Star Trek into Darkness Box Office Prediction Thread

[Cannikin]

I didn't say his opinion isn't valid, I said he's attitude toward the film comes across as venomous.

I understand. My emotions about it are pretty strong too. I've done my best to hold back.

 

[DKDetective]

I didn't say his opinion isn't valid, I said he's attitude toward the film comes across as venomous.

I know a handful of my posts have been a little too emotional (I think it can happen when anyone is a fan of anything for 20+ years), but I think the majority of them have tried to be detached and I've tried very hard to mention the film's positives and acknowledge that I can understand why others like it and that is only based on my preference and what I personally believe to be good Trek.

 

[Liam_H]

Before the film came out, I was expecting a big $800M-$1B worldwide gross for the pic. After seeing it and reading other opinions, $500M worldwide is the ceiling for this (which is pretty good but not great). Too much competition the next week also plays a factor. Unless STID holds well in the next two weeks, I think it'll be one of the more disappointing box office runs for Paramount.

I'm gonna go with the low end cause $1 billion just doesn't seem plausible. So to get $800 million WW you would have to anticipate a huge bump domestically and internationally. If you go right down the middle and $400M from each that's still really hard.

 

[Anita18]

I believe that people who are saying the marketing as well as the 4 year gap is the reason why this film is underperforming have a sound argument. Star Trek exceeded expectations in 2009. It achieved what Paramount, Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof wanted; a Trek film that would be accessible to the masses. The film's marketing campaign was spectacular. The teasers and trailers released were fantastic. At the box office, it made more than people expected. The DVD/rental sales were damn good.

For this film, Abrams kept bulls***tin' and let the momentum from 2009 fade away. The marketing wasn't too good at all. People who are comparing Abrams's secrecy to Nolan's are forgetting a few things. First off, Nolan is Nolan. We all know The Dark Knight made over a billion at the box office without 3D to boost the revenue. If people thought that was a fluke, look at the monster numbers that Inception did. And about the 4 year gap, The Dark Knight Rises was a success because it is the winning formula of Batman + Nolan. The momentum also wasn't going to die because the prequel grossed over a billion and was a critical darling. For Skyfall, it was the insane marketing campaign (one example being it's promotion during the Olympics) that helped it gross over a billion.

Paramount and Abrams failed to capitalize on the hype that Star Trek (2009) generated. They also failed to market this film well. Abrams doesn't have the pull of Nolan and even if he did, the Batman films at least heavily marketed their films and highlighted the villain to appeal to the audience. It's unfortunate too. This film could have defeated the stigma that Star Trek has. It is the same stigma now that Batman Begins had to overcome in 2005. It performed modestly and generated enough hype for The Dark Knight to arrive and destroy the stigma.

I actually think that Abrams might be as renowned as Nolan, if we're going by sheer name recognition. But I think the biggest mistake was releasing it 4 years after the first exceeded expectations. Star Trek is not a known brand, so you have to keep people interested. In 2005, Batman was a known brand but was known more for stinker movies, so when BB broke that trend, they rode its momentum (even if BB made less money adjusted than ST09) and well, TDK happened.

Because of TDK, TDKR could afford the 4-year gap. There's no question that the shooting had more effect on the box office than the gap. Nobody forgot about TDK in those 4 years. (And nobody sane believed that TDKR could make more money than TDK - $400 million is nothing to sneeze at.)

ST09 did well, but was not a phenomenon like TDK and didn't have that luxury. They really should have timed it better, or gotten on JJ's case to hurry up with Super 8.

It's just disappointing that a movie seemingly firing on all cylinders has to fall victim to a timing issue...

 

[Warhammer]

I actually think that Abrams might be as renowned as Nolan, if we're going by sheer name recognition. But I think the biggest mistake was releasing it 4 years after the first exceeded expectations. Star Trek is not a known brand, so you have to keep people interested. In 2005, Batman was a known brand but was known more for stinker movies, so when BB broke that trend, they rode its momentum (even if BB made less money adjusted than ST09) and well, TDK happened.

Because of TDK, TDKR could afford the 4-year gap. There's no question that the shooting had more effect on the box office than the gap. Nobody forgot about TDK in those 4 years. (And nobody sane believed that TDKR could make more money than TDK - $400 million is nothing to sneeze at.)

ST09 did well, but was not a phenomenon like TDK and didn't have that luxury. They really should have timed it better, or gotten on JJ's case to hurry up with Super 8.

It's just disappointing that a movie seemingly firing on all cylinders has to fall victim to a timing issue...

It is unfortunate. Paramount will pay for it but let's be serious now. The release date was another killer. Even if this film had made that extra 15 million that Paramount wanted, it will be eaten alive next week by two new films that will open big as well as having Iron Man continuing to undercut. Also, Star Trek doesn't do well at all internationally. The other three I just mentioned above have already or will make serious money internationally.

Mid-May was a death sentence.

 

[Blade X]

What would they go to? The old trek films that made a quarter the box office of the abrams one's?

2 possible middle ground solutions.

1. Reboot the franchise again with the current cast (as either a cold reboot or through another time altering plot) that restores the previous continuity with some minor changes, and combine elements of NEW TREK with OLD TREK. Have new original adventures pick right up after the original TV series ended and have the movies be more about exploration and facing strange new hostile alien tyrants,terrifying vicious alien monsters,and/or dangerous rogue artificial intelligent weapons from long gone ancient alien civilizations. Throw in some thought provoking commentary/dialogue with lot of fast pace action/special effects and they might be able to appeal to both new and old fans of TREK.

2. Create a new spinoff TREK movie that focuses on a brand new cast of characters and has nothing to do with space exploration and is more action oriented. This new TREK movie could be either about Federation law enforcement agents ,bounty hunters,or mercenaries.

 

[jmc]

The franchise isn't in any trouble for gods sake, it's just not as big as some of us wish it were. It's time to wake up people, it's not the 4 year gap, it's not the release date, it's just Star Trek has, is and always will be niche.

 

[DKDetective]

The franchise isn't in any trouble for gods sake, it's just not as big as some of us wish it were. It's time to wake up people, it's not the 4 year gap, it's not the release date, it's just Star Trek has, is and always will be niche.

I think you should re-read your own signature because blaming the film's under-performance on Trek being Trek seems like a cop-out excuse. As many thoughtful analyses here have indicated, there are many factors and possible poor decisions that may have limited the film's box office - the long wait and failing to strike while the iron was hot, Abram's mystery box marketing and failing to exploit you know who's role in the film, releasing the film shortly after Iron Man 3, etc. Bad Robot and Paramount probably screwed up.

 

[Bruce Malone]

The franchise isn't in any trouble for gods sake, it's just not as big as some of us wish it were. It's time to wake up people, it's not the 4 year gap, it's not the release date, it's just Star Trek has, is and always will be niche.

You're wrong about that at least with regards to the last trek film. It broke through the niche mold to create it's own new franchise essentially, "nu-trek".

That film with inflation made about $270 million domestically, that's far from niche that's as mainstream as you can get for a new/re-booted franchise.

It just failed to capitalize on what they opened up and created. That audience for Trek09 was probably 70% non-original trek fans, that was the audience they should have held onto regardless of the original trek brand.

 

[jmc]

I think you should re-read your own signature because blaming the film's under-performance on Trek being Trek seems like a cop-out excuse. As many thoughtful analyses here have indicated, there are many factors and possible poor decisions that may have limited the film's box office - the long wait and failing to strike while the iron was hot, Abram's mystery box marketing and failing to exploit you know who's role in the film, releasing the film shortly after Iron Man 3, etc. Bad Robot and Paramount probably screwed up.

My signature is in reference to bad film making not bad marketing or small appeal.

 

[jmc]

You're wrong about that at least with regards to the last trek film. It broke through the niche mold to create it's own new franchise essentially, "nu-trek".

That film with inflation made about $270 million domestically, that's far from niche that's as mainstream as you can get for a new/re-booted franchise.

It just failed to capitalize on what they opened up and created. That audience for Trek09 was probably 70% non-original trek fans, that was the audience they should have held onto regardless of the original trek brand.

But clearly that $270 is the best case scenario for the series. It's never going to be this massive billion dollar thing like Star Wars is and will be again. It might be more popular than it was, but it's appeal is still relatively small compared to the competition around it. Just be happy it's not failing and accept the franchise is never going to be a massive player in the film world.

 

[Cannikin]

Just be happy it's not failing and accept the franchise is never going to be a massive player in the film world.

That's ok by me. It was the studio executives that wanted to take it to the big screen back in the 70s. It was always about squeezing money out of it. I understand that's the name of the business...but still. Star Trek is at it's best on TV. My hope is to get it back on there.

 

[danoyse]

I usually point out that their smart phones, computers and ipads (among other common gadgets) were invented by "that kind of nerd" and inspired by technology seen on Star Trek, along with most of our astronauts and physicists falling into the same category. Then I ask them to tell me what Dr Who and Star Wars fans have contributed to the world.

And I'm sure that being talked down to like that wins them over every time.

 

[Tony Stark]

I love that Discovery series Shatner did on "how I changed the world", or something like that. It plays to the self deprecating humor of Shatner's implied self inflated ego, while at the same time tells us a lot of the truths about our culture.

Back in 2006, I had a motorolla razor flip phone and I changed the ring tone to the Star Trek communicator beeping sound.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

You're wrong about that at least with regards to the last trek film. It broke through the niche mold to create it's own new franchise essentially, "nu-trek".

That film with inflation made about $270 million domestically, that's far from niche that's as mainstream as you can get for a new/re-booted franchise.

It just failed to capitalize on what they opened up and created. That audience for Trek09 was probably 70% non-original trek fans, that was the audience they should have held onto regardless of the original trek brand.

Bingo.

Nobody is happy with these domestic numbers. Guarantee someone gets fired and replaced for Star Trek 3 (No worries, it will happen). Only reason its over-performing overseas is the 3D/IMAX surcharges.

You don't make $260M domestic off a cult/niche audience. Absolute non-sense. The reboot broke the mold and widened their appeal for the first time since The Voyage Home (more so I'd argue). Them dropping the ball is more on them and their awful approach to marketing and less on the product itself, despite the fact I myself hated Into Darkness.

 

[mclay18]

But clearly that $270 is the best case scenario for the series. It's never going to be this massive billion dollar thing like Star Wars is and will be again. It might be more popular than it was, but it's appeal is still relatively small compared to the competition around it.

I think STID's middling performance is due to several factors -- but its niche factor isn't one of them. Someone listed them already (highly competitive month, Abrams' OCD secrecy, et al)... but it's pretty clear that studios need to spread these blockbusters out over the year rather than concentrating on the summer/fall season. Releasing four big movies in one month will cannibalize one another.

Paramount could've taken a leaf from Universal's book by releasing STID during a slower month. This past April was slow, and something like STID would've cleaned up big time and have several weeks to itself (as opposed to a week). It wouldn't have aided the marketing or the film's script problems, but helped its box office cume.

 

[Frodo]

Yeah , I do think that it coming out a couple weeks after Iron Man 3 and the unexpected hit Gatsby did sort of suck a bit of the air out of the room. Its also got Fast and Furious a week behind it.

I also agree with the consensus about the 4 year gap and the marketing of the film hurt it.

 

[Tony Stark]

Sorry but I'm not buying the excuses. First off, I never bought this 120-140M 4 day opening. However this film had a lower attendance than the first film, and that's not because the film "hit the ceiling" so to speak.

I don't think expecting a 95-100M opening is asking too much, that's not much of an audience boost, plus inflation costs and 3D costs.

Maybe this film will have some legs, and hopefully so. But expecting the film to keep it's core audience isn't asking much.

And to those that think the 4 year layoff didn't hurt the film, you must be living in a cardboard box. Paramount dropped the ball on this one.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I have to agree with Tony Stark. I didn't expect the 2009 film to lose so much of its audience. I think the four year gap and the marketing may have had something to do with it all. The marketing made the film appear to me as if most of the movie takes place on earth, which doesn't really seem like a "space" movie. The 2009 trailers had more space action featured, I think.

But also, I wonder if the Star Wars Episode VII announcement hurt the film. To be hoenst, ST 2009 scratched an itch that many Star Wars fans had for more movies in that vein. It was very similar to SW in a lot of respects. With the announcement of more movies coming, are said fans going to go see ST or just wait on it to come out on DVD? I mean, we shifted from "no more SW ever" to "SW movies coming soon." Honestly I think the announcement may have stolen some of nu-Trek's thunder.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

And to those that think the 4 year layoff didn't hurt the film, you must be living in a cardboard box. Paramount dropped the ball on this one.

That's more on Abrams than Paramount.

 

[Tony Stark]

That's more on Abrams than Paramount.

It's the studio's responsibility to negotiate with the director. The studio sets the time table for the film. Sure they have to schedule it with Abrams, but you basically tell him "the movie is coming out in 2011 or 2012", and you make the director fit schedule or you find another director.

And yes the film would have faced competition in those years, but no one said the film had to come out in May of those years. Hunger games proved you can have a big opening in March, and Fast and Furious proved you can have a big opening in April.

 

[terry78]

Basically at this point the movie has made enough to warrant a sequel, now Paramount just has to decide what the **** they're going to do regarding the third one.

 

[ThePhantasm]

The tough thing will be to keep the cast around much longer if the films keep missing the mark of studio expectations. If the film had been a huge smash hit that would be something else, but I can't see the cast deciding to stay around for more than two more films.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

It's the studio's responsibility to negotiate with the director. The studio sets the time table for the film. Sure they have to schedule it with Abrams, but you basically tell him "the movie is coming out in 2011 or 2012", and you make the director fit schedule or you find another director.

He had first right to refusal and stopped movement cold (including rejecting pitches from his writers) till the negotiations went his way.

You're letting Abrams off the hook when he bares responsibility. He flat out admitted to the press (on Howard Stern, for one) Paramount was upset with him for waiting this long to make the sequel.

 

[Soapy]

The tough thing will be to keep the cast around much longer if the films keep missing the mark of studio expectations. If the film had been a huge smash hit that would be something else, but I can't see the cast deciding to stay around for more than two more films.

Agreed. And I think that's the most interesting thing about these new movies; Where do they take the series once the main cast are gone?