F&F 6 should be the biggest film in the series to date, both domestically and worldwide. I was surprised to see that Universal has never had a $100 million 3-day opening. If F&F 6 reaches that level it'll be their first.
STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
I guess Trek is an older audience now. It's been years since they've been on television and the last few shows never matched the popularity of TNG.
I wouldn't be counting out The Hangover Part III AKA Bradley Cooper Held Hostage Part II. The last film was a piece of dog shit, a total victory lap by those who produced it. Bradley Cooper just mailed it in. But audience scores were apparently high and it made more money than the first one. Domestically, the first two films made over $500 million. Trek being sandwiched between Iron Man 3/Gatsy on one side and FF6/Hangover III on the other side is not a great place to be.
A return to the holiday season might be advisable at this point.
All this being said, I think the film will still gross over $200 million in the US and do even better overseas. It is and will be a success.
I was surprised Universal never had a 100 million 3 day opening too. I thought for sure Jurassic Park 2 had done it.
The Fast and Furious franchise has to be one of the most usual action franchises ever. I don't think we have ever seen a series disappoint with second movie, look almost dead with third movie, and then be reborn from the ashes of fire with the fourth movie after bringing back the original cast members. The series has found great success after evolving from niche car racing to more popular heist movies with cars.
This may seem like out there theory to some of you, but I honestly think one of the reasons for Trek 09's success was that it had far better trailers compared to ST: ITD.
The trailers for Trek '09 really pumped people up, I even remember plenty of non-fans talking about how they wanted to see the movie just by the trailers alone. I never heard the same sentiments from people who saw the STITD trailers. ITD trailers were nice, but they were not as epic and grand as Trek '09. That's partly why a huge mainstream audience flocked to see that movie.
Go to Youtube and compare to the trailers for Trek '09 to ITD,...Trek '09 is still stirring.
Here is a sample of Trek '09 trailers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RflL86cmMFA
So I think it came down to marketing as well, they should have bragged about having Khan more instead of the big secret.
The trailers for Trek '09 really pumped people up, I even remember plenty of non-fans talking about how they wanted to see the movie just by the trailers alone. I never heard the same sentiments from people who saw the STITD trailers. ITD trailers were nice, but they were not as epic and grand as Trek '09. That's partly why a huge mainstream audience flocked to see that movie.
Go to Youtube and compare to the trailers for Trek '09 to ITD,...Trek '09 is still stirring.
Here is a sample of Trek '09 trailers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RflL86cmMFA
So I think it came down to marketing as well, they should have bragged about having Khan more instead of the big secret.
Very good point. The trailers from the 2009 film were oustanding. Into Darkness' ones were very meh by comparison.
BOM updated Australia and New Zealand box office:
STID OZ: Weekend 2: $3,124,209 / Total: $9,747,109
ST09 OZ: Weekend 2: $2,034,078 / Total: $6,627,504
STID NZ: Weekend 2: $573,912 / Total: $1,638,334
ST09 NZ: Weekend 2: $326,471 / Total: $965,559
Like everywhere else except North America the box office is above that of ST09 by a good margin, however it is interesting to see that in both countries STID is playing on double the number of screens than ST09 did....
STID OZ: Weekend 2: $3,124,209 / Total: $9,747,109
ST09 OZ: Weekend 2: $2,034,078 / Total: $6,627,504
STID NZ: Weekend 2: $573,912 / Total: $1,638,334
ST09 NZ: Weekend 2: $326,471 / Total: $965,559
Like everywhere else except North America the box office is above that of ST09 by a good margin, however it is interesting to see that in both countries STID is playing on double the number of screens than ST09 did....
I agree about the marketing. It was a lackluster effort all around.
I have no idea what Paramount was thinking.
I have no idea what Paramount was thinking.
I think the trailers were suitably epic, but it was probably a mistake to be so cagey about the villain.
The '09 trailer is exceptionally good, no doubt about it.
I didn't think the trailers for this film provided a very strong hook for the movie. It's hard to measure the impact of that kind of thing, obviously. It's partly that Cumberbatch was featured, but not the character he was playing. And it didn't really give me much of a sense of what the film was going to be about.
And that's me, a longtime fan. I did make the right assumption regarding the villain's identity, but even so.
True. I think the whole "darkness" part of the marketing was a huge and tragic mistake. Outside of the Dark Knight (Keep in mind this is the freakin Batman we are talking about here) films I can't think of a huge blockbuster that was advertised as dark. The film wasn't dark, it was toned similar to the 2009 film. Heck, you can argue that the 2009 film is darker due to the destruction of Vulcan.
While I don't agree with the idea about bring out the fact that Cumberbatch was playing Khan (mostly because people would've been WAY more negative up to and after release), I do agree that most of the STID trailers sucked. Only the final domestic trailer one felt like it was actually interesting, since most of them kept rehashing the same footage over and over.
What they needed more of in the marketing.
- Klingons
- Khan
- Spock
- Vengeance firing phasers on the Enterprise
Too secretive, especially for a sequel 4 years later. I remember people on this board saying it's way too secretive, JJ Abrams would go onto a chat show and show 3 frames of it...which was what..six months before release? We knew nothing.
- Klingons
- Khan
- Spock
- Vengeance firing phasers on the Enterprise
Too secretive, especially for a sequel 4 years later. I remember people on this board saying it's way too secretive, JJ Abrams would go onto a chat show and show 3 frames of it...which was what..six months before release? We knew nothing.
They had the same problem with the game. Six months before release and we barely knew or saw anything, despite the game being announced at E3 a few years ago. Although in that case, it was understandable, since they were hiding how bad the game was.
It blows my mind over and over how incompetent a lot of video game developers are. I worked in that industry for about a year, it's pretty unprofessional and it shows in a lot of work. It's scandalous that they had an entire extra year, but don't appear to have done anything during that time. An extra year should allow them to tighten up the gameplay, hype the game up and add new features.