• 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]

Since I have not seen anyone else mention it:

In the daily breakdown for the long Memorial Day Weekend, The Hangover III fell to #4 on Monday, allowing Into Darkness to climb up to #2. It will be interesting to see how the rest of the week plays out, but at this juncture it would appear that word-of-mouth is hurting H3, but helping Trek.

http://boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2013-05-27&p=.htm

EDIT: Looking at the numbers again, Trek was actually #2 on Sunday as well, but by a smaller margin.
 
I think that if Paramount can't get this cast to sign on for more movies after the 3rd within budget they will likely do another re-boot or go in a different direction with Star Trek.
 
Robert_T_April said:
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country cost approximately $30 million to make which I'm not sure what the equivalent is today. Maybe $100 million?

That movie was so well written, and masterfully directed by Nick Meyer that it was a huge success. To me, from the score...sound and special effects and writing, it was really a beautiful movie...the best in the series IMHO.

My point is that you can do more with less if the movie is written, directed, and produced properly. What's sad to me, and I hope that I'm wrong, is that after Star Trek 3 is released, it will be a miracle to re-assemble this cast in it's entirety for a 4th Trek. There is always a sour apple or two in the group that won't want to come back, or will want an exorbitant amount of money to do so.

I loved Into Darkness but, $190 million to me is a ridiculous budget for a Trek movie. I hope this franchise goes on for many more movies but, it's not likely due to these escalating budgets. Again...I hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

I didnt think so, it was a telegraphed plot, poorly paced, and very small scale. It also hasn't aged too well. I thin STID is superior in every way including the terrorist/assassination plot.

Im thinking a $150-160 million budget will be in place for the next movie.
 
Robert_T_April said:
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country cost approximately $30 million to make which I'm not sure what the equivalent is today. Maybe $100 million?

That movie was so well written, and masterfully directed by Nick Meyer that it was a huge success. To me, from the score...sound and special effects and writing, it was really a beautiful movie...the best in the series IMHO.

My point is that you can do more with less if the movie is written, directed, and produced properly. What's sad to me, and I hope that I'm wrong, is that after Star Trek 3 is released, it will be a miracle to re-assemble this cast in it's entirety for a 4th Trek. There is always a sour apple or two in the group that won't want to come back, or will want an exorbitant amount of money to do so.

I loved Into Darkness but, $190 million to me is a ridiculous budget for a Trek movie. I hope this franchise goes on for many more movies but, it's not likely due to these escalating budgets. Again...I hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...


and unlike TFF, TUC (to me) doesn't look like a cheaply made movie. Meyer knew how to get a lot of movie out of a little money.
 
Robert_T_April said:
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country cost approximately $30 million to make which I'm not sure what the equivalent is today. Maybe $100 million?
Click to expand...
It adjusts to about $50 million today. Hollywood budgets escalated dramatically in the 1990s and 2000s, outpacing general economic inflation by a wide margin. A lot of 1980s and early 1990s films that were considered big budget at the time adjust to what would now be low budgets for films of their scale.

For example, the budgets for the three 1980s Indiana Jones movies adjust to about $45 million, $61 million, and $88 million respectively in today's dollars, while Kingdom of the Crystal Skull had a budget of $185 million (which adjusts to about $197 million today).
 
Last edited:
Here's the sad fact about the current movie business: if they don't invest megabucks in the production to begin with, they won't spend the money on promotion and distribution to give it the best shot at success in a crowded release schedule. That money will go instead to a movie that they did spend a lot on and the success of which is therefore more crucial to them.

Frankly, Serenity was doomed as much by being a movie that Universal could afford to throw away as it was by any other single factor.
 
One thing not mentioned here at all is that STID never opened in the same number of theaters as ST09...by hundreds. This is likely because of all the movies coming out. So the increased numbers from Imax and so on are mitigated by the lower numbers of theaters...and it STILL is doing about the same as ST09.

RAMA
 
Aside from yesterday's Memorial Day sales, Into Darkness has been underperforming '09 for the past week

 
sonak said:
Robert_T_April said:
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country cost approximately $30 million to make which I'm not sure what the equivalent is today. Maybe $100 million?

That movie was so well written, and masterfully directed by Nick Meyer that it was a huge success. To me, from the score...sound and special effects and writing, it was really a beautiful movie...the best in the series IMHO.

My point is that you can do more with less if the movie is written, directed, and produced properly. What's sad to me, and I hope that I'm wrong, is that after Star Trek 3 is released, it will be a miracle to re-assemble this cast in it's entirety for a 4th Trek. There is always a sour apple or two in the group that won't want to come back, or will want an exorbitant amount of money to do so.

I loved Into Darkness but, $190 million to me is a ridiculous budget for a Trek movie. I hope this franchise goes on for many more movies but, it's not likely due to these escalating budgets. Again...I hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...


and unlike TFF, TUC (to me) doesn't look like a cheaply made movie. Meyer knew how to get a lot of movie out of a little money.
Click to expand...

Agreed. He's brilliant!
 
AbramsIsSatan said:
Don't think Paramount is getting what they wanted when they dumped another $40 million into the budget. This won't outgross 09 Trek from the looks of things, particularly from a domestic standpoint.

In fact, pay particular attention to the 10-day gross. It's far behind 09 Trek.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=trekshowdown.htm

Hopefully this spells the end of Lindelof, Abrams and Co!
Click to expand...

:lol: It's doing well on the foreign box office and might end up being on par if not exceed 2009 by worldwide total. It's by no means a failure. It's not even out in some anticipated bigger foreign markets yet.

JJ and team saved Star Trek. I remember in 2005 the franchise looked completely doomed on TV, and in the theaters. I really thought it was all over.

Nowadays. Star Trek, even if it doesn't make a huge amount of profit is saved. If they made a TV series now it would atleast have a bigger domestic and international audience.
 
i hope they give it back to berman and co so we can finally get that romulan war movie with enterprise away on holiday on risa
 
AbramsIsSatan said:
BillJ said:
Since they have a contract for three films, I doubt it.
Click to expand...

They will likely "mutually agree to go a different direction". It happens all the time.

Do you really believe that Abrams will go directly from Star Wars back to Star Trek in May 2015?

I certainly don't.
Click to expand...

Paramount already announced Bad Robot would produce the movie whether Abrams directs or not.
 
Phily B said:
i hope they give it back to berman and co so we can finally get that romulan war movie with enterprise away on holiday on risa
Click to expand...


IMO Paramount would be crazy to give it back to Berman. He and others did not know when to leave and pass the torch to others and the franchise suffered for it. It will never happen.
 
Last edited:
With all Bad Robots first choice people busy with Star Wars I wonder where that leaves Star Trek? Everyone except the script writers will move to Star Wars and Trek gets the B team?
 
Flake said:
With all Bad Robots first choice people busy with Star Wars I wonder where that leaves Star Trek? Everyone except the script writers will move to Star Wars and Trek gets the B team?
Click to expand...

I doubt all Bad Robots top people will be all working on Star Wars. I'm sure the company has a lot of good people that will be working on Star Trek, likely some will work on both.

Plus if Paramount thought that Star Trek was not getting the attention it needed, I'm sure the relationship with Bad Robot would come to an abrupt end.
 
I hadn't thought of that. I assume Abrams will be utilising most of his usual collaborators on Episode VII. I do hope some of Bad Robot's main talent will stay involved with Trek XIII. Orci and Kurtzman will still write, I assume. Lindelof's out. I think he's developing a new movie or series. Michael Arndt is writing Star Wars episode VII.
 
AbramsIsSatan said:
BillJ said:
Since they have a contract for three films, I doubt it.
Click to expand...

They will likely "mutually agree to go a different direction". It happens all the time.

Do you really believe that Abrams will go directly from Star Wars back to Star Trek in May 2015?

I certainly don't.
Click to expand...

That's nice, but you really don't have a clue what you're talking about here.

Do you have a list of those at Bad Robot, other than Abrams, who are "going to Star Wars?"

Bad Robot will produce a Star Trek film for Paramount to be released in 2016. It's that simple. :cool:
 
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