Star Trek into Darkness Box Office Prediction Thread

[terry78]

Would they dare bring it back to tv?

 

[Soapy]

God, I wish. I think that's where it's at its best. Television can be a lot more character-driven and allows for quieter and more thoughtful moments/episodes. They're not under pressure to make it all action all the time the way big budget films often are.

 

[KangConquers]

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.

A 190 M budgeted film likely has an additional 60-70 M advertising budget. We're looking at at least $250 M total budget. Given that the studio only recoups 1/2 of each ticket, this film won't see profit until the $500 M mark, which it may not hit.

 

[The Caped Knight]

Star Trek Into Darkness grossed $84.1 million at the North American box office between Wednesday and Sunday, according to Paramount Pictures, and was the number one movie in the country. Meanwhile, Star Trek Into Darkness continued to open internationally, grossing more than $40 million over the weekend, which brought the film's international tally to $80.5 million and counting. Total worldwide cume to date is $164.6 million.

http://www.startrek.com/article/star-trek-into-darkness-worldwide-cume-up-to-164-6-million


Ok so it's not a record breaking opening BO, but still that's a lot of money and as you can see it's climbing up so the studio will make back it's profits and no doubt the home release blu-ray in September or October will see a huge sales as well.

 

[Mikelus]

Is not really a surprise, Star Trek is not as popular as other franchises. People seem to prefer more mediocre movies like Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean... maybe is not fair, but that's the reality of things.

 

[KangConquers]

This film was supposed to represent an upturn in Star Trek's fortunes. While I don't think a Batman Begins > Dark Knight-esque rise was expected, I think many of us were expecting this to show significant sequel growth. $300 M domestic wasn't out of the question, and foreign gross at least doubling, possibly tripling, was on the table. Instead, this film will have to crawl towards breaking even.

So yes, this turn of events is actually a "surprise." Almost every single source in America predicted that Star Trek would be one of the leaders this Summer.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Could it be that the numbers we're seeing reflect more of the mainstream audience left over from 2009 and the deficit is coming from hardcore Trekkies who are offended by the Khan retread?

I say this because J.J. & Co. worked really hard to make everyone believe Cumberbatch wasn't playng Khan and I personally know some fans who were annoyed by the truth (revealed recently via spoilers) and stayed home.

 

[Doctor Jones]

This film was supposed to represent an upturn in Star Trek's fortunes. While I don't think a Batman Begins > Dark Knight-esque rise was expected, I think many of us were expecting this to show significant sequel growth. $300 M domestic wasn't out of the question, and foreign gross at least doubling, possibly tripling, was on the table. Instead, this film will have to crawl towards breaking even.

So yes, this turn of events is actually a "surprise." Almost every single source in America predicted that Star Trek would be one of the leaders this Summer.

Did this really have high expectations? Because this isn't entirely surprising. Not to mean it's suppose to be, but was it underperforming ever a possibility to these people?

 

[terry78]

God, I wish. I think that's where it's at its best. Television can be a lot more character-driven and allows for quieter and more thoughtful moments/episodes. They're not under pressure to make it all action all the time the way big budget films often are.

I'd like to see if Viacom would ever think about bringing a new Trek series back to its original CBS slot. They're like the only network that doesn't have any sci-fi.

 

[danoyse]

Could it be that the numbers we're seeing reflect more of the mainstream audience left over from 2009 and the deficit is coming from hardcore Trekkies who are offended by the Khan retread?

I say this because J.J. & Co. worked really hard to make everyone believe Cumberbatch wasn't playng Khan and I personally know some fans who were annoyed by the truth (revealed recently via spoilers) and stayed home.

The reveal was spoiled for me beforehand...but I was more annoyed that someone spoiled it than I was about them trying to keep it secret.

I was still as excited to see it even after knowing for sure who he really was. Frankly, it seems like a silly thing to get mad about.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

The reveal was spoiled for me beforehand...but I was more annoyed that someone spoiled it than I was about them trying to keep it secret.

I was still as excited to see it even after knowing for sure who he really was. Frankly, it seems like a silly thing to get mad about.

Agreed. But Trekkies can be a very sensitive bunch.

 

[danoyse]

Agreed. But Trekkies can be a very sensitive bunch.

I know...and I've been a Star Trek fan for 30 years. Beats me what they're up in arms about, at least as far as the bad guy reveal is concerned.

 

[danoyse]

Some hardcore Trekkies get offended when you change ANYTHING. I've heard so many of them rail against the first movie.

Personally, I'm GLAD that hated it, and I hope they f***ing hate this one too. Those dorks are the reason I used to be embarrassed to admit I like Star Trek.

We've got a few Trek fans here who disliked the movie, and they're more than entitled to...so let's tone down the hate mail a little bit, OK?

And hardcore fans of anything may not react well to change. You only need to visit the Mandirin discussions on the Iron Man 3 forum to realize that.

 

[danoyse]

And now, posts start getting deleted.

People need to quit bashing "hardcore Trekkies", or whatever else you want to call someone with a different opinion than yours.

I don't care what kind of a fan you are. The name-calling, or telling others to "grow up" is simply not acceptable.

 

[DarKush]

Could it be that the numbers we're seeing reflect more of the mainstream audience left over from 2009 and the deficit is coming from hardcore Trekkies who are offended by the Khan retread?

I say this because J.J. & Co. worked really hard to make everyone believe Cumberbatch wasn't playng Khan and I personally know some fans who were annoyed by the truth (revealed recently via spoilers) and stayed home.

Interesting theory. I'm a hardcore fan and I was highly annoyed by the Khan reveal. Going into the film I was hoping that wasn't going to turn out to be the case. And I got doubly pissed when they lifted lines straight from Wrath of Khan. All that being said, I did watch the film a second time.

There's a lot going for it but the Khan and TWOK thing still rankles for me. Looking at an article from The Wrap I don't think it was an issue of old fans not showing up. There was a lower number of younger people showing up, according to a recent report.

https://www.thewrap.com/movies/arti...nger-audience-fast-furious-hangover-III-92796

If this report is accurate the issue isn't old fans not showing up. It's just that not enough new fans are showing up. I think the four year wait didn't help the film. Diehard Trek fans were willing to wait for years but casual or new fans were not. Paramount/CBS appear not to have done enough to keep the momentum from 2009 going at least enough to get the opening box office receipts they were hoping for.

 

[danoyse]

On a related note, any hardcore Trekkies that decide to educate the rest in a 'holier than thou' sort of way will also see their posts deleted.

It's a big universe, we can certainly all live in it together, despite our differences.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Actually most of the Trek fan-base loved the reboot. So pegging it on "Oh they hate change" is both lazy and ill-informed. I'm a causal fan and I hated Into Darkness, and love Star Trek (2009). If they're not liking it, maybe its because it goes against the entire reasoning behind how and why they restarted everything.

The sky was the limit at the end of Trek (2009). They could go anywhere. Do anything. Go to new planets we hadn't seen before. Fight brand new villains. They weren't hampered by continuity anymore.

Spoiler

So what did they do? Use Khan and retread the most famous moments and lines from the most famous Star Trek movie blended together with one of the writer's crazed anti-American politics, a la 9/11 being an inside job.

So lazy and half-assed was Into Darkness there is a scene where Spock calls up his older self. For the purpose of explaining how evil Khan is supposed to be. He says "You know I took an oath not to tell you your future." Despite the crucial li'l item of old Spock literally doing that in the first movie (to Kirk, Spock and Scotty) and the fact that it's irrelevant if he knows. Since this is a new timeline with a new course of events that he can't foresee.

And let's not even get into how they ****ed up what was otherwise a beautifully-acted and moving moment. The death of Kirk and Spock fighting back emotion. But no they had to have him scream, "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!"

 

[DarKush]

^
I think it's real tough to pigeon hole hardcore Trek fans. I liked Trek 2009 but I've read a lot of comments from fans who are probably even deeper into Trek than me who didn't. And while I didn't care for Into Darkness ultimately, there's a lot of fans who did. And sometimes I find that the same things I disliked so intensely in the film are the things that they thought were best about it. Go figure.

I agree that the reboot in 2009 basically (and brilliantly, IMO) gave Abrams and co. the opportunity to go anywhere and do anything without laying complete waste to what had come before (the prime universe). I mean it could've been an opportunity to play with or flesh out old races that hadn't got much attention like the Gorn, Tholians, or Orions or create new adversaries. And it could've been an opportunity to do new stories and add something to Trek.

But instead they took a safe, conservative, and creatively lazy route (IMO) with Into Darkness. It was like, let's go boldly where we've been before. So to me Into Darkness sort of undermines, if not the premise, then the promise of the reboot. I thought 2009 was about getting rid of all that continuity, but Into Darkness for it to have the punch it needs requires you to be familiar with some it, a movie from 1982 and possibly a TV episode from like 1966/67. Because if you don't know who Khan is why the heck does it matter when Harrison tells the crew that's his name?

 

[DKDetective]

Both of you have hit the nail on the head. It's nice not to feel so alone in here.

 

[Rowsdower!]

I do agree that the movie had some serious plot holes and the whole "Dial up old Spock so he can tell us how to beat this guy" thing might have been the laziest bit of storytelling I've ever seen. I didn't really mind the homage scenes (though I do agree that the the "hands on the glass" moment doesn't have a tenth of the impact of the same scene in WOK).

However, I'm not sure how you can get that this movie was trying to imply that 9/11 was an inside job. Maybe one of the writers is a truther, I don't know, but all I saw was it was Trek trying to be topical (which it has always tried to do) and in this case, it was showing how some people in a position of power will exploit the fear generated by a devastating tragedy to go invade someone, regardless of whether or not they were the ones responsible. And I think we all can agree that happens.

 

[danoyse]

I do agree that the movie had some serious plot holes and the whole "Dial up old Spock so he can tell us how to beat this guy" thing might have been the laziest bit of storytelling I've ever seen. I didn't really mind the homage scenes (though I do agree that the the "hands on the glass" moment doesn't have a tenth of the impact of the same scene in WOK).

However, I'm not sure how you can get that this movie was trying to imply that 9/11 was an inside job. Maybe one of the writers is a truther, I don't know, but all I saw was it was Trek trying to be topical (which it has always tried to do) and in this case, it was showing how some people in a position of power will exploit the fear generated by a devastating tragedy to go invade someone, regardless of whether or not they were the ones responsible. And I think we all can agree that happens.

Bob Orci, who was one of the writers, is a complete jackass who posts truther and false-flag crap on Twitter (like, on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and the day of the Boston Marathon bombings ). So that's where that's from.

Slate actually just did an article about the differing political themes in the film, touching on the truther stuff, the controversy over drones, reasons for going to war in Iraq...although it pretty much concludes that the movie didn't take itself seriously enough to really make a serious statement on one side or the other: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat...allegory_latest_movie_takes_on_terrorism.html

Orci may be an idiot, but JJ Abrams is a big supporter of The Mission Continues, which is an organization dedicated to finding community service jobs for returning service men and women. It was started by a Navy SEAL who survived a suicide bombing in Iraq and actually used his own disability checks to start the foundation. They raised money for the group at the Star Trek premieres, and they're donating 100% of the proceeds from sales of the Star Trek Action Movie FX app to The Mission Continues.

Four post 9/11-veterans appeared in the film, and that's also why there's a dedication to them in the end credits.

Iron Man 3 took on a lot of the same subjects as well. Political allegory and statement making aren't exclusive because Star Trek has one jackass in their midst...especially when it wasn't a particularly original plot twist as far as Admiral Marcus' intentions are concerned.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Abrams had final approval on story and script. He knew what this was and OKed it. For that, I find him as guilty as that jackass Orci.

 

[danoyse]

There were so many sides to the story they were telling, it's really a matter of what you yourself bring to it when you watch it.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I didn't notice the truther allegory in STID.

Unlike in IM3, where I felt like they were beating me over the head with it.

 

[DKDetective]

Abrams had final approval on story and script. He knew what this was and OKed it. For that, I find him as guilty as that jackass Orci.

Just finished listening to the new MovieMoan and you all gave a great history of that issue. By the way, have you taken your dad to see the movie yet and, if so, did he end up liking it?