2013: The Re-Up (box office predictions)

[Project862006]

not surprised people forget star trek 2009 didn't actually do that well

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

$257 million domestic and $385 million on a $150 million budget (before the increasing prevelance of overseas) for a series that was considered dead in the water cinema wise was pretty impressive considering it actually exceeded Paramount's expectations for the movie. Then again, that movie did those numbers without much competitition considering it opened between X-Men Origins: Wolverine (which suffered from horrible word of mouth) and Angels and Demons (a movie who's source material was considered by many a step down from The Da Vinci Code).

Star Trek Into Darkness has to not only compete with Iron Man 3, but also The Great Gatsby and Fast Six the next week. Two of these movies are heavy hitters box office wise and one is taking a good amount of people away from Star Trek.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

My big question is who is going to win next week between Fast & Furious 6 and The Hangover Part III. And to whoever wins, how much will it win by? Because honestly, there isn't going to be much counter-programming since these films both share the same target demographic. There will no doubt be undercutting one another.

Will people be upset because The Hangover Part II wasn't nearly as good as the original? Will people come to Fast & Furious 6 in droves because Fast Five was well received?

Fast 6 will definitely win. The sequel to the good movie will outgross the sequel to the bad one, especially considering that Fast Six is a large scale action blockbuster.

 

[jmc]

I don't know. Either it would have stuck to it's current scenario and be eaten alive next week or it would have came out last week and been even more undercut by Iron Man 3 than it already was this past weekend. The combination of Star Trek Into Darkness underperforming and Iron Man 3 overperforming hurt it. In hindsight, it was better off being released out of May entirely. For the past couple of years, mid-May has been a death trap.

I guess my argument is that IM3 was so front loaded that the opportunity was there to capture peoples attention more the following week especially considering the ST trailer was playing in front of IM3. It also would have given them more room to breath with Fast 6 coming out next week. Paramount should have had the guts to release it the week later.

 

[Warhammer]

Fast 6 will definitely win. The sequel to the good movie will outgross the sequel to the bad one, especially considering that Fast Six is a large scale action blockbuster.

How much more do you think Fast & Furious 6 will open? 10 million more? 20 million? Man, next week is going to be interesting.

I guess my argument is that IM3 was so front loaded that the opportunity was there to capture peoples attention more the following week especially considering the ST trailer was playing in front of IM3. It also would have given them more room to breath with Fast 6 coming out next week. Paramount should have had the guts to release it the week later.

True. But then The Great Gatsby would have been there to undercut as well. Or do you think it wouldn't have even been as successful had both films opened on the same weekend?

 

[Marvin]

Fast is coming off of a well received hit(one of the most well received hits of it's genre ever). The hangover 3 isn't. The hangover two was.

Pretty sure who's going to come on top with that one. I'm just curious to see where IM3 falls next weekend. Anywhere above 4 and the May curse will be confirmed in my opinion.

 

[Tony Stark]

I guess my argument is that IM3 was so front loaded that the opportunity was there to capture peoples attention more the following week especially considering the ST trailer was playing in front of IM3. It also would have given them more room to breath with Fast 6 coming out next week. Paramount should have had the guts to release it the week later.

The trailer wasn't attached. There was no ST trailer infront of the IM3 showings in my city, either 3D or non-3D.

 

[jacobed]

Fast is coming off of a well received hit(one of the most well received hits of it's genre ever). The hangover 3 isn't. The hangover two was.

Pretty sure who's going to come on top with that one. I'm just curious to see where IM3 falls next weekend. Anywhere above 4 and the May curse will be confirmed in my opinion.

It'll be fifth. Fast 6, Hangover, Star Trek, Epic, Iron Man

 

[Marvin]

It'll be fifth. Fast 6, Hangover, Star Trek, Epic, Iron Man

We'll see.

 

[Marvin]

Something alot of people aren't taking into consideration with Star Trek is the effect of diffusing an opening weekend over a greater amount of days. Might have had a stronger three days if people lining up for the movie on thursday simply went on the weekend.

 

[:eek:]

Top 10 worldwide

1. Iron Man 3 $1077,1 million
2. The Croods $550,7 million
3. Oz The Great and Powerful $488,4 million
4. G.I. Joe: Retaliation $358,5 million
5. A Good Day to Die Hard $303,7 million
6. Oblivion $258,8 million
7. Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters $224,8 million
8. Journey to the West: Conquering the Demons $207,9 million
9. Lost in Thailand $202,6 million
10. Jack the Giant Slayer $197,3 million

 

[Avangarde]

Subscribed

 

[rayc1971]

not surprised people forget star trek 2009 didn't actually do that well

257mill on a 150mill budget is not doing well?

 

[jmc]

The trailer wasn't attached. There was no ST trailer infront of the IM3 showings in my city, either 3D or non-3D.

I had it in front of my screenings. *shrugs*

 

[jmc]

True. But then The Great Gatsby would have been there to undercut as well. Or do you think it wouldn't have even been as successful had both films opened on the same weekend?

Honestly, I think studios need to harden up a bit and actually challenge each other a bit more.

 

[Octoberist]

It'll be fifth. Fast 6, Hangover, Star Trek, Epic, Iron Man

Epic will be the wild card.

 

[Bruce Malone]

257mill on a 150mill budget is not doing well?

Star Trek 09 did very well based on the franchise and where it was resurrected from.

Inflated Star Trek made $270 million domestically which is great for a franchise that was last seen as Star Trek Nemesis.

They let the fire cool however. This was probably one of the few franchises that could have benefited from a fast-track sequel. Star Trek09 was very much a film of the moment type feel success.

 

[metaphysician]

Honestly, I think studios need to harden up a bit and actually challenge each other a bit more.

Problem is, that largely results in both studios losing. Unless one film completely blows the other out ( Avengers vs everything, for example ), the result is that both films do poorly as they split the audience.

 

[terry78]

Nobody wants to be the one to possibly suffer a massive loss. In the grand scheme of things even though it's all about money, the side effect is that a lot of lower end people lose their jobs sometimes if it tanks.

 

[jmc]

Problem is, that largely results in both studios losing. Unless one film completely blows the other out ( Avengers vs everything, for example ), the result is that both films do poorly as they split the audience.

I don't see the problem with that to be honest. It then becomes about which film is better. If there's genuine compeition it means more emphasis will be placed on ensuring the films are top notch. A big reason why so many blockbuster movies suck is because of there's nothing preventing a studio from releasing a piece of ****, if there's competition chances are an effort is going to be made to make sure the film is better. Does it mean fewer $100 million openings? Yep. But as I always say if the film is good people will see it.

 

[Marvin]

$257 million domestic and $385 million on a $150 million budget (before the increasing prevelance of overseas) for a series that was considered dead in the water cinema wise was pretty impressive considering it actually exceeded Paramount's expectations for the movie. Then again, that movie did those numbers without much competitition considering it opened between X-Men Origins: Wolverine (which suffered from horrible word of mouth) and Angels and Demons (a movie who's source material was considered by many a step down from The Da Vinci Code).

Star Trek Into Darkness has to not only compete with Iron Man 3, but also The Great Gatsby and Fast Six the next week. Two of these movies are heavy hitters box office wise and one is taking a good amount of people away from Star Trek.

Transformers and Ironman did almost twice that amount with less money(according to some reports anyways).
And they weren't sequels to a some established franchises.

It didn't do "that" well.

 

[Raiden]

I don't see the problem with that to be honest. It then becomes about which film is better. If there's genuine compeition it means more emphasis will be placed on ensuring the films are top notch. A big reason why so many blockbuster movies suck is because of there's nothing preventing a studio from releasing a piece of ****, if there's competition chances are an effort is going to be made to make sure the film is better. Does it mean fewer $100 million openings? Yep. But as I always say if the film is good people will see it.

Studios want to avoid each other's tentpole movies so they can ensure that they will have minimal amount of competition in their OW. If STID had opened a mere week after IM3 and it performed below expectation, some heads will roll for that decision. At least they can now blame the 4-year wait for STID's poor performance than anything else.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Transformers and Ironman did almost twice that amount with less money(according to some reports anyways).
And they weren't sequels to a some established franchises.

It didn't do "that" well.

It actually did very well when you consider all the factors.

But they weren't coming off crappy sequels few people cared about. Think about the last movie that came before Star Trek 09. Star Trek Nemesis was considered to be the worst Star Trek movie made.

Not to mention it was a new cast full of unknowns.

 

[Marvin]

Relative to how it's equivalent comp did, and relative to inception...
I can't say these numbers surprise me all to much.

It wouldn't have hurt if they sold it around the most infamous character in star trek lore going in. That would have at least pushed it over the previous films opening.

 

[jmc]

Studios want to avoid each other's tentpole movies so they can ensure that they will have minimal amount of competition in their OW. If STID had opened a mere week after IM3 and it performed below expectation, some heads will roll for that decision. At least they can now blame the 4-year wait for STID's poor performance than anything else.

And heads aren't going to roll now? The studio was projecting over $100 million, it opened below the previous film. They gave IM3 two free weeks, IM3 was always going to be front loaded and was never going to have the same return business as Avengers, they should have released it the following week. Now they've got Fast 6 coming out.