Star Trek into Darkness Box Office Prediction Thread

[Bruce Malone]

I said this along time ago when its release date was set but 4 years is just too long of a wait between sequels for a brand new franchise/franchise reboot.

They should have struck while the iron was still hot. 3 years is usually the max time you'd want between the first film and its 1st sequel. After that the audience looses interest.

 

[BestGirl]

You'll have to explain that one.

Abrams refused to even say Cumberbatch's character name for the longest time, plus Super 8 had highly mysterious marketing. Nolan, I believe, has said that he'd rather show as little as possible to the audience before they see the movie. Even Snyder denied for the longest time that Zod was the villain in MOS. It just irritates me a little, after a while.

 

[jmc]

I said this along time ago when its release date was set but 4 years is just too long of a wait between sequels for a brand new franchise/franchise reboot.

They should have struck while the iron was still hot. 3 years is usually the max time you'd want between the first film and its 1st sequel. After that the audience looses interest.

James Bond had 4 years, he hit a billion.

 

[BestGirl]

James Bond had 4 years, he hit a billion.

I guess we can only assume that Trek isn't as popular or cool as Bond. ST probably has to do everything right in order to get a hit while Bond can coast to some extent.

 

[Bruce Malone]

James Bond had 4 years, he hit a billion.

No, you're missing what i'm saying. It would be like if they waited 4 years after CR to release QoS, or 4 years between Begins and TDK.

Once you've already stablished the new series you can have longer gaps but 4 years is too long of a wait from the 1st film to its first sequel. Just when you've got the audience all excited about this brand new series boom they have to wait 4 years.

 

[jmc]

No, you're missing what i'm saying. It would be like if they waited 4 years after CR to release QoS, or 4 years between Begins and TDK.

Once you've already stablished the new series you can have longer gaps but 4 years is too long of a wait from the 1st film to its first sequel. Just when you've got the audience all excited about this brand new series boom they have to wait 4 years.

I don't buy that to be honest, I just think Trek isn't nearly as popular as we all think it is, in spite of it being a reboot that so far has been critically acclaimed.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I guess we can only assume that Trek isn't as popular or cool as Bond. ST probably has to do everything right in order to get a hit while Bond can coast to some extent.

Not really. Bond didn't coast. They played up the 50th and Skyfall in conjunction for a whole year. Paid great dividends at the box office. No one saw Skyfall pulling what it did before release. It was a great movie with even greater marketing.

 

[Liam_H]

I have no problem with the mystery box Abrams employs and to an extent Nolan does. As long as its worth it, so many fans had already suspected who Cumberbatch was playing. So to market him so heavily to the GA they should've just actually used his name because it has recognition. Plus the reveal in the movie had hardly any weight in the story since no one knew who he was.

 

[jmc]

I guess we can only assume that Trek isn't as popular or cool as Bond. ST probably has to do everything right in order to get a hit while Bond can coast to some extent.

Bond has broad appeal, ST has always been somewhat niche, even though Abrams has turned that around somewhat it's clearly not this sleeping giant of cinema that I think many of us assume (myself included to some extent). There's only so much blame that can be placed on the marketing and competition. It's a follow up to a successful relaunch, is equally critically acclaimed as its predecessor and yet the market shows very little increase in audience which to me is more an indication of peoples tastes. Everyone likes Iron Man, everyone loves Fast and Furious, Star Trek is still an acquired taste in spite of it being given Star Wars like treatment.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

The underperformance boils down the fact that....

Star Trek still isn't as mainstream as we thought, even with these more hip/ modern movies.

The gap between sequels was to long. This maybe should have came out in 2011 or 2012.

Or three it just came out during a crowded month at the movies. I mean this month alone has Iron man 3, Great Gatsby, Fast and Furious 6, Hangover Part 3, and After Earth. They probably should have pushed this back until June or July for more breathing room in terms of movie blockbusters.

 

[terry78]

yeah, I went back to see Gatsby again today and I casually walked into ST playing in the next theatre. Gatsby was close to full, the Trek theatre was like maybe 40% occupied. It'll make its budget back and some change, but it's not a sold out extravaganza.

 

[Cannikin]

The underperformance boils down the fact that....

Star Trek still isn't as mainstream as we thought, even with these more hip/ modern movies.

The gap between sequels was to long. This maybe should have came out in 2011 or 2012.

Or three it just came out during a crowded month at the movies. I mean this month alone has Iron man 3, Great Gatsby, Fast and Furious 6, Hangover Part 3, and After Earth. They probably should have pushed this back until June or July for more breathing room in terms of movie blockbusters.

Or he's alienated a good chunk of Trek's audience with the liberties he takes leaving only the extra people that popcorn movies attract.

Abrams is fond of saying that you can't make a Star Trek movie for Star Trek fans, but can you make Star Trek successful after driving them away? Not likely, but I guess we'll see.

 

[Raiden]

Bond has broad appeal, ST has always been somewhat niche, even though Abrams has turned that around somewhat it's clearly not this sleeping giant of cinema that I think many of us assume (myself included to some extent). There's only so much blame that can be placed on the marketing and competition. It's a follow up to a successful relaunch, is equally critically acclaimed as its predecessor and yet the market shows very little increase in audience which to me is more an indication of peoples tastes. Everyone likes Iron Man, everyone loves Fast and Furious, Star Trek is still an acquired taste in spite of it being given Star Wars like treatment.

And I think Star Trek will remain in a niche market, given how much the traditionalists within the ST fandom have slammed Abrams' vision for pushing Star Trek toward more of a mass appeal than the science fiction and technobabbling that they were familiar with the franchise. This is also why Star Trek have never really performed well oversea, because the foreign audience could not grasp the 50+ years of canon behind it.

 

[TheVileOne]

I don't think its a valid comparison. Quantum of Solace was not as well received. Sometimes a longer rest works out better after a disappointing sequel.

Star Trek was a nice phenomenon in 2009. It was the biggest Trek movie ever. I think they did wait too long to build off the momentum.

 

[terry78]

This sequel honestly should have hit in 2012.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

This sequel honestly should have hit in 2012.

Yea definitely. But really it should have came out in 2011. The first movie came out in 2009 same summer as Hangover 1. The sequel to hangover came out in 2011. JJ should have did the same and skipped doing Super 8 and just did Star Trek sequel.

 

[Raiden]

Or he's alienated a good chunk of Trek's audience with the liberties he takes leaving only the extra people that popcorn movies attract.

Abrams is fond of saying that you can't make a Star Trek movie for Star Trek fans, but can you make Star Trek successful after driving them away? Not likely, but I guess we'll see.

Do you still remember that there were no movies after Nemesis, and no new series after Enterprise, until the success of ST09? I think the fan base had burnt out on Star Trek, and if not for Abrams the franchise would've stagnated. You guys should've given him more credit.

 

[terry78]

I think the three year gap would have managed. Four years was pushing it. Batman managed it only because it's Batman.

 

[TheVileOne]

Fours years is too long for a franchise like this, I agree. I think three would've been fine.

I don't think you can blame CBS and LACK marketing.

When I turn on the TV it's nonstop Star Trek ads right now. The media blitz was there. I think parts of the way they marketed it was the problem.

All the secrets and pretending who Cumberbatch was, IMHO a stupid failure.

 

[jmc]

Do you still remember that there were no movies after Nemesis, and no new series after Enterprise, until the success of ST09? I think the fan base had burnt out on Star Trek, and if not for Abrams the franchise would've stagnated. You guys should've given him more credit.

Abrams deserves a lot of credit for at least getting Star Trek to a level where it's at least got a decent future. Does the 4 years break hurt? I still struggle to believe it's a big factor given Star Trek has always been in the public conscious for 50 years and the last film was such a success, the issue is the series still hasn't been able to crack widespread appeal outside sci-fi and casual fans which has always been an issue for the franchise. Abrams has done the best job of trying to break through that wall but it might be a case of too little too late. I assumed a TDK style affect was going to happen especially when the glowing reviews came in for In2D, but at the end of the days sci-fi is still very much an acquired taste. Superheroes, fast cars, giant robots, everyone loves those, space ships for whatever reason just don't have the same appeal, Star Wars being the exception to the rule. I think people are just going to have to be content with Star Trek's place in cinema, it's never going to be a mega franchise that grosses $800-900million, at best the series is going to be a mid-level player and perhaps it's time we all accept it. As long as the series is treated with care its future should be ok.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I still hold that the 4 years wait played a role. I was all about the 1st one when it came out but honestly maybe a year or 2 ago i just stopped being that excited about it and kinda forgot it to be honest.

ST09's success was about living in the moment and was probably one of the few films that would have benefited from a fast tracked sequel.

 

[danoyse]

Or he's alienated a good chunk of Trek's audience with the liberties he takes leaving only the extra people that popcorn movies attract.

Abrams is fond of saying that you can't make a Star Trek movie for Star Trek fans, but can you make Star Trek successful after driving them away? Not likely, but I guess we'll see.

Are you speaking for all of them now? Did I miss a meeting?

All of the Star Trek fans I know loved the movie. I know there are fans who don't like it, but don't presume that its a majority.

 

[jmc]

I still hold that the 4 years wait played a role. I was all about the 1st one when it came out but honestly maybe a year or 2 ago i just stopped being that excited about it and kinda forgot it to be honest.

ST09's success was about living in the moment and was probably one of the few films that would have benefited from a fast tracked sequel.

That doesn't mean it would have necessarily worked in the films favour though. It's one thing to say they should have released this film at this or that time but the results may have been for the worse. Fast tracking doesn't always work for the better, look at it this way do we want a film that makes just a crap ton of money or a good film that's as successful as its original story wise and financially?

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

I don't buy the 4 year gap theory either, I just think Trek's place in the pop culture canon is overrated by some. I'm not convinced releasing it a year ago would have made a tangibe difference. I definitely prefer Trek (classic Trek) to Star Wars, but I also know that the next SW film will likely make more in it's first ten days then Into Darkness will make it's entire run.

Big fan of director's trying to keep things as close to the vest as possible. Why people need to know every little detail about a film before it's release is beyond me. No wonder cinema is dying, people are becoming cynical towards the experience.

 

[psylockolussus]

Once you've already stablished the new series you can have longer gaps but 4 years is too long of a wait from the 1st film to its first sequel. Just when you've got the audience all excited about this brand new series boom they have to wait 4 years.

I agree with this.