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

[Sindatur]

BTW, IF Paramount HAD cast a Bollywood leader as Khan we'd be tearing up the Subcontinent right now.

Don't get me wrong, I love Cumberbatch, but there's an opportunity cost in the Asian market that was missed.

Into Darkness is hauling in about 60% more International then ST'09 did. ST'09 did $11,330,564.00 in the 5 Countries STID has left to open in, and STID is currently short about $19M to cross $450M.

If STID takes 60% more in those remaining markets, that puts it about $871,000.00 short, which it should be able to still achieve Domestically and anywhere International it is still playing. So, it might be pretty close, but, it's definitely do-able

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

So, does the movie finally make 450 before it's pulled and sent to Blu-Ray or not? I don't quite think it's got the legs, but stranger things have happened. There's that burning hot Pakistani market to consider.

With the foreign markets still to come it should definitely go over $450 million. I think it'll end up with somewhere in the region of $470 million.

 

[section9]

BTW, IF Paramount HAD cast a Bollywood leader as Khan we'd be tearing up the Subcontinent right now.

Don't get me wrong, I love Cumberbatch, but there's an opportunity cost in the Asian market that was missed.

Now you have me imagining the big dance number.

Right. Thanks for giving Damon Lindelof all sorts of ideas! Somehow I think we'll get "The French Mistake" from Blazing Saddles.

 

[M'Sharak]

BTW, IF Paramount HAD cast a Bollywood leader as Khan we'd be tearing up the Subcontinent right now.

Don't get me wrong, I love Cumberbatch, but there's an opportunity cost in the Asian market that was missed.

Now you have me imagining the big dance number.

Right. Thanks for giving Damon Lindelof all sorts of ideas! Somehow I think we'll get "The French Mistake" from Blazing Saddles.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Wednesday number: $413,983 for $218,063,851.

 

[Belz...]

You focused on two movies out of eight

Well of course I did. My point is that superhero movies had taken a nosedive when Blade and X-Men came out, and I used the latest ones as examples. Why would I go back to 1978 when this wasn't the case ? I don't see what your point is.

It's not cherry picking to say that the last entries of those two franchises were crappy, poorly received, and financially dissapointing. I don't know why you'd want to go back years prior, point to successful entries in the series, and say it somehow invalidates my point about the year 2000 when X-men came out. See ? The superhero genre was in bad shape in 2000. Not in 1989.

And I really don't think that the success of the Nolan films was a result of "Blade," "X-Men," or "Spider-Man."

Well only partially. The success of the earlier movies paved the way for more entries of the genre. The rest is because people liked the first of Nolan's trilogy, and wanted to see the other ones.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

 

[Therin of Andor]

As did Superman in 1978.

Sure, but the merchandising was very tame in comparison. When tie-in toys came out, the 12.5" Mego Superman and Jor-El action figures only vaguely resembled the actors, and the Zod and Luthor figures wore costumes from the comic books. The tie-in novel had a captioned photo section based on the movie, but it was an original story, "Superman: Last Son of Krypton" by Eliot S! Maggin, not an actual novelization. The cinema tie-in stores, located in the foyers of theatres premiering "Superman: The Movie", sold "Superman" lapel pins, program books and plastic glow-in-the-dark Kryptonite, but very little else in the way of merchandising.

 

[Noname Given]

Blade was exciting when it came out and I think it demonstrated how to present comic book material onscreen and make it palatable and sucessful to a wide audience.

"Batman" did that in 1989.

To be fair though, the 1989 'Batman' did big business based on the fact it was Jack Nicholson as The Joker (movie goers - myself among them at the time loved it when Jack played a psycho character and you can't get more psychotic then the Joker.) To be honest, while I felt it was one of the better comic book films at the time (although to be fair, the bar for comic book films wasn't high as there hadn't be a good one previously except the first two Superman films (hated 3 and 4 which had released by the time 'Batman' hit.)

 

[BillJ]

To be fair though, the 1989 'Batman' did big business based on the fact it was Jack Nicholson as The Joker...

Also, people had been waiting a really long time for a Batman movie.

 

[Noname Given]

BTW, IF Paramount HAD cast a Bollywood leader as Khan we'd be tearing up the Subcontinent right now.

Don't get me wrong, I love Cumberbatch, but there's an opportunity cost in the Asian market that was missed.

But, that might have lead to at least one Bollywood style song and dance number; and I don't know if the Star Trek audience in general could take that.

Seriously though, I had no issue with Cumberbatch as Khan - as you could surmise he was of British Indian descent (and lets be honest, Montalban WAS NOT even attempting an Indian subtext or accent when he originally played the role in 1967 and 1982.)

 

[sonak]

You focused on two movies out of eight

Well of course I did. My point is that superhero movies had taken a nosedive when Blade and X-Men came out, and I used the latest ones as examples. Why would I go back to 1978 when this wasn't the case ? I don't see what your point is.

It's not cherry picking to say that the last entries of those two franchises were crappy, poorly received, and financially dissapointing. I don't know why you'd want to go back years prior, point to successful entries in the series, and say it somehow invalidates my point about the year 2000 when X-men came out. See ? The superhero genre was in bad shape in 2000. Not in 1989.

And I really don't think that the success of the Nolan films was a result of "Blade," "X-Men," or "Spider-Man."

Well only partially. The success of the earlier movies paved the way for more entries of the genre. The rest is because people liked the first of Nolan's trilogy, and wanted to see the other ones.

I already wrote that I could accept that "X-Men" got the foot in the door for the modern era of comic book movies.

Again though, not so much for "Blade." It made $70 million domestically, was R-rated, and I don't think a lot of moviegoers were aware that it was even a comic book movie.

 

[Borgminister]

Wednesday number: $413,983 for $218,063,851.

We'll take it!

 

[sttngfan1701d]

BTW, IF Paramount HAD cast a Bollywood leader as Khan we'd be tearing up the Subcontinent right now.

Don't get me wrong, I love Cumberbatch, but there's an opportunity cost in the Asian market that was missed.

Having finally seen the movie, I have to say that while Cumberbatch was okay, he didn't make a mark on me, and he didn't really seem like Khan at all. Just a villain they decided to name Khan. And he didn't seem all that threatening, really. They waited too long before they made him all eeeevil instead of ambiguous sorta-convenient ally, so by the time he was full evil, the stakes weren't so high IMO. It was a dramatic misfire, and the ending just sort of....happens.

Overall however I really enjoyed the film. Do I still think they should've cast an Indian actor? After seeing it, YES. Time after time during it I said to myself, "Arjun Rampal or Sunil Shetty would've KILLED in this role." It was a missed opportunity. But the problems regarding Khan in this movie are mostly script-related.

Back on topic, would the movie have more appeal in India if Khan was played by an actor that traditionally chews scenery as the big-bad? Maybe. But the international take of Into Darkness is pretty darn healthy.

 

[Set Harth]

"Arjun Rampal or Sunil Shetty would've KILLED in this role."

Literally!

 

[Belz...]

I already wrote that I could accept that "X-Men" got the foot in the door for the modern era of comic book movies.

Again though, not so much for "Blade." It made $70 million domestically, was R-rated, and I don't think a lot of moviegoers were aware that it was even a comic book movie.

Granted.

Does... does that mean we agree, then ?

 

[Sindatur]

I already wrote that I could accept that "X-Men" got the foot in the door for the modern era of comic book movies.

Again though, not so much for "Blade." It made $70 million domestically, was R-rated, and I don't think a lot of moviegoers were aware that it was even a comic book movie.

Granted.

Does... does that mean we agree, then ?

Hey now, none of that agreeing stuff, this is the interwebs, afterall.

 

[Neumann]

I'm worried about Paramount's promotion here in venezuela. We are 3 weeks away from the Film and I haven't seen the first POSTER.

I'm just noticing something on Paramount's GLOBAL SITES & RELEASE DATES page. With the exception of Brazil, all the Latin American countries listed link to the same page: the one for Mexico (also to the 'StarTrek.MX' Facebook page) and half of those listed opened in May. Could they have spent the whole promo budget on those early openings?

Quite possible, M'Sharak. Lets hope not. Back in 2009, even if latin america had weak numbers, it was the third largest market for this movie, after Mexico and Brazil.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Thursday number: $397,016 for $218,460,867 so far. It should make about $1.8-2 million this weekend.

 

[Borgminister]

Thursday number: $397,016 for $218,460,867 so far. It should make about $1.8-2 million this weekend.

Slowly exiting stage left... One theater in our area showing it this weekend and Monday--that 10 a.m. matinee has my name written all over it for a 5th viewing.

Be interesting to see how far the theater count dips for the July 4th weekend...