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.
|
STAR TREK VS. INTO DARKNESS |
||
| Domestic $M | Star Trek 2009 |
Into Darkness (actual) |
| 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: BoxOffice.com | ||
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.
– Variety
The iconic space tentpole grossed a lot of money worldwide…But came nowhere near the $80M weekend and $100M total predicted.
– Deadline
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 TrekMovie.com – 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:
- Imax contributed 16% of the film’s bow (with $13.5 million), compared to “Iron Man 3,” which had less than 10% opening weekend come from Imax. (Variety)
- There were many IMAX sell outs, a strong Friday to Saturday uptick and 17 of Trek’s top 20 domestic locations have IMAX runs (BoxOffice.com)
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.
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.
I didn’t think it was that great a movie, to be honest. That could be why.
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.
I took my kids (ages 11& 8) and they loved it! Then again dad has exposed them to Trek at every chance I get. ;)
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.
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.
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.
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.”
I loved ID and ST 09, but I think it’s time for Trek to return home, to TV.
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?
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.
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!!!
Since when does 84 million dollars=bad? Geez, Paramount, learn to manage your expectations.
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.
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.
@ #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?
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.
guys. this is a non spoiler thread. Some ppl have still not seen the movie.
@ 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.
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…
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.
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.
Don’t forget inflation. bls.gov says $79.2M in 2009 = $85.84M today.
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.
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.
Finally,
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 :-)
darn – #23 Forrest Leeson beat me by a minute.
But my response is more fleshed out, :p
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.
Lesson:
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.
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. >=^(
I liked it well enough while watching it, but have no strong desire to see it again.
That bothers me.
This movie is absolutely GREAT I watched together with young people … at least much younger than me and they loved the film!
;-) :-)
I must say this is hilarious:
http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844
***Do NOT read if you care about spoilers and do NOT read if you are offended by mild adult language.
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?”
Graduation is a huge reason versus 2009
Btw, I want to see a lot of times! ;-) :-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Feel*
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.
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.
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.
#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 …
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.
Bigger film franchises than Star Trek have underperformed in the third weekend of May for several years now.
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.
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.
@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.