morning news says $38 million and they were rounding from 37.8. Down 46%.

434. James - May 27, 2013

According to box office mojo, trek now has 155 million domestic and 100 million in rest of the world. In the US then it has made exactly the same as Trek 09 and substantially more in the rest of the world. Trek should end up with around 4-500 million don’t forget that it’s not even opened in some big markets including china. Star Trek lives!

435. gingerly - May 27, 2013

The elephant in the room:


see: the failure of Airbender and the success of Fast and Furious 6

Now, if After Earth does well, I hope to GOD Hollywood finally gets the message and puts this practice to bed for good.

436. Goran'agar - May 27, 2013

My source is

437. Michael Pruitt - May 27, 2013

Hey look at that. Into Darkness is now ahead of ’09s box office pace. Obviously this movie is Teh Suck and ruined Star Trek and has no appeal and horrible word of mouth blah blah blah.

438. Suellen from Savannah - May 27, 2013

Saw the movie and while it was action driven and less character development i was enjoying until they re-did the Spock death scene. I think Chris Pine and Zach Quinto gave it all they had, but the writers missed the mark on the relationship. It was quite evident in the movie that Kirk and Spock had not developed the relationship they needed to make the death scene play out. Spock and Kirk’s relationship was developed enough in the movie to justify the reactions of Spock. If the movie had given tidbits of background of their mature relationship it would have work as it was I felt is hollow and contrived. I was impressed with the screen play, but agree Cumberpatch saved what would have been an flop. Other than his character the one liner were the best part of the movie.

Chris Pine and Zach Quinto did their absolute best with the scrip they were given, but they weren’t given much.

While again not a negative reaction overall to the movie, just missed the mark much like Shatner’s movie did. Shanter tried to put too much into to too short of a time space to properly tell the story of man’s eternal question is there really a God.

Having said and expressed my opinion I certainly think it deserve an Academy Award for Music Score and Sound Editing and Special Effects. They were certainly awesome.

I also thought Super 8 missed the mark. It was also poorly developed and reminded of a kiddie Aliens only not nearly as suspenseful. While I may not be the age demographic JJ is appealing to, I am the demographic with the money to spend on return trips to the theatre and DVD or Itune sales. I will not even buy this one on DVD. I had such high hopes I liked 2009 and saw great potential for the franchise, but alas JJ and the Supreme court have gone of the was of the first 3 season of Enterprise.

My opinion is my own and does not in any way negate or insult those who disagree with my opinion. if we all liked the same things this world would be a very boring place

439. Disinvited - May 28, 2013

#437. Michael Pruitt – May 27, 2013

Not sure how you are reading that? According to this:

STID took in approximately $5 million less than 2009 in Week 1

And This:

STID took $1 million less than 2009 in weekend 2.

That’s showing STID after having a great opening weekend is slowing compared to 2009

440. Lemingsworth Bint - May 28, 2013



And kindly stop ignoring the foreign numbers.

441. David - May 28, 2013

I blame JJ Abrams for why ST:ID didn’t make as much money. When He did Interviews, Star Wars(WHICH I SUPREMELY HATE WITH EVERY FIBER OF MY BEING) is what he talked about the most. If he loves Star Wars so much, stick with that. Let Paramount get a director who LOVES Star Trek to direct the next one. I got a Better Idea- NO MORE MOVIES IN THE JJ-VERSE!!!! GO BACK TO THE RODDEBERRY-VERSE!!! Bring Star Trek back to TV Where it Belongs. Let the New Series be Set in the 24th Century(Star Trek:Titan) or Somewhere it is based upon what Gene wanted it to be. WHO IN THE HELL HIRED JJ ABRAMS ANYWAY!!! He should be out on his ASS!!! This guy is a joke!!!
Paramount-TREAT STAR TREK BETTER!!!! I think Brad Grey(Head of Paramount) and Les Moonves(Head of CBS) should go. We longtime Trekkies(I’ve been a Proud fan since 1987) need to rise up and retake this legacy back to what Gene Roddenberry wanted it to be.
Merchandising-Oh, I’ve got a few Ideas. How about doing items based upon Star Trek:Online(USS ENTERPRISE-F Perhaps), and Star Trek:Titan(USS TITAN). Paramount should follow Halo and other games and do some Merchandising.
It is time that we stop talking about doing something and do it!!!
Star Trek is nearing 50, so let’s make it better than ever!!!

442. HubcapDave - May 28, 2013

@439 Disinvited

You’re forgetting that Memorial Day weekend acts as a 4 day weekend for box office numbers. You’ll see a surge in the 3rd week numbers.

443. Jonboc - May 28, 2013

#441. “Let the New Series be Set in the 24th Century(Star Trek:Titan) ”

Wow…seriously? Are you sure you’re not from an alternate timeline yourself? Star Trek is prospering just fine with the movie series…and I’d love a return to television as well, but not in the very format that buried the franchise to begin with.

444. HubcapDave - May 28, 2013


Star Trek was a hell of a lot more people’s vision than Roddenberry’s. Gene Coon had as much to do with the shape and direction of TOS. The only movie he had control over was TMP. And TNG was at its most successful under Berman.

445. Mel - May 28, 2013

German viewer numbers:

9. – 12. May
1. Star Trek Into Darkness: 446.915
2. Iron Man 3: 379.467
3. Hanni & Nanni: 201.173
4. Scary Movie 5: 119.875
5. The Croods: 74.641

16. – 19. May
1. The Great Gatsby: 262.930
2. Star Trek Into Darkness: 246.776
3. Evil Dead: 235.798
4. Iron Man 3: 181.287
5. Epic: 164.475

23. – 26. May
1. Fast & Furious 6: 802.164
2. Epic: 197.760
3. The Great Gatsby: 194.230
4. Star Trek Into Darkness: 131.582
5. Hanni & Nanni: 104.549

Until the last Sunday Star Trek was seen by 1.176.491 viewers in Germany.

Top opening weekends of 2013

802.164: Fast & Furious 6
749.735: Django Unchained
527.325: Die Hard 5
516.347: Iron Man 3
514.707: Kokowääh 2
457.374: Schlussmacher
446.915: Star Trek Into Darkness
360.916: Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters
356.978: The Croods
313.930: G.I. Joe II

446. Brian K - May 28, 2013

Despite all the naysayers and predictors of doom, STID is actually showing some strong legs at the boxoffice. A stronger than expected 48 million for the 4 day weekend, and it was actually the #2 movie on both Sunday and Monday, beating the new films Epic and Hangover 3 on those days. (Not to mention overseas numbers that are crushing ST09’s numbers) My guess is strong word of mouth from the majority of us that actually saw the movie and enjoyed it!! Don’t believe the negativity on this board: lots of bigmouths with too much time on their hands, a computer, and an axe to grind, IMHO.

447. Fred G - May 29, 2013

In the LA Market there was absolutely NO ADVERTISING for the movie in Newspapers — AT ALL. If you’re middle-age and don’t spend your life online, it’s quite possible that you didn’t even know the movie was out (I know more than a few people who didn’t know). Not ONE movie ad in any of the area papers (NOTHING in the LA Times either so far, for the entire run). I realize newspapers aren’t the only game in town anymore, but a lot of casual viewers I’m sure are being lost because Paramount didn’t want to spend a few extra dollars to promote the movie and advertise the movie in papers like all the other studios have been doing with their films (which have all had full-page ads lately). I’m just saying, the casual viewer who may have gone to see it over the long weekend if he/she had seen an ad in the paper — knowing that it was now playing — certainly won’t be there if they don’t know it’s playing. Sure there are billboards, bus signs, etc… but a lot of that just goes right by people who don’t realize that it’s ACTUALLY PLAYING (not just “coming soon”). Again, I know a bunch of people who didn’t even know it was out…

448. Disinvited - May 29, 2013

#446. Brian K – May 28, 2013

FWIW MTV, which is a pro-Paramount biased source, says $47 million:

449. Disinvited - May 29, 2013

According to this Google free preview:

“Litigation Services Handbook: The Role of the Financial Expert” Chapter 21 page 11

As of 2004, studios recover 53% of Domestic grosses and 43% on International.

450. Michael Pruitt - May 30, 2013


You are getting your numbers by cherry picking the time intervals your sources are reporting on. The very front page of box office mojo compares time interval to time interval of ’09 and STID. The numbers show that STID has caught and passed the total box office of ’09 for comparable intervals.

The link you had above (which is to a non-static page so changes) was only reporting the 2 week box office when you linked.

And I was going to make an extremely sarcastic comment about your comment at #449 but instead I am going to ask you what your point is? It sounds like you are trying to say that foreign box office doesn’t count if it is over 43% because: ACCOUNTING!!!

451. Disinvited - May 30, 2013

#450. Michael Pruitt – May 30, 2013

In NOT correcting for inflation, it is clear that your numbers are not demonstrating any less of this claimed bias in your presentations.

And I’m not cherry-picking, I’m just pointing out that each week by week after having a great opening weekend and each weekend gross after is less than each comparable 2009’s take unadjusted for inflation in BOMOJO’s alignment.

And I didn’t comment on any thing in msg 449. In mentioning ““Litigation Services Handbook: The Role of the Financial Expert”” I was just providing a reference to answer questions others have posted as to how profitability can be calculated.

452. Disinvited From The Party - May 30, 2013

Here’s an article from 2003:

that gives some insight as to the kinds of merchandising agreements made in licensing Trek.

453. Phil - May 30, 2013

BOM has been very tardy in reporting foreign box office numbers the last couple of weeks. That aside, STID is still tracking to be a 400MM to 450MM movie, which makes it profitable. Paramount needs to get off the dime and get some direction on how to properly manage the franchise, but that’s a different story. In terms of revenue, non-issue, the movie will be a success. Paramount knows that they will add a couple hundred million in DVD/Blue-Ray, and cable distribution, so it’s a done deal….

454. Exverlobter - May 30, 2013

Funny that those cars in Fast 6 were far faster on the box office than huge Spaceships, lol. Maybe Justin Lin should direct the next Trek-Movie and Vin Diesel should play the villain. For example a Klingon like Kor or Kang.

455. Disinvited - May 30, 2013

#453. Phil – May 30, 2013

There was a notice before the holiday that they wouldn’t be anything new til June 2. I got the clear implication from the wording that a vacation was being taken while upgrades of some sort were going on.

Also according to “Litigation Services Handbook: The Role of the Financial Expert” Paramount can reasonably expect to get 53% percent of the domestic gross and 43% of the International. With their spending 35% more on marketing your projection is not enough to achieve profitability on box office grosses alone. No doubt with worldwide DVD/BD, International merchandising, etc. it will make a profit but I wonder if it will be more than 2009’s? I also suspect but haven’t found any info yet that the percentage of 3D grosses the studios get has been negotiated differently since Disney caused a furor over Iron Man 3 that resulted in my local theater raising all ticket prices for all movies even non-3D by $1 which is also another bit of inflation to take into account.

FWIW LSH also has percentages for calculating the ancillary profits as well.

456. Theatre Historian - May 30, 2013

I am sure the Giant bilboards including but not limited to downtown LA, on top of Hollywood Highland,as well as on the building across from the arclight, not to mention on a majority of the MTA bus fleet and bus shelters made up for any ads that may or may not have been in prints.

457. Phil - June 1, 2013

@455. I missed that, thanks for the update.

There have been enough stories floating around of Hollywood accounting . I’m the first to admit that any assumption I (or anyone else, for that matter), make really isn’t much more then an educated guess based on past performance and wild eyed assumptions on what they spent on marketing. Most of the business and investor pages I look at seem to agree that box office totals in the 450MM range will be enough to get the third installment made, that Paramount will make it, and at some point in the near future Paramount and CBS need to get their act together to properly manage the franchise. I’m assuming all that means the movie made money….

458. Paul - June 1, 2013

I watch a lot of movies and I didn’t see ONE trailer domestically here in Maryland at all for this movie. There was no marketing in my area. The only place I could catch movie trailers was online. Perhaps they should have attached the trailer at the theater so excitement could build for the average movie goer leading up the release of the film.

459. JimBob - June 2, 2013

This is hilarious, why do Trek fans get so concerned over friggen Box Office figures, who cares are you receiving any of the funds for your pockets, all your doing is lining someones pockets in the land of remakes reboot’s rehashes a.k.a HollyWierd.

This movie is probably going to flop at the box office, no one considers that the production budget does’t take into account…

1. Media to create the film Physical Media Printing and Pressing

2. Advertising, Promoting

3 Co Financing Deals aka Skydance

4.Movie Houses aka Theaters take 50% in most cases per ticket for themselves. so a Ticket costing say 20 to round it. 10.00 goes to the theaters and 10 goes to the box office takes.

Damn I could Just go on but suffice it to say it needs at least 500 million to even start making money back.

Its not just 190 mil Production Budget and 50 Mil for promoting it there’s all kinds of back end deals that you do not hear about.

So 240 mill it will need at least 500 mil to even start turning a profit.

Anyway I don’t care if it turns a profit or not and I wouldn’t piss perfectly good money to see it over and over (Repeat Viewings) what a joke just to think someone sees it 6 times, there not helping make it much money.. (Needle in the Haystack)

Sure I like Trek to a point but come on get a life instead of sitting around concerning yourselves over the Box office Figures there so skewed anyways you wouldn’t have a clue where half the takes come and go what kind of back end deals are included with the movies.

My big question anyways is what is it with Star Trek Fans going to extremes asking folks what they thought of the movie at Cinemas, like it’s your business what other folks think, if I had one of you nosy clowns ask me.

1 either you would get ignored, and I would think your slow in the head, or a panhandler.

2 most likely I would tell you off .

Anyway get outside and enjoy life there’s tonnes to do outdoors, get a new hobby.

Trek is pretty much cooked close to 50 yrs think about , it was a good run but there’s only so many stories to tell … I say let trek die .

460. Gary Makin - June 2, 2013

STID opens huge in China.

It’s probably going to make ten times as much as the 2009 film there.

461. Matt - June 2, 2013

460 – thats fantastic news, its a shame it opened in the US with massive competition. Looks like it beat two newer movies (hang over , epic) over the weekend which sugguests it has some legs. Should opened the movie on may 9

462. Matt - June 2, 2013

459 – I don’t think they would have made the movie if it needed to make 500 million to make there money back considering the last one didn’t even make 400 million . I would say after 300 million they would be making a profit. They are not going to spend more then there production budget on adverterising. In Australia you hardly saw a tv spot on the movie compared to Iron man where saw a tv spot last night a more then a month after it opened here.

463. Noropolis - June 2, 2013

MESSAGE TO PARAMOUNT: Do not wait 4 years to put out the sequel. That was totally ridiculous!!!

464. JimBob - June 3, 2013

463 – I don’t think 4 years had anything to do with it that is hear say, you have to remember if you are comparing 09 with this movie 09 opened with hardly any competition this one is pancaked between massive blockbusters, FF6 being the mainstay and IM3 is till pulling in the money.

You have to remember and this is not just to 463, Star Trek is not and I repeat not classified as Mainstream no matter what you are thinking, Star Trek had a stigma and it is not going away its behind the name most folks don’t care about it.

Now with that said look at the marketing of the 09 movie they marketed to anyone and everyone as you could see in the trailers, the chiefs made it look fresh and exciting like “COME SEE ME, I may be Star Trek but not what I was.”

No matter how much you want folks to come see Trek and the way the trailers where done this go round, it looked like stagnant trek all over again and that is not going to get anyone moving to see it.

I liked the new movie sure , but why would you ask people of there opinion at theatres it doesn’t matter and makes you look nuts , borderline obsessive compulsive, anyway just enjoy it for what it is.

Also I hear folks on forums oh I want another ST:TMP get real and don’t even think for a moment Hollywood would make another ST:TMP if thats your line of thinking you really are out of touch with reality and how the world is today, all you would get is trek fans going to see it, it would be another bust at the box office like most of the made for TV on the big screen trek films.

Trek 09 and ID are the way movies should be on the big screen for trek not some movie that’s cerebral makes you think schlock that stuff can stay on your TV not the big screen.

465. Gary Makin - June 3, 2013

Re: me – correction, it might make $50m to $75m in China. $75m would be nearly ten times as much as the 2009 film.

466. Gary Makin - June 3, 2013

Re: #113 – Fast 6 only opened slightly higher in the UK than STID, and its second weekend was lower, just like in the US.

467. Michael Pruitt - June 4, 2013

@Disinvited –

I want to make sure you understand my point and vice versa and we aren’t just arguing against different arguments.

My point was that: Many commenters on this thread are proclaiming STID a flop because of it’s box office failure. In response I noted that Star Trek Into Darkness currently exceeded ST09 box office for the same time period and posted a link to BoxOffice Mojo’s front page with the topline numbers. I also, sarcastically, mocked commenters who claimed STID was ruining Star Trek.

In response you linked to the week-by-week cross tabs and noted (correctly) that after out grossing ST09 in Week 0, it fell behind ST09 in Week 1 and 2. You then posted a comment referencing the Litigation Services Handbook and the 53:43 rule for projecting profitability. I interpreted your point, perhaps incorrectly, as being: ST09 had out grossed STID over the same time period and that STID was clearly a failure.

Note: You are correct and Box Office Mojo does not adjust its front page comparisons for inflation. I had misread this page Based on BoxOfficeMojo’s methodology the adjusted grosses are 169,000,000 for ST09 vs. 164,756,486 for STID. So, adjusted for inflation STID is about 5 million behind ST09.

I’d assert that these numbers (and the updated front page gross figures which now have STID behind the ST09 gross) still show that STID is objectively a success (regardless of my personal feelings about the movie’s quality). Am I correct that you are taking the opposite position and asserting that it’s a failure because it isn’t making 53% of its gross domestically?

468. Disinvited - June 7, 2013

#467. Michael Pruitt – June 4, 2013

Thanks. You are right that I’m not one to label STID a BO failure.

However, I think it would not be right to gloss over the fact that it definitely is failing to meet Paramount’s expectations as demonstrated in their changing to an earlier domestic opening and raising the bar.

We can argue that the suits were fools to do that but the reality is they did it, and most likely given their Hollywood teflon suits there will be consequences for filmed Trek.

I don’t think this is going to stop them from greenlighting another movie to take advantage of the anniversary but I think it portends that it will be unlike any Trek that came before.

For one, I think they are going to concentrate on what worked for STID’s business model, i.e. the international marketing, and run with it as FOX does with its ICE AGE franchise.

I don’t think this is going to necessarily be something bad; just different as Trek moves on to address and concentrate on stories dealing with more non-domestic appeals and concerns. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.