Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by RAMA, Apr 26, 2013.
Which blog is that out of curiosity? Although it's a forgone conclusion at this point...
Wednesday number: $1,137,047 for $203,715,975 so far. Star Trek made $1,262,996 on its comparable day. STiD will be in 2,331 theaters this weekend, down 821 from the previous one.
Over the next 50 years...
1) There will be another Star Trek movie.
2) There will be another Star Trek TV show.
3) 1 & 2 be will repeated several times.
The numbers really make no difference when it comes down to it...
So, it'll probably pass 210 million this weekend, with two weeks yet to go in June.
Boxoffice does forecast 6 million over the weekend, so 210 sounds right. If there are enough theaters open, maybe it'll push the 230 mark.
And Supes is currently at 57% on RT.
I am getting dizzy reading all the spins the fans and detractors of the movie are putting on the boxoffice numbers. But the detractor dudes are grasping at the straws here. This movie is a hit, boxoffice and otherwise.
One factor that's important, besides the boxoffice, is how the studio perceives the movie in terms of qualify and popularity. The movie "Superman Returns" is mentioned several times in this thread. I think the studio executives were not exited about that movie and moviegoers reactions were lukewarm (e.g. 6.2 rating on imdb). So despite solid boxoffice numbers they didn't do any direct followup to that movie and eventually did a reboot several years later.
But in case of STID, the studio obviously thought highly of the film. That's evident from early critics screenings, the 9 minute trailer, opening the movie a day early, etc. All indicated that studio was confident they had a good movie (maybe a little overconfident, releasing a day early was a mistake). And the audience and critics reactions to the movie has been very positive, high ratings on cinemascore, imdb, rottentomatoes, etc.
So while the studio maybe a little disappointed by the domestic boxoffice, they are very happy with everything else. So the next movie will be done by the same creative team. They may try a different marketing strategy to get more female and younger viewers, but it will get made and will have a healthy budget (even if it's lower than this one).
Can't. Love that blog and won't have the comments section sullied by fanboys. (Not calling you a fanboy, but others are reading) If it's true, we ought to know soon enough.
But I wanted it to be good! It's going to smack the competition whether it's good or not, so I hoped it would have had the decency to at least be good.
Interesting. The French have never liked Star Trek before. Do you suppose, on foreign-language Trek boards, the posters there are debating why it is that Into Darkness is doing so much better than its predecessor? The action content doesn't seem any higher to me.
That would be an interesting conversation to listen in on. At least compared to listening to a canon enthusiast try to convince us that, despite only getting two cents of every dollar of the foreign grosses, the studio nevertheless cheerfully spent half a billion marketing this movie in foreign territories, expecting a minimum performance of 64 billion worldwide.
I think that the decision "sequel or not" is primarily made based on the "plan" for the sequel, especially in an already established franchise. There are films that got a sequel even though they had horrible box office, because studios liked the concept and approach of the sequel plan. There are films that never got a sequel even though they had fantastic box office, because nobody was able to come up with a plan for a sequel that satisfied the studios.
Superman Returns did fine, but the concept for the sequel wasn't good.
I think two things hurt the film here in the States:
*Not using Khan in the marketing.
*Having such a widely varied release with the U.S. being later in the game.
But it is a very, very good movie.
I agree with you on both.
Just got back from seeing it again with my daughters (10 and 13). There were about a dozen others in the theater (IMAX 3-D).
The plot seemed a little less convoluted this time, mainly because I had previously forgotten that Khan says he was found out before he could smuggle his crew out in the missiles, so being reminded of that helped straighten some things out.
The actors are just marvelous as their characters. The feeling is as comfortable as TOS.
Does anyone think Cumberbatch can really naturally curl his lips into the shapes he did while talking (especially in the brig), or was it slightly CGI enhanced? I mean, he made some very contorted expressions.
I actually feel more sorry for Khan after seeing it again.
Loved how gung-ho Peter Weller made Marcus. If they still smoked cigars in the 23rd century, Marcus would be chewing on one, son.
I'll agree to disagree with some folks, but Kirk's death scene was better than Spock's in TWOK. Very poignant, especially with Spock knowing what Kirk is going through and not being able to console him.
And, just to make things interesting, my phone started vibrating during the last twenty minutes but I didn't check it. A few seconds later, my oldest hands me her phone. It's a text from her mom at work in DC, "Tornado warning, sited near home, you still at movie?" The theater is about 15 miles away from home. Is it sad to say that message didn't keep me from staying engrossed in the last scenes? Fortunately, everything was where we left it when we got home. (Didn't even rain a drop at the theater.)
Seeing it once with the entire family and once again with my daughters marks my contribution to the box office (seven IMAX 3-D tickets is enough).
I have no idea whether you're right or not, but IMO that could be a good thing. Starting from STID. I'd be happy to see 5-10 minutes of frenetic action replaced with character or plot development. YMMV.
He does it in Sherlock too - S02E02 being the one I noticed it in the most, so presumably he does it himself. (if you haven't done so, watch Sherlock - great TV).
Box Office: "Star Trek Into Darkness already higher than its predecessor".
With more than 88,000 spectators in a single day, the new film by JJ Abrams starts in France. Star Trek started with 28.500.
Source: MYFT1 News
Pretty much this. Superman Returns had a production budget of 260 million and made just under 400 million worldwide. While it's a good movie it's a poor superhero movie. Compared to Batman Begins which made less on a smaller budget. It inspired confidence to see a sequel. While Superman did not.
This is a quote from 2008 I found on IMDB by Warner Bros. Pictures Group President Jeff Robinov, "Superman Returns didn't quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to. It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned. Had Superman worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009. Now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman without regard to a Batman and Superman movie at all." This is after The Dark Knight blew up at the boxoffice.
Star Trek has nothing to worry about it will get a sequel. Most people just had higher expectations for it is all. Look at Fast and Furious 6. It's already made $500 million worldwide. Trek should be capable of that kind of business.
I'm not sure I agree. Non-fans don't care, and fans would see the movie anyway. Right ? What am I missing ?
Khan has permeated pop-culture and would present a hook to mainstream audiences. In my opinion.
If I really knew what caused films to succeed wildly or fail to do so, I'd - well, I'd know something that the people who bankroll, market and distribute them don't.
Separate names with a comma.