STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Yes and no.

Recent films, it is definitely a fair comparison. However, comparing to movies from different eras isn't (IMO). Adjusted for Inflation, "Gone With the Wind" is the highest grossing film, yet the world was a very different place when that film came out. Movies were relased multiple times over the years, and obviusly people didn't have home theater systems back then. A lot of people don't bother going to the movies these days, and wait to rent them.

Comparing ST09 to STID is very fair though.

 

Not only that, but the studio isn't finished making money off ID yet. The DVD and bluray sales are gonna be huge. ST fans always come through for the studio when it comes to home video releases. I mean, this is the group of fans who were willing to shell out $100 for a VHS copy of "The Final Frontier."

 

No.

 

I don't think it would have made a difference to casual viewers.

 

I don't know...

A tagline of "Star Trek's greatest villain returns!" in the weeks running up to release might have put some butts in theater seats.

 

Or, it could just as easily have driven butts out of the seats. If someone hasn't seen (or doesn't remember) Space Seed or Wrath of Khan and they think there's something they may not know about Khan, or worse, have them go in expecting a Montalbon clone, and be disappointed when they find the character is nothing like Montalbon's Khan

It may have been good for the Box Office, but, I think a case could be made just as well that it could've hurt.

 

Weekend actual: $1,310,448 for $223,065,011 so far.

 

1) The overseas BO is MUCH better than any Star trek film to date.

2) The combined take makes STID the highest grossing Star trek film made to date, period.

If we follow your logic, that just means Paramount an CBS should shutter the Star Trek franchise.

(And BTW - just because it didn't make some critic's '15 Impressive BO Take' list; it hardly means it's a disappointment to Paramount, as there are MANY Paramount films of 2013 that performed well, will see sequels, and are not on that list.)

STID did VERY good BO business; and we'll see a STXIII by Bad Robot and Co. (And no matter how you slice it, this version of TOS era Star Trek blew EVERY feature film incarnation of TNG out of the water by an order of magnitude. If you really want to look at a disappointing Star Trek film BO performance - Star Trek: Nemesis was out-grossed in Box Office take by Jennifer Lopez's film Maid In Manhattan <---- So if you want proof the TNG film era is NOT the way to go...)

 

It obviously shouldn't be the sole assessment of success, but surely the raw number of people going to see the film is relevant in some respects?

 

Trekkie butts or non-Trekkie butts ?

We've seen both sides of the argument so far: on the one hand, some people say the movie would be more popular if they had made a connection with previous Trek more obvious; and on the other, people say the movie would have worked better if they had stopped making connections with previous Trek.

I think both are wrong: the movie is as successful as it could have been.

 

Rarely for purposes of comparison between movies, especially over a number of years.

Every one of these attempts to apply some kind of formula to find equivalence founders on the premise that all other significant factors are equal - and they never are.

 

Paramount Exec 1 - "Star Trek into Darkness is doing great."

Paramount Exec 2 - "Yeah. Too bad Grady Smith from EW didn't mention it in his internet article."

Paramount Exec 1 - "... Pull the plug."

Paramount Exec 2 - "But-"

Paramount Exec 1 - "Pull. The. PLUG!"

 

Looks like even with Japan the movie will finish off around $460 million

 

BTW - For those believing Paramount sees ST:ID as a disappointment/failure; you might want to look at this chart from Box Office Mojo showing the Box Office Gross for films released by Paramount in 2013 to date (note what's at the top) (link)

 

I don't know, I guess it's possible Trek has a "ceiling" beyond which it cannot push through. But I still feel the franchise has the potential to reach $700m+ territory given the right circumstances, marketing and, well, luck.

 

I guess that's good...

What does Grady Smith have to say about it?

 

Having Opus as an avatar just makes this even funnier. I could see this as an actual Bloom County snippet.

 

YEAAAHHH!!! Suck it "Hansel and Gretel"!!!

Hey Jack Reacher. How do you like Dem Apples!!! STID rules!!!

 

Rules what? Certainly not the studio's return on investment.

Let's take a closer look at the numbers as of 7/7/13 according to boxofficemojo.com

Hansel and Gretel:
Budget: $50 million, Total Gross: $225,703,475 = 4.51 ROI ratio

Jack Reacher:
Budget: $60 million, Total Gross: $216,568,266 = 3.61 ROI ratio

G.I. Joe:
Budget: $130 million, Total Gross: $371,876,278 = 2.86 ROI ratio

So what about Star Trek Into Darkness?
Budget: $190 million, Total Gross: $443,865,011 = 2.34 ROI ratio

The lowest ROI of all Paramount's major releases this year.

For a more direct comparison vis-a-vis film budget:
WWZ budget = STID budget but after less than 3 weeks of release,
WWZ's total gross is already 82.5% of STID's total gross and will certainly eclipse STID's performance.

For reference, Star Trek (2009)'s ROI was 2.57 which means that STID would have to earn an additional amount of nearly $45 million just to match ST09's ROI performance - at this point, not very likely at all.

STID has done "fine" but not "great" so while no "pulling of the plug" is in order, we'll very likely see a tightening of budget purse-strings with the next film.

 

You have no idea what the studio's ROI is on any of those films. You're simply playing with the publicly discussed "production budgets" and the published gross box office numbers.