No.
People are merely correcting your mistaken reasoning and misinterpretation of facts. One might as well assert that one has hit a math teacher's "raw nerve" when wrong answers are marked in red on a quiz or test.
STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
No.
People are merely correcting your mistaken reasoning and misinterpretation of facts. One might as well assert that one has hit a math teacher's "raw nerve" when wrong answers are marked in red on a quiz or test.
Nah. "Family friendly" means something pretty specific, and it's outside the action-adventure genre and the box office take that they're looking for - unless they want to turn Trek over to Dreamworks Animation or Pixar. 
They want to be in the same arena with Man Of Steel, Fast And Furious or the Marvel movies. These are not "family friendly."
They want to be in the same arena with Man Of Steel, Fast And Furious or the Marvel movies. These are not "family friendly."
Nah. "Family friendly" means something pretty specific, and it's outside the action-adventure genre and the box office take that they're looking for - unless they want to turn Trek over to Dreamworks Animation or Pixar.
They want to be in the same arena with Man Of Steel, Fast And Furious or the Marvel movies. These are not "family friendly."
The Nibiru stuff qualifies as family friendly adventure to me whereas the briefing room massacre and aftermath does not. etc....
The Marvel movies are definitely family & kid friendly. I think STID moved away from that.
Star Trek Into Darkness, Iron Man 3, Avengers and Captain America all carried PG-13 ratings.
If they go "family friendly" their box office goes down.
If they go "family friendly" their box office goes down.
7th time?! *hangs head in shame, burns membership card*Was that when (IIRC) ST09 went back into the IMAX theaters (when there was a opening)? I know I saw it a few more times in IMAX after it's run in the cheap theaters, but I couldn't remember if it was in the month of September.
Here's hoping that STiD does another run in IMAX!
Yep, it resumed IMAX in 9/09
http://trekmovie.com/2009/09/01/star-trek-headed-back-to-imax-for-2nd-limited-run/
Last edited:
Saw it for the fourth time today with my sixteen-year old son (first time) and he loved it.
The second, third and fourth times I've seen this film I've been fully aware of its shortcomings and have expected them to impact my enjoyment, but they haven't. This is a movie that simply grabs hold of you and doesn't let go from beginning to end. The cast is incredible. I could go again tonight to see it!
I just don't know how you can say you're a Trek fan and not enjoy Into Darkness on at least some level.
The second, third and fourth times I've seen this film I've been fully aware of its shortcomings and have expected them to impact my enjoyment, but they haven't. This is a movie that simply grabs hold of you and doesn't let go from beginning to end. The cast is incredible. I could go again tonight to see it!
I just don't know how you can say you're a Trek fan and not enjoy Into Darkness on at least some level.
Which blog is that out of curiosity? Although it's a forgone conclusion at this point...
Wednesday number: $1,137,047 for $203,715,975 so far. Star Trek made $1,262,996 on its comparable day. STiD will be in 2,331 theaters this weekend, down 821 from the previous one.
Crap.
Something tells me it'll do that and more
corrected amount
So, it'll probably pass 210 million this weekend, with two weeks yet to go in June.
Boxoffice does forecast 6 million over the weekend, so 210 sounds right. If there are enough theaters open, maybe it'll push the 230 mark.
And Supes is currently at 57% on RT.
And Supes is currently at 57% on RT.
I am getting dizzy reading all the spins the fans and detractors of the movie are putting on the boxoffice numbers. But the detractor dudes are grasping at the straws here. This movie is a hit, boxoffice and otherwise.
One factor that's important, besides the boxoffice, is how the studio perceives the movie in terms of qualify and popularity. The movie "Superman Returns" is mentioned several times in this thread. I think the studio executives were not exited about that movie and moviegoers reactions were lukewarm (e.g. 6.2 rating on imdb). So despite solid boxoffice numbers they didn't do any direct followup to that movie and eventually did a reboot several years later.
But in case of STID, the studio obviously thought highly of the film. That's evident from early critics screenings, the 9 minute trailer, opening the movie a day early, etc. All indicated that studio was confident they had a good movie (maybe a little overconfident, releasing a day early was a mistake). And the audience and critics reactions to the movie has been very positive, high ratings on cinemascore, imdb, rottentomatoes, etc.
So while the studio maybe a little disappointed by the domestic boxoffice, they are very happy with everything else. So the next movie will be done by the same creative team. They may try a different marketing strategy to get more female and younger viewers, but it will get made and will have a healthy budget (even if it's lower than this one).
One factor that's important, besides the boxoffice, is how the studio perceives the movie in terms of qualify and popularity. The movie "Superman Returns" is mentioned several times in this thread. I think the studio executives were not exited about that movie and moviegoers reactions were lukewarm (e.g. 6.2 rating on imdb). So despite solid boxoffice numbers they didn't do any direct followup to that movie and eventually did a reboot several years later.
But in case of STID, the studio obviously thought highly of the film. That's evident from early critics screenings, the 9 minute trailer, opening the movie a day early, etc. All indicated that studio was confident they had a good movie (maybe a little overconfident, releasing a day early was a mistake). And the audience and critics reactions to the movie has been very positive, high ratings on cinemascore, imdb, rottentomatoes, etc.
So while the studio maybe a little disappointed by the domestic boxoffice, they are very happy with everything else. So the next movie will be done by the same creative team. They may try a different marketing strategy to get more female and younger viewers, but it will get made and will have a healthy budget (even if it's lower than this one).
Can't. Love that blog and won't have the comments section sullied by fanboys. (Not calling you a fanboy, but others are reading) If it's true, we ought to know soon enough.
But I wanted it to be good! It's going to smack the competition whether it's good or not, so I hoped it would have had the decency to at least be good.
Interesting. The French have never liked Star Trek before. Do you suppose, on foreign-language Trek boards, the posters there are debating why it is that Into Darkness is doing so much better than its predecessor? The action content doesn't seem any higher to me.
That would be an interesting conversation to listen in on. At least compared to listening to a canon enthusiast try to convince us that, despite only getting two cents of every dollar of the foreign grosses, the studio nevertheless cheerfully spent half a billion marketing this movie in foreign territories, expecting a minimum performance of 64 billion worldwide.
I think that the decision "sequel or not" is primarily made based on the "plan" for the sequel, especially in an already established franchise. There are films that got a sequel even though they had horrible box office, because studios liked the concept and approach of the sequel plan. There are films that never got a sequel even though they had fantastic box office, because nobody was able to come up with a plan for a sequel that satisfied the studios.
Superman Returns did fine, but the concept for the sequel wasn't good.
Superman Returns did fine, but the concept for the sequel wasn't good.