It's all relative though, RAMA. Everything has gone up and everything has to go up to compensate.
STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
So according to Hollywood Reporter, by Monday STID should have made $158 million worldwide.
RAMA
It is weak. Star Trek Into Darkness may open with less money from 4 days than Star Trek 2009 made in 3 days 4 years ago, without 3D. Its disappointing and everyone who follows the boxoffice at the box office websites would agree. They all predicted over $100m for 3-days just a few weeks ago and some were still predicting that the week of release. STID has under performed big time.
Well I think that's a little extreme. The reality is this film will do similar numbers to STXI domestically, but the international numbers will be much better. So, at the end of the day STID will do as well, if not slightly better than the last film, and with the upcoming anniversary there's no way Paramount won't greenlight another film from Bad Robot.
However, Paramount needs to assess what exactly they are trying to accomplish with Star Trek. Are they trying to compete with big boxoffice summer extravaganzas like Star Wars, Transformers, The Dark Knight? If they are they are going to lose unless they are willing to accept that their profit vs. cost ratios are not going to be as high as those other franchises. Star Trek, for whatever reason, just does not have quite that general mass appeal as these other film series.
One thing to bear in mind though is despite the costs of Abrams two Star Trek features JJ can be a very frugal filmmaker, Super 8 only cost $50. So I think JJ can still make a huge Trek film, but with a budget more like $150-170 million. If that can be done Paramount can justify continuing to make Star Trek films which gross $350-450 in total box office. Otherwise they will need to completely retool and seriously reign in the cost and be content with box office takes more in line with the original Trek films.
Yancy
If STiD grosses around $400 million worldwide Paramount will likely greenlight a third Bad Robot Trek film, but look to bring the budget back down to about $150 million. A much cheaper director would be part of lowering the cost, as would forgoing filming in IMAX.
It looks as if it will have a marginally better weekend (Thur-Sun) than ST09. To this point, it's $5 million ahead of ST09. Initial reactions to the movie are strong according to CinemaScore (it gets an "A"). It's holding above 85% at rotten tomatoes. I think once the buzz gets going that this isn't just a ripoff of TWOK, things will be fine. Fans themselves posting stuff on boards about "magic blood" (it's not) and plagiarizng lines form TWOK (it really doesn't) may be the worst enemies of this film.
Have my tickets for the 7:00pm show for IMAX-3D tonight.
But the numbers don't seem good at all. It feels like Superman Returns all over again. Really want this film to succeed, but don't know if it can. Seriously, Iron Man does 1 BILLION in under two weeks all over and ST:ID can't even muster a 100 million weekend? That too being a sequel? Paramount and J.J. Abrams secrecy really screwed this one up.
But the numbers don't seem good at all. It feels like Superman Returns all over again. Really want this film to succeed, but don't know if it can. Seriously, Iron Man does 1 BILLION in under two weeks all over and ST:ID can't even muster a 100 million weekend? That too being a sequel? Paramount and J.J. Abrams secrecy really screwed this one up.
As expected 3D has given no bump because 3D is on the wain. The budget increase in part came from the conversion to 3D so paramount can save money on that next time. A budget of $165 ($20 million cheaper than STID) might be a more realistic way to go with ST in 2016. Bear in mind whatever STID takes at the Box Office, which is looking between $400-450 million based off this start, it will make A LOT of money for paramount via DVD/Blu Ray sales + other merchandise.
This box office talk, to be honest, has me a bit down. But I'm going to wait until Monday before casting a final judgement.
It's really not a matter of a cheaper director, Abrams can do cheaper, but you would need to scale back the scope of the story (seriously, all $200 million of that budget was on glorious display). Just the final reel of Into Darkness dwarfed the cale of Star Trek's I-X combined.
Yancy
Agreed. I think a worldwide release in late April would have been perfect for this movie... give it a jumpstart before Ironman.
I think it's off to a good start and will do well at the box office. Considering before STXI, only one film in the franchise ever grossed $100 million in the U.S., the box office performance is remarkable. Despite Star Trek's popularity, it's never been a box office juggernaut. But the relaunch has improved them as a box office performer.
I think Paramount made a mistake by releasing it a day earlier on only about a week's notice. You need to do that well ahead of time and not on the fly to confuse audiences about release time.
Keep in mind that Iron Man 3 and Gatsby are strong holdovers and that next week, The Hangover III and Fast and Furious 6 are coming out. Star Trek is going to have to deal with a LOT of competition.
I think Paramount made a mistake by releasing it a day earlier on only about a week's notice. You need to do that well ahead of time and not on the fly to confuse audiences about release time.
Keep in mind that Iron Man 3 and Gatsby are strong holdovers and that next week, The Hangover III and Fast and Furious 6 are coming out. Star Trek is going to have to deal with a LOT of competition.
It's funny how things have changed.
And how a critically acclaimed Trek film that will probably end up making 400 million or more (without considering dvd/blu-ray profits) has everyone panicking,some even considering it a screwup and a possible franchise killer flop.
I love the internet.
And how a critically acclaimed Trek film that will probably end up making 400 million or more (without considering dvd/blu-ray profits) has everyone panicking,some even considering it a screwup and a possible franchise killer flop.
I love the internet.
The entire marketing strategy of this movie baffled me. The domestic tie-ins, promotions, and merchandise seemed lacking this time. Timing may not have been perfect, but a lot of that can't be contolled. Still, did they focus too much on cultivating non-U.S. markets at the neglect of a balls-to-the-wall U.S. campaign? Even if they did, the net effect from trying to grow the overseas market may be more overall revenue than ST09 made. And money is money no matter where on Earth it comes from.
Of course, we're "Star Trek" fans, and so we're going to panic at the first chance. Frankly, it looks as if it will likely fall in or near the $85 to $90 million range originally predicted for its domestic opening. It needs to do $50 million this Saturday and Sunday to meet that. That seems quite possible.
Titanic made 28 million its opening weekend, eventually gathering more than 600 million in the US alone... The first Narnia 'only' made 65 million, and went on to make almost 300 (!) in the US... Maybe STID will be grower like those films... Word-of-mouth seems decent, like the reviews... It could happen.
Abrams isn't going to direct the next Trek film. That's clear. So a cheaper director can be, and likely will be, part of the equation in bringing costs down.
Fanboys killed Star Trek? Seems unlikely. But it's not for lack of trying. If only they understood that killing Star Trek for 10-12 years does not lead to a low budget/low ambition tv series made just for them.
I didn't like the last third of the movie very much at all and I have said so. I can't force myself to like it. It definitely will rub some fans the wrong way and the message boards will reflect this. The writers must have known that the content of their script would not go down well with fanboys on the internet.