They should have put more shirtless Kirk in the movie and trailers to get more females to see the movie.
STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
They should have put more shirtless Kirk in the movie and trailers to get more females to see the movie.
I expect decent Japanese numbers, yeah.
Star Trek 3 in 2016.
I get the feeling that'll be precisely its name, too! I don't think the name "Star Trek into Darkness" worked nearly as well domestically as abroad, and I suspect the locals will be the focals going forward, with a repeat-style marketing campaign for the international numbers and possibly more Benedict than the team had initially plotted.
Meanwhile, in the name game, Paramount will wish to go back to basics more than ever before, hoping to leech off of Iron Man 3 proving you don't need an allegedly well-flowing title to grab people.
JJ Abrams settled on a formula for this franchise with the first film. Some of the elements included:
* the film would be an admixture of Star Wars and Star Trek
* science gets in the way of story, so minimize the science
* people relate to what looks real, so film in real world locations that can pass for locations on Earth and on board the Enterprise
* throw in some homages to Classic Trek to please the fans
The above is some of what I got from watching the documentaries included with the blu-ray release of the first film. Watch them yourself. They are very informative.
Paramount created focus groups overseas in an effort at determining what will work and what will not work. So, this film is partially a focus group driven movie.
Personally, I think that a pure Star Trek film is dead. The people who matter the most - the overseas audience - aren't interested in Star Trek. They want action-adventure stories that they can understand. Think about that for a moment. Consider how many different cultures a film has to be made for, and what this does with the freedom of writers to craft and write a story. If there is a third film, I believe that it will be even further removed from Trek than the current film.
From what I am reading, many fans are happy with this film. I think this same group will be happy with the next film. For those of us in the minority, I am concerned about alienation and ostracism. I am seeing those who like this film being hypercritical of those who disagree. They are labeling those who disagree as "extreme fans", as "whiners", and other ugly epithets. This is a classic tactic by the majority to marginalize those who have differing opinions.
* the film would be an admixture of Star Wars and Star Trek
* science gets in the way of story, so minimize the science
* people relate to what looks real, so film in real world locations that can pass for locations on Earth and on board the Enterprise
* throw in some homages to Classic Trek to please the fans
The above is some of what I got from watching the documentaries included with the blu-ray release of the first film. Watch them yourself. They are very informative.
Paramount created focus groups overseas in an effort at determining what will work and what will not work. So, this film is partially a focus group driven movie.
Personally, I think that a pure Star Trek film is dead. The people who matter the most - the overseas audience - aren't interested in Star Trek. They want action-adventure stories that they can understand. Think about that for a moment. Consider how many different cultures a film has to be made for, and what this does with the freedom of writers to craft and write a story. If there is a third film, I believe that it will be even further removed from Trek than the current film.
From what I am reading, many fans are happy with this film. I think this same group will be happy with the next film. For those of us in the minority, I am concerned about alienation and ostracism. I am seeing those who like this film being hypercritical of those who disagree. They are labeling those who disagree as "extreme fans", as "whiners", and other ugly epithets. This is a classic tactic by the majority to marginalize those who have differing opinions.
Star Trek 3 in 2016.
I get the feeling that'll be precisely its name, too! I don't think the name "Star Trek into Darkness" worked nearly as well domestically as abroad, and I suspect the locals will be the focals going forward, with a repeat-style marketing campaign for the international numbers and possibly more Benedict than the team had initially plotted.
Meanwhile, in the name game, Paramount will wish to go back to basics more than ever before, hoping to leech off of Iron Man 3 proving you don't need an allegedly well-flowing title to grab people.
Star Trek: The something something will do me. Who cares about a colon in the name really? Doesn't stop other franchise movies doing huge $.
The basics are there. Big starship that travels at warp speed and has transporters and shuttlecraft explores the galaxy (usually). Alien species are humanoid and speak English. Dude with pointy ears is logical not emotional. They often beam down to planets to explore with phasers and tricorders. How difficult a concept is that to understand? Star Trek was designed to be easy to understand for mass appeal on a major TV network and it was designed as an action/adventure show.
I'm sorry, I just don't see it.
This has always been Star Trek's mode of operation.
I guess I'm stupid because I felt Into Darkness was every bit as much a "pure Star Trek" film as First Contact or The Undiscovered Country.
I've read it all and even quoted on this board from time to time.
Yup, according to Hollywood Reporter Into Darkness skewed almost 65% male and 73% over 25... those demographic changes are important.
Yancy
I know you've been down on the numbers, but if Into Darkness doubles Trek 2009, that's over $250 internationally, and even if it only musters $220 domestically that's a final haul of $470 million for Into Darkness versus $385 million for Trek 2009. Paramount will take that any day of the week.
Yancy
[BERMAN] We are very pleased. [/BERMAN]
No. That's not the lesson of this release.
On the bright side, it's already made more dinero than Nemesis did in its entire run
Actually it has made as much as STFC did when accounting for inflation....in just over a WEEK!
RAMA
First Contact made US$146m.
As it stands ST:ID has only made US$67.2m thus far.
Nemesis made US$67.3m.
So in straight figures it hasn't beaten either of those films yet. True the Sunday figures for the US+Canda and the first full week for the rest of the world (where it was relased on May 9)have yet to come in which should easily push it past First Contact figures.
Accounting for inflation, STFC made over $164 million. Through Sunday STID will make $158 million minimum. It now seems like the figure will be closer to $165 million. So in basically a week, STID has made MORE than the most popular STNG film in its whole run even with the higher inflation figure. I used it as an example since Nemesis was a poor analogy.
Edit: The Numbers already has STID listed at $84,091,000 domestic $164,591,000 Worldwide. The Intl numbers were revised from $75 million to $80.5 million.
So despite the panic, STID probably will do $5 million more domestically in fewer theaters, for 5 days.
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Star-Trek
RAMA
Last edited:
Obvious question time, then: what is?
Fewer theaters? Why? Probably because of IM3 and GG...?
That's weird. Probably Iron Man 3, yeah.
So $84 million so far in america (a little boost in the end helped) and around $75 overseas so far? = $159 million worldwide is a good start. If I remember right STAR TREK has an habit of making x3 domestically from its opening weekend so we probably are looking at $250 million US Box Office Total and Paramount believes they can break $200 million minimum oversea's and even double the overseas 09 total which would allow STID to break Half a billion.