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

[Belz...]

People get into this false reasoning that really breaks down to "if I had liked the movie better, it would have been a bigger hit."

Yes, precisely. People conflate their own personal likes and dislikes and opinions and such with objective reality all the time. Very frustrating.

 

[Vyse]

Nice to see Trek at the top.

Had the story been more tightly written and better reasoned, and made more sense to the audience, that number might be over 500. That's where word of mouth would have come in.

ST:TWOK did it all by word of mouth and fantastic writing, directing, and filmcraft.

If TWOK came out in the internet age, it would have been ripped to shreds like all movies are these days.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Absolutely. It was nitpicked by Trek fans in 1982, but that stuff rarely spread beyond small groups in those days.

 

[Noname Given]

ST:TWOK did it all by word of mouth and fantastic writing, directing, and filmcraft.

Not really - STII was VERY hyped leading up to its release (and I was there in 1982 and saw it twice on opening day) - and the fact Spock dies was known (just not when in the film and they had the mis-direction of having Spock 'die' in the opening simulator scene - so many figured that was the 'death' leaked to fans); BUT, the fact was, it was just MUCH more enjoyable ST film than TMP was - and Star Trek fans were so happy about that we were indeed willing to IGNORE the GLARING plotholes and inconsistencies, such as:

1) The Reliant crew (Chekov in particular) not noticing that Ceti Alpha V exploded and other planet's orbits in the system were altered. (Of course if he's written competently, we have no film.)

2) The fact that (again by the Reliant's scans) the altered Ceti Alpha V was shown to be uninhabitable (with a toxic atmosphere; and even Terell and Chekov beam down in EVA gear) - YET - Khan and his people seem to survive in the open just using masks - and are able to trake long walk from therre containers (for what purpose who knows, buts it's the entire reason Terell and Chekov can check out the completely empty cargo containers.)

3) The fact that Chekov WASN'T a part of the Enterprise crew back when the events of "Space Seed" took place -- yet Kahn says to him, "I never forget a face!" (and sorry the fan rationalizations don't wash as there was a line in Season 2 TOS stating Chekov was 'recently transferred to the ship.'

I also have an issue with Kahn being described by Spock (and depicted in the film) as 'inexperienced (in a military sense) and showing "two-dimensional thinking". Why? Remember his background as stated in "Space Seed" - Kahn was one of the most militarily successful tyrants that conquered most of Asia before they were stopped <--- You don't do that without being a shrewd military leader; and any successful ground or air campaign would require three-dimensional thinking.

Again, NONE of the above prevented the film from being very entertaining; but, overall, nothing really stands out as overly exceptional with regard to the writing, directing or 'filmcraft'.

And I bring that up because as an old Star Trek fan (watching first run since 1969) - I honestly found Star Trek: Into Darkness equally as enjoyable and entertaining; and honestly, (depending on my mood) it's either in a tie with, or ahead of Star Trek II: TWoK as my overall favorite Star Trek feature film.

 

[section9]

I don't think this film compares to WOK at all in writing and direction. I just don't. Maybe because I have an internal bias and because I think that the director was able to work wonders with a relatively restricted budget that had been scaled back from TMP.

This movie was good, but the plot holes alone kept it from being a better film. They were aiming for Dark Knight territory, and they missed. It's how they handled Khan/Cumberbatch: methinks so much more could have been done to make it a better character study that could have been more appealing to a wider audience. People are still attracted to drama and conflict.

However, I think that was too much of a reach for this writing team.

BTW, don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the film and I do think they resolved the fact that NuKirk wasn't ready for the Chair. The resolution of how he was made Shat-Ready was a little pat, however.

 

[Opus]

I don't see this film as any worse than TWOK.

It shares a wonderful common thread with TWOK - friendship, family, sacrifice.

And it's action-packed - something many wished TOS movies could have been, and should have been, but Paramount never spent SW $$$ on Trek's budget.

It's a story about TOS characters as younger versions - Say what you will about the TOS movies, I wasn't too keen on my heroes going through mid-life crises while I was in my teens. (Ironically I'm at mid-life enjoying my heroes in their youth now!)

I'd say the only thing TWOK has going for it are the original cast, and rose-colored feelings of nostalgia. No one is arguing TWOK's longevity and cultural impact ("KHAAAANNN!!!!). I'm just saying, personally, strip away the good feelings and memories and they are about dead even.

And, I'd dare say, STiD may be a little bit better... All IMO of course.

 

[Belz...]

3) The fact that Chekov WASN'T a part of the Enterprise crew back when the events of "Space Seed" took place -- yet Kahn says to him, "I never forget a face!" (and sorry the fan rationalizations don't wash as there was a line in Season 2 TOS stating Chekov was 'recently transferred to the ship.'

Episode and quote, please.

 

[Grant]

3) The fact that Chekov WASN'T a part of the Enterprise crew back when the events of "Space Seed" took place -- yet Kahn says to him, "I never forget a face!" (and sorry the fan rationalizations don't wash as there was a line in Season 2 TOS stating Chekov was 'recently transferred to the ship.'

Episode and quote, please.

He can't because it was NEVER said. Made up to cover his weak argument.

The actor came along for season 2---the crewman's posting was never mentioned. PERIOD. Red herring----of course he could have been aboard.

 

[Kruezerman]

3) The fact that Chekov WASN'T a part of the Enterprise crew back when the events of "Space Seed" took place -- yet Kahn says to him, "I never forget a face!" (and sorry the fan rationalizations don't wash as there was a line in Season 2 TOS stating Chekov was 'recently transferred to the ship.'

Episode and quote, please.

"George Takei (Sulu) does not appear in this episode. Neither does Walter Koenig (Pavel Chekov), although Khan remembered him years later. There are several non-canon explanations for this, all pointing to some off-screen contact between the two characters."

 

[Opus]

Yeah. And I believe it involved a urinal.

 

[Grant]

3) The fact that Chekov WASN'T a part of the Enterprise crew back when the events of "Space Seed" took place -- yet Kahn says to him, "I never forget a face!" (and sorry the fan rationalizations don't wash as there was a line in Season 2 TOS stating Chekov was 'recently transferred to the ship.'

Episode and quote, please.

"George Takei (Sulu) does not appear in this episode. Neither does Walter Koenig (Pavel Chekov), although Khan remembered him years later. There are several non-canon explanations for this, all pointing to some off-screen contact between the two characters."

?????

He was asking for the (nonexistant) on-screen quote where it is stated Chekov had just came aboard as a member of the crew.

There never was any.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Well, tomorrow night is the final showing in the last theater in my area to still be running the film. I wish I had the chance to see it more than once, but this has been a crazy summer. Still and all, thanks to an amazingly robust Foreign box office response, which for the first time has matched the US box office, Into Darkness brought in the most money of them all. It's great that Star Trek can coax over $444,000,000 out of people.

 

[M'Sharak]

3) The fact that Chekov WASN'T a part of the Enterprise crew back when the events of "Space Seed" took place -- yet Kahn says to him, "I never forget a face!" (and sorry the fan rationalizations don't wash as there was a line in Season 2 TOS stating Chekov was 'recently transferred to the ship.'

Episode and quote, please.

"George Takei (Sulu) does not appear in this episode. Neither does Walter Koenig (Pavel Chekov), although Khan remembered him years later. There are several non-canon explanations for this, all pointing to some off-screen contact between the two characters."

?????

He was asking for the (nonexistant) on-screen quote where it is stated Chekov had just came aboard as a member of the crew.

There never was any.

Hence the part about there being "several non-canon explanations"? If it had been explicitly stated in dialogue such that it could be cited and quoted, what use would anyone have for a non-canon explanation? I suspect that Noname Given did see the "recently transferred" line somewhere, but may be remembering something from a novelization rather than a televised episode.

 

[Therin of Andor]

BUT, the fact was, it was just MUCH more enjoyable ST film than TMP was - and Star Trek fans were so happy about that we were indeed willing to IGNORE the GLARING plotholes and inconsistencies

Not a "fact", just an opinion. Despite having a great time watching ST II over and over, for me (and other newbie friends) it just didn't compare to TMP. And there were definitely fans at the time who pointed angrily at ST II/III, and especially IV, as "the dumbing down of Trek for the masses".

For me, I didn't get another Trek film experience the equal of TMP until... 2009.

 

[Grant]

"George Takei (Sulu) does not appear in this episode. Neither does Walter Koenig (Pavel Chekov), although Khan remembered him years later. There are several non-canon explanations for this, all pointing to some off-screen contact between the two characters."

?????

He was asking for the (nonexistant) on-screen quote where it is stated Chekov had just came aboard as a member of the crew.

There never was any.

Hence the part about there being "several non-canon explanations"? If it had been explicitly stated in dialogue such that it could be cited and quoted, what use would anyone have for a non-canon explanation? I suspect that Noname Given did see the "recently transferred" line somewhere, but may be remembering something from a novelization rather than a televised episode.

Probably right.

I was just a little confused someone asks about a quote for the episode where it was stated and the next guy puts a quote for 'non-canon' explanations.

Of course there are many non canon explanations.

 

[Noname Given]

3) The fact that Chekov WASN'T a part of the Enterprise crew back when the events of "Space Seed" took place -- yet Kahn says to him, "I never forget a face!" (and sorry the fan rationalizations don't wash as there was a line in Season 2 TOS stating Chekov was 'recently transferred to the ship.'

Episode and quote, please.

He can't because it was NEVER said. Made up to cover his weak argument.

The actor came along for season 2---the crewman's posting was never mentioned. PERIOD. Red herring----of course he could have been aboard.

mea Culpa -- I actually thought there was a dialogue snippet about Chekov's crew status at the start of "The Trouble With Tribbles"-- so (I am at work but allowed to bowse on breaks) -- I checked on Hulu and it turns out I was indeed mistaken.

That said, I don't know what part of my 'argument' is 'weal ass' as Chekov WEAS NEVER a part of the cast in Season One and Space Seed was a Season One episode.
^^^
That doesn't change the incongruity in the STII:TWoK script of Khan 'never forgetting Chekov's face' as he hadn't seen it (as far as anything shown on screen in "Space Seed".)

I just am left to wonder if Mr. Abram's and Co had referenced something back to the prime universe and had a similar glaring inconsistency in a script -- how many fans would be calling for their heads, or claiming they did bother to really watch any episodes, etc.

Again, I just find it interesting how some fans hold up STII:TWoK as 'excellent Star Trek writing' when all the inconsistencies I listed in my previous post (and more) exist in said script; yet it gets a complete pass by many, while other Star Trek films, etc. get roasted at the stake for the smallest canon inconsistency at times.

(And again, I repeat that such inconsistencies don't affect my enjoyment of STII:TWoK at all and it's still either tied or slightly behind -- depending on my mood -- with ST:ID as my favorite Star Trek feature film.)

 

[F. King Daniel]

Time heals all continuity wounds. Whatever's new is held to a far stricter standard (by some) than what came before. Voyager and TOS/movies I-VI depict warp speeds so differently they can't possibly co-exist, yet nobody seems to care. Instead everyone has a conniption fit over the upteenth time a Trek starship goes underwater...

 

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

The thing about The Dark Knight is that nobody there hoped to make a billion with it. Batman Begins was a modest success, and they expected TDK to perform the same. It's just the hype around Ledger's death AND that the film was surprisingly well done that it made those huge numbers. But the point is that they never intended to make that HUGE box office smash hit, they just intended to make a good film. And if you ask me, it shows.

nuTrek Into Darkness was intended to make big bucks first, by copying elements from all successful films coming before it. They wanted to expand the foreign market, so they put London in it and advertised the hell out of that. They wanted TDK and Avengers numbers, so they tried to cash in on that now rather stereotypical super villain with a twisted plan story, and went all out trying to sell this as this DARK film. And they even included the glass prison from Avengers and a forced version of the hero to villain dialog from TDK. And they looked back at what Trek film was the most popular, and ripped that off as much as they could.

STD just feels pretty much in your face to me in that regard.

I especially agree with the bolded. To me, it seemed like STID was thrown together, and I'm guessing that this might be true at least to some extent from the fact that they pushed back filming so the writers could finish putting together a script. I think it was Lindelof that said they were "lazy" in getting together to do it... Like you said, it shows.

The only ones who know with any certainty whether Star Trek Into Darkness over-performed, under-performed or hit its target are the folks at Paramount and Bad Robot.

Everyone else is guessing.

I can agree with this.

However once you take away the 3d prices of STiD and adjust trek 09 by inflation.

Yes. Once you change the numbers, it doesn't look as good.

Comparing success by the numbers of tickets sold (which is essentially what you do when you adjust for ticket price inflation) is fair.

I can agree with this too.

the massive overseas gain was expected...

That's crazy.

Your comment reminded me of a few articles that I've read. I'll quote one in particular:

“Star Trek” may be one of the biggest franchises in Hollywood history, but it has one surprising flaw: Capt. Kirk doesn’t travel well.

Foreign moviegoers for one reason or another have never fully embraced the swaggering Starfleet captain and his crew. That is a major problem for Paramount Pictures now that international ticket sales account for up to 80 percent of a movie’s total gross.

A 2009 effort to revive the Star Trek movie series was a smash hit in North America, taking in about $280 million, after adjusting for inflation. But box-office analysts were deeply disappointed by the film’s foreign box office total of $139 million.

So Paramount has revved up its engines to warp speed for “Into Darkness,” which is already playing in some countries and arrives in the U.S. on May 17. The Viacom-owned studio has increased its international marketing budget for the film by 35 percent from that for the 2009 film, asked stars to do an unusual amount of globetrotting and staggered the release dates to shield “Into Darkness” from competition.

Paramount’s bid to draw in more foreign ticket buyers even extended to casting decisions and the script, which turns on a more terrestrial story. “Into Darkness” finds the Enterprise crew called back home, where a terror force has infiltrated the Starfleet organization.

“The team has really been in the weeds, so to speak, going country by country and looking at every possible opportunity,” Brad Grey, Paramount’s chairman, said of the studio’s marketers in particular. “On a profit level, focusing on your shareholders, this is now how detailed you have to be on pictures of this scope and scale.”

Grey added, “Between J.J. outdoing himself and our efforts to build up our global distribution system, I’m very, very confident that the franchise is finally going to live up to its potential.”

In 2009, “Star Trek” may have been a disappointment outside North America, but it also represented enormous progress. The preceding film in the franchise, “Star Trek: Nemesis” in 2002, took in a grand total of $31 million overseas.

But Paramount and its financing and producing partner, Skydance Productions, are counting on “Into Darkness” to do much better – perhaps delivering a 100 percent increase over the 2009 movie’s overseas gross.

The studio has little room for error. Most of Hollywood’s major studios will release as many as eight movies each over the summer, but Paramount will issue only two: “Into Darkness” and the risky “World War Z,” an intense zombie thriller starring Brad Pitt.

Pure science fiction has long been a difficult sell overseas, where audiences generally prefer space movies that have more fantasy elements, like “Star Wars.” The Star Trek movies, at least until Abrams came along to direct the 2009 version, also lacked eye-popping visual effects, leaning more on makeup tricks and drama on the bridge of the Enterprise.

Six “Star Trek” television shows, all notable for their kitsch, have been dubbed and distributed overseas, creating a solid fan base. But the TV show also hurts Paramount’s big-screen efforts, adding to a perception that the franchise is an impenetrable universe of characters and story lines.

The 2009 film, which featured a young cast but no proven stars, was in some ways torpedoed by Paramount’s own distribution decisions. Four other big releases — “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” “Angels & Demons,” “Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian” and “Terminator Salvation” — all opened in the same period, giving “Star Trek” little time to find its way.

This time, Paramount has decided on a staggered rollout, releasing “Into Darkness” in Australia, Germany, Britain and Mexico before the U.S. and Canada, and holding the movie back elsewhere. It will not arrive in Japan until August, for instance. Unlike the 2009 chapter, “Into Darkness” is planned for distribution in China. All told, Paramount will stage red carpet premieres in seven countries.

Cast members and producers have been crisscrossing the globe for months as part of advance marketing efforts. Chris Pine, who plays Capt. James Kirk, was dispatched to Tokyo in December to unveil a nine-minute trailer. More recently, Bryan Burk, an “Into Darkness” producer, went on an 11-city foreign tour — South America, Asia, Europe — to show 35 minutes of the movie to journalists and exhibitors.

Paramount went out of its way to cast foreign actors, in particular adding the British star Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain. And writers tried to produce a self-contained plot that would be exciting to loyal Star Trek fans but not put off people who know nothing about the franchise, which now includes 12 movies. (Research showed that foreign ticket buyers viewed the 2009 film as “too Trekkie and too sci-fi,” in the words of one Paramount executive.)

Please forgive the length. Source: http://www.telegram.com/article/20130510/NEWS/305119990

Edit: Just in case anybody needs me to link to the actual NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/business/media/star-trek-into-darkness-aims-for-world-audience.html?_r=0


Now if Brooks is to be trusted, as well as other sources I've come across, then they did expect this film to do better than the 2009 movie did overseas, and probably much better. They would not have poured such resources and time (and research) into their efforts overseas if they did not expect a significant gain.

Massive? That's a relative and subjective term. If by that Serenity means 100% over ST09's overseas gross, then what she said may not only not be crazy, she may actually be right. But again, only Paramount and Bad Robot can really say what "massive gain" means to them.

Anyway, what they ended up with was kind of an opposite situation. The 2009 film was a domestic smash hit, but it was disappointing overseas. The aggressive marketing campaign overseas worked and STID was a hit there, but domestically it is not performing as well as ST09. STID's overall gross number is better, in an "absolute values" sense, but who knows if it has profited Paramount and Bad Robot more than ST09? Only they can say.

Perhaps the third time will be the charm. Maybe the 2016 movie will perform really well domestically and overseas. Obviously, at least to me, from reading this article, it sounded like ST09 gave them hope for overseas numbers because they saw "potential" (and "progress") there. And it looks like they've tapped into that potential by essentially making an action movie that they heavily marketed as such.

I guess all I'm saying is that I don't think her statement is "crazy" at all, at least not based off of what I've read.

Sucess in business isn't all about volume. It's about a good return on investment. Making a large number of sales at low prices isn't inherently better or more successful than making fewer sales at high prices. It depends on the ROI.

STID is a decent-sized hit, a big enough hit to warrant a sequel. Had it sold the same number of tickets as Star Trek it would be a much bigger hit domestically given the higher ticket prices, especially the 3D premium, but it's done well enough to be marked down as a success nevertheless.

Yep. It seems to have done well enough. So, on to the next one, I guess.

Rules what? Certainly not the studio's return on investment.

Let's take a closer look at the numbers as of 7/7/13 according to boxofficemojo.com

Hansel and Gretel:
Budget: $50 million, Total Gross: $225,703,475 = 4.51 ROI ratio

Jack Reacher:
Budget: $60 million, Total Gross: $216,568,266 = 3.61 ROI ratio

G.I. Joe:
Budget: $130 million, Total Gross: $371,876,278 = 2.86 ROI ratio

So what about Star Trek Into Darkness?
Budget: $190 million, Total Gross: $443,865,011 = 2.34 ROI ratio

The lowest ROI of all Paramount's major releases this year.

For a more direct comparison vis-a-vis film budget:
WWZ budget = STID budget but after less than 3 weeks of release,
WWZ's total gross is already 82.5% of STID's total gross and will certainly eclipse STID's performance.

For reference, Star Trek (2009)'s ROI was 2.57 which means that STID would have to earn an additional amount of nearly $45 million just to match ST09's ROI performance - at this point, not very likely at all.

STID has done "fine" but not "great" so while no "pulling of the plug" is in order, we'll very likely see a tightening of budget purse-strings with the next film.

Interesting. I've never looked up ROI on boxofficemojo. I'll have to check into that. But, even without it, I'd figured they'd need to make around 480 million in order to be doing just about as good as ST09. It sounds like from your calculating, they might need a little more. We'll see how things turn out. Thanks for the numbers.

 

[Set Harth]

Voyager and TOS/movies I-VI depict warp speeds so differently they can't possibly co-exist, yet nobody seems to care.

"I care." - Luke Skywalker

 

[KittyDuran]

Woo-hoo! It's now showing in the cheap theaters (Danbarry) $3 (1.75 on Tuesdays) 4x a day. Also, still playing @ the 2 AMCs in the area.