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

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

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.

Certain box office patterns prevail for different types of films released at different times of the year. December releases tend to have smaller openings and longer legs than summer releases. Standalones or the first film in a series tend to have longer legs than sequels. There are always exceptions - and hopefully STiD turns out to be one of them - but the odds are against it.

 

[Phily B]

If it doubles its budget with a good OS % a third will be greenlit, the problem is that no one can work out why this film is doing bad. There are guesses, but its confused everyone - some movies just do this.

 

[BillJ]

If it doubles its budget with a good OS % a third will be greenlit, the problem is that no one can work out why this film is doing bad. There are guesses, but its confused everyone - some movies just do this.

It could be as simple as them putting it in between two franchises people were more willing to spend money on.

 

[Amaris]

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.

Nothing goes down well with the fanboys, other than the same old stuff they covet feverishly, so they were right in simply not giving a shit.

 

[BillJ]

If it doubles its budget with a good OS % a third will be greenlit, the problem is that no one can work out why this film is doing bad. There are guesses, but its confused everyone - some movies just do this.

Is that 'double its production budget' ($180 million) or 'double what Paramount spent on it' ($280 million)?

 

[Phily B]

Probably, but usually two weeks after IM3 is enough. Saying that, Fast 6 and Hangover 3 are going to be pretty big but I'm not sure that's an excuse. There will be a lot of head scratching going on over at Paramount, especially if overseas sees a 200m+ gross.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

If it doubles its budget with a good OS % a third will be greenlit, the problem is that no one can work out why this film is doing bad. There are guesses, but its confused everyone - some movies just do this.

Yep. The underperformance of Kung Fu Panda 2 was a similar headscratcher.

 

[MacLeod]

Only time will tell,

Box Office Mojo is now reporting Into Darkness at US$35.5m

Sure other films are opening, but will they open big, and how much drop off will there be,

For example

Fast and Furious (2009)

Opening US$89.3m
Week 1 US$35.2m
Week 2 US$14.7m
Week 3 US$7.5m
Week 4 US$3.5m

Star Trek (2009)

Adv Previous US$4m
Open US$100.6m
Week 1 US$57.0m
Week 2 US$35.1m
Week 3 US$17.7m
Week 4 US$12.0m

So it would appear that ST (2009) didn't suffer the same rate of dropoff as F&F (2009) did. However previous history is not an indication of the future as the releases were more apart.

But of course Man of Steel looms on the horizon.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Star Trek operated more like an original in its box office pattern, while Fast & Furious operated like a typical sequel.

 

[Phily B]

Maybe STID won't operate like a typical sequel, and will go along the lines of 09 though I doubt it. The reason people are "panicing" is because of the assumption it will operate like a sequel and unlike 09 see a massive drop, especially with Fast 6 next week and HO.

STID is being really weird from what I can gather, you have people predicting upwards of 30m then others saying 20m. No one can figure it out?!

 

[Enterprise is Great]

This is like Election night. The talking heads throw out all kinds of numbers, everyone's confused and eventually the outcome becomes clearer. No one really knows until the final numbers are in.

 

[Kpnuts]

Star Trek 09 had novelty of being a reboot on its side, Into Darkness may just feel like 'yet another Trek film' to the masses, especially after a 4 year wait.

 

[Jax]

Star Trek 09 had novelty of being a reboot on its side, Into Darkness may just feel like 'yet another Trek film' to the masses, especially after a 4 year wait.

4 years was a long wait no doubt but if Trek came out last year "The Avengers" would of swallowed it up and spat it out even more than Iron Man 3 seemingly has. Paramount need to look at a possible chrsitmas slot in 2016 if its less heavy than Summer 2016.

 

[Phily B]

Star Trek 09 had novelty of being a reboot on its side, Into Darkness may just feel like 'yet another Trek film' to the masses, especially after a 4 year wait.

I don't think we need to worry about them shelving the franchise again, they'll just go back to the drawing board RE:marketing. They might've relied too much on 2009 being fresh, when it was four years ago - plenty of movies have come and gone since then. Overseas looks like it'll improve, and with the 50th anniversary coming up there should be a sequel no problem. As long as overseas does improve and the projections aren't wrong, then it should limp across 400m+.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

As long as overseas does improve and the projections aren't wrong, then it should limp across 400m+.

Damn, that really is very, very disappointing.

 

[BillJ]

As long as overseas does improve and the projections aren't wrong, then it should limp across 400m+.

Damn, that really is very, very disappointing.

I knew when I liked it, the box office would immediately go in the toilet.

 

[Kpnuts]

I guess I'm finding it hard to understand how a Trek film that (potentially) does $400mil is disappointing. Especially since it cost $180mil to make.

It is a bit depressing how the numbers don't seem to be adding up at this stage but Trek 09 was a very unexpected success, it did far better than Paramount or any of us were expecting. I think the freshness and novelty had a big part to play, sequels may do well but this film could be seen as Trek 12 by the masses. If it gets around the same as Trek 09 I don't think it should be considered a failure, regardless of inflation/3D etc

 

[BillJ]

I guess I'm finding it hard to understand how a Trek film that does $400mil+ is disappointing. Especially since it cost $180mil to make.

You factor in a $100 million dollar advertising campaign and the theater share and it may not even break even at $400 million.

 

[Roald]

I guess I'm finding it hard to understand how a Trek film that does $400mil+ is disappointing. Especially since it cost $180mil to make.

You factor in a $100 million dollar advertising campaign and the theater share and it may not even break even at $400 million.

When talking about a 'what a film has cost', advertising campaigns are not factored in, just like dvd/bluray sales are not factored in the film's 'total gross'... I am right about that..

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

I guess I'm finding it hard to understand how a Trek film that does $400mil+ is disappointing. Especially since it cost $180mil to make.

You factor in a $100 million dollar advertising campaign and the theater share and it may not even break even at $400 million.

When talking about a 'what a film has cost', advertising campaigns are not factored in, just like dvd/bluray sales are not factored in the film's 'total gross'... I am right about that..

I can't see how you can "factor out" marketing costs? Where would you divert that investment in the accounts? Unless Paramomt have an overall annual marketing budget for all releases, which could be accounted for separately.