Star Trek into Darkness Box Office Prediction Thread

[J.Howlett]

Paramount is not missing the 50th Anniversary of Trek in 2016. The 3rd film will be out Summer 2016. Bank on that one.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

2016.

 

[rayc1971]

I can see the actors sticking around for a 3rd film so we have a trilogy then after that why not reboot the next generation cast for a new trilogy

 

[warhorse78]

I would safely venture a guess that we've made enough to warrant another...all should be well. I'm just hoping if they do move forward that the wait isn't as long this time around...

I think they need to just find another time of year to release it in. I think it would do gangbusters in a November release. The summer months are too crowded, and it was released too close to that juggernaut IM3.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Paramount is not missing the 50th Anniversary of Trek in 2016. The 3rd film will be out Summer 2016. Bank on that one.

Possibly Christmas.

 

[Doc Ock]

Paramount is not missing the 50th Anniversary of Trek in 2016. The 3rd film will be out Summer 2016. Bank on that one.

I just hope by some miracle JJ can be involved and have his final Trek adventure before someone new comes along.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I just hope by some miracle JJ can be involved and have his final Trek adventure before someone new comes along.

Just can't see it happening. Would be far to close to SW in terms of production. Can't imagine him jumping right from one to the other.

 

[Cantis1]

Man, I hope this movie made enough for a sequel! I really need another one!

 

[chaseter]

It's right around its break even point WW so I think it's considered a critical and financial success. We will see a third. JJ won't direct but I bet he produces.

 

[Octoberist]

It's around 430 million world-wide which beats the WW of the original (385). While it didn't make as much as the original film in the US (thankfully it made it past it's budget at least), it made a whole lot more internationally than the previous, so that's a success.

I think it's a moderate success but not the gangbusters numbers that Paramount wanted. But it did make it's money back (plus ads) and has an 87% on Rotten Tomato, it's far from a failure.

I think we have to consider that most of the Star Trek movies never made this much money till JJ took over. Even if it's not 'gangbusters', it's destroying the box office results of the 'Next Generation' movies by far.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I think this is one of the cases where Paramount will weigh the pluses and negatives of whether another sequel will be worth it or not? especially if it means a bigger budget once more.

They may just be happy they were able to make a profit again and not try to push their luck?

Although, the first stark trek movie got made due to star wars mania so if SW7 kicks off a new wave of sci-fi acceptance we might see a similar effect?

 

[Octoberist]

No they will make another one. It made money and it was well received. They just have to realize that a Star Trek movie will never do 'over 700 Million' gangbusters, especially when Star Wars comes back.

You're right though. Star Trek 2009 was a hit because 'Star Wars' was a done franchise and people were hungry for that type of film again. It captured the spirit of the original films, which made it seem fresh and nostalgic at the same time. Think of it as their 'sci-fi space opera filler'.

But with Star Wars coming back, NOW WITH JJ ABRAMS, I think to some ignorant people's eyes a new Star Trek may seem redundant.

 

[Octoberist]

It's like this: Your Dream Girl (Star Wars) is taken, so you settle for your Second Choice Girl (Star Trek). It's fun for a while, but once Dream Girl becomes available, you dump poor Second Choice at the flip of a switch to pursue her. Jerk!

I can't speak for all, but I think that's how the general public and bandwagoners may react.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Yeah there probably is going to be another sequel. Paramount's likely going to hedge their bets and figure this is about as close to our star wars as we can get?

 

[chaseter]

It's around 430 million world-wide which beats the WW of the original (385). While it didn't make as much as the original film in the US (thankfully it made it past it's budget at least), it made a whole lot more internationally than the previous, so that's a success.

I think it's a moderate success but not the gangbusters numbers that Paramount wanted. But it did make it's money back (plus ads) and has an 87% on Rotten Tomato, it's far from a failure.

I think we have to consider that most of the Star Trek movies never made this much money till JJ took over. Even if it's not 'gangbusters', it's destroying the box office results of the 'Next Generation' movies by far.

It also cost $40 mil more to make. It's right around that breaking point but DVD sales will be good. Usually 2x budget domestic or 2.5-3x WW are the successful movies at the box office.

 

[DarkKnight88]

If they can advertise the third film for the 50th anniversary like they did with Skyfall, they can really go where no Trek film has gone before. Rebooted series where the first was beloved, the second not as loved and the third knocking it out of the park.

 

[Sawyer]

Into Darkness was a ****load better than Quantum of Solace, though.

 

[danoyse]

Into Darkness was a ****load better than Quantum of Solace, though.

Yup.

 

[Mr. Dent]

If they can advertise the third film for the 50th anniversary like they did with Skyfall, they can really go where no Trek film has gone before. Rebooted series where the first was beloved, the second not as loved and the third knocking it out of the park.

James Bond has always been 10x bigger than Trek so that's a bad comparison.

 

[rayc1971]

these movies would make more money in nov and December why do they stick them in the summer

 

[MrMaooz]

Well actually, the first one was slated for December 2008.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think the movie has definately made enough for a sequel to be greenlit, though its not my decision of course. I think waiting until 2016, other than the 50th anniversary thing, is a must, it will be at least a year after the new SW film in cinemas, and at least another 6 months from the BD/DVD release as well that general people would have had their fill.

Then ST3 can come along and make its money and we will see what happens from there.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I think it's almost 2016 or never for a sequel. Aside from the 50th anniversary tie-in potential you'd think they'd have learned that waiting more than 3 years between sequels is probably not great for business?

I can't see them bothering past that date.

 

[Picard Sisko]

It's around 430 million world-wide which beats the WW of the original (385). While it didn't make as much as the original film in the US (thankfully it made it past it's budget at least), it made a whole lot more internationally than the previous, so that's a success.

I think it's a moderate success but not the gangbusters numbers that Paramount wanted. But it did make it's money back (plus ads) and has an 87% on Rotten Tomato, it's far from a failure.

I think we have to consider that most of the Star Trek movies never made this much money till JJ took over. Even if it's not 'gangbusters', it's destroying the box office results of the 'Next Generation' movies by far.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture earned $139 million worldwide during its run in 1979. With inflation, that would be equal to over $400 million today.

 

[breadtalk]

the big come back was really in its perfect timing...