• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

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

Well Paramount don't have much going for them, and regardless of any disappointing take in the long term it'll turn an easy profit with blu ray and whatever. God knows how much money releasing all these blu rays, dvd, directors cuts etc etc of the originals have made for them. They probably made at least 200m from dvds/blu rays of 09.
 
Eh if people are worried about no sequel, at least it should make its budget back domestically and improve overseas. I think a good comparison would be another film made by Abrams and the same writers.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=mi3.htm

It just means that its likely the budget won't improve much or be reduced slightly, but considering it's Trek that's not likely. A Christmas move is possible too if there is no space in 2016, MI:III released to far less competition and they'll take this into consideration. I just get the feeling Paramount underestimated IM3.
 
Phily B said:
teacake said:
Wow, really? Any indication as to why?
Click to expand...

Well the TNG movies were basically big budget episodes, but they were never considered or expected to be massive blockbusters.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Yet they performed quite well (except for NEMESIS).

In fact here in Germany GENERATIONS, FIRST CONTACT and INSURRECTION had much more attendance that STAR TREK XI, which actually was on par with the attendace for NEMESIS! :wtf:
 
Just wanted to post that we went to see TGG (3D) last night (7pm show -- packed to the gills) and I sneaked into the STID (3D) showing (7:10pm) and there were about 20 people in there.

I don't really know what to think. Suffice to say, it made me pretty upset. I hope there's an explanation for it but I've racked my brain and come up with zero.

The only reasonable explanation I can think up is that it's too "Trek" and dark and complicated for most non-Trekkies to grasp. It's ironic that JJ kept saying he wasn't making a movie for "us" but, in the end, IMO, this movie *is* for us. For me, it's the complete package. If, when I was 18 years old, I'd gotten this movie with the old cast, I'd have been over the moon (and this is despite the misgivings I have for this film).
 
Last edited:
These are the issues with the film:
1. the marketing
2. the villain

JJ Abrams deliberately lied about the villain. In his lying, he revealed his cards.

Khan was a villain of another time. Gene L. Coon who wrote "Space Seed" had lived through World War II, when one of his country's greatest enemies was a dictator who believed in eugenics and was systematically purging people deemed inferior in death camps. For a film geared to a younger audience, and not an audience who lived in those years, how does Khan resonate with them? He doesn't.

The film began with an act of terrorism. It should have been about that event, and not about a villain that doesn't resonate with a modern audience.

And, for the love of God, no more revenge driven movies in Star Trek. We have had three in a row.
 
I am not Spock said:
Maybe we overestimated the demand for Trek? I thought 09 completely destroyed the stigma, and made Trek 'cool' again. I really want this film to succeed, this franchise to succeed. This is so frustrating.
Click to expand...

It's funny, I made a reference to the film on a group work e-mail and got a bunch of responses which amounted to "Ew, Star Trek". I thought the last film would have made it a bit more mainstream.

Still, I don't remember a time when Trek was 'cool' here, even at the peak of its exposure in my lifetime.
 
throwback said:
a villain that doesn't resonate with a modern audience.
Click to expand...
I dunno. He resonated with me. Or maybe I'm just too old fashioned. That's probably why I enjoy the action-adventure emphasis in the new films, the conflicted moral and character arcs of its protagonists, the alternate time line and the lens flares. Us old fogeys can be quite set in our ways, I must say. :techman:
 
I think the only time it was "cool" was right after ST2009 came out. I remember my niece (who's 12) and her friends kept wanting to see it (in theaters and dvd/BR) over and over again.

IMO, the four-year wait was a lethal blow to whatever was accomplished in terms of at least the coolness factor.
 
Now I'm starting to wonder, would fans have accepted a mediocre movie like "Iron Man 2" if they had fast tracked it to be released 2 years after ST09 in order to keep interest alive? Would it have been worth it? :confused:

At this point, I'm hoping we at least get a third movie with these characters with a reduced budget like TUC. There is no need for another movie with "Non Stop Action", instead lets focus on the characters a bit more! Time for more of a character drama.:techman:
 
Last edited:
Probably not a gauge, but I drove past the new Imax theater on my way to the gym, and there were double the cars of the previous two nights. The theater is still being renovated so the ONLY movie playing there is STID 3D.
 
donners22 said:
I am not Spock said:
Maybe we overestimated the demand for Trek? I thought 09 completely destroyed the stigma, and made Trek 'cool' again. I really want this film to succeed, this franchise to succeed. This is so frustrating.
Click to expand...

It's funny, I made a reference to the film on a group work e-mail and got a bunch of responses which amounted to "Ew, Star Trek". I thought the last film would have made it a bit more mainstream.

Still, I don't remember a time when Trek was 'cool' here, even at the peak of its exposure in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

I'm seeing a lot of tweets by non-fans who are seeing it or who are "excited" by seeing it and they aren't Trekkers.
 
We know so far:

$13.5m from Wed Sneaks & Thursday
$22m from Friday

So thats $35.5so far.

Then we have our first guestimate of 26-29 for Sat.

$13.5 + $22 + $26m - $61.5m
$13.5 + $22 + $29m - $64.5m

So to get to $80m 4-day and be satisfied it got to the low-end of expectations we need between $18.5m and $15.5m on Sunday. I think thats doable if we assume the Friday gross was simply split up into Thursday + Friday by the late date change. Hopefully, fingers crossed, that opening gets us to over $200m in the end! Its going to be tough but perhaps we can make it. I think now $450m WW would be an excellent result because that would mean an incredible increase in overseas BO. Maybe Paramount have alienated some of the North American audience when they tried to go after the overseas audience by turning it more action-oriented in the promos? Then theres the release date... and the name.. etc

EDIT: Re Budget issues. Paramount paid out perhaps $10-$15m extra to post convert this movie to 3D because JJ Abrams was unwilling to shoot this movie with a 3D camera. As many people know post converting a 2D movie is not as good as shooting the movie with native 3D cameras. If Paramount insist that the next movie is shot with a 3D camera instead of 35mm 2D and IMAX 2D, they have immediately shaved $15m off of the budget.
 
I'd been so actively avoiding spoilers and film-related discussion that I honestly didn't realize the release date had been moved to Thursday until ... this morning. Seems like a very strange move from Paramount. Still, I saw it Friday afternoon and will be going back to see it again as soon as my schedule allows.
 
Samuel Walters said:
I'd been so actively avoiding spoilers and film-related discussion that I honestly didn't realize the release date had been moved to Thursday until ... this morning. Seems like a very strange move from Paramount. Still, I saw it Friday afternoon and will be going back to see it again as soon as my schedule allows.
Click to expand...


Some ads still say may 17th. The Lifelock ads still say it.

I've decided to see it 4 times, I didn't go last night but I'll see it with family tonight and one other time in Imax, and then maybe regular 3D before the end of the week.

RAMA
 
Samuel Walters said:
I'd been so actively avoiding spoilers and film-related discussion that I honestly didn't realize the release date had been moved to Thursday until ... this morning. Seems like a very strange move from Paramount. Still, I saw it Friday afternoon and will be going back to see it again as soon as my schedule allows.
Click to expand...

I thought the move to Thursday was a bad decision. I didn't even know about the schedule change until the last moment either, and I'm a Trek fan! It decreased the Friday amount and deflated interest for no reason! Stupid Paramount!:brickwall:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top