The world's a lot bigger than your country.Uh... no. Into Darkness is not the highest grossing film of the franchise. Star Trek 2009 is (At least domestically.)
The world's a lot bigger than your country.Uh... no. Into Darkness is not the highest grossing film of the franchise. Star Trek 2009 is (At least domestically.)
I used to really like trekmovie, but has waned in recent years. There are often long periods of time with no updates. They used to do science Saturday and discuss non- trek movies. There used to be a lot of interesting content to keep you interested until Trek news popped up, but it has gone down hill. That's not so say that I agree with the guy about STID, though I do think that JJ Trek has its issues.
I used to really like trekmovie, but has waned in recent years. There are often long periods of time with no updates. They used to do science Saturday and discuss non- trek movies. There used to be a lot of interesting content to keep you interested until Trek news popped up, but it has gone down hill. That's not so say that I agree with the guy about STID, though I do think that JJ Trek has its issues.
Am sorry, I know this may be off topic but what the heck is on your Avatar?
You are glamorising Killing an actor because you don't want to see him in a film role. Please I find that disturbing and it is doesn't make you look cool. All is does is confirm how messed up many Nolan fans are.
You guys need to stop playing God with peoples lives. Has it ever occurred to you that neither The Joker, Batman or even Star Trek is real? Ben Affleck is actually a real person, he has a wife and 3 kids. there is no need to kill this man just because you don't want to see him play a fictional character like Batman.
Back to the topic. Star Trek is far from broken but it is showing a few cracks. A few cracks that can be fixed with a great film in 2016.
...highest grossing film of the franchise is a sign that Star Trek is "no longer popular" and "needs fixing,"...
Uh... no. Into Darkness is not the highest grossing film of the franchise. Star Trek 2009 is (At least domestically.)
Though Into Darkness certainly wasn't any kind of flop, it certainly didn't do as well as it was expected to. And when compared to ST2009, STiD cost more to make, it was shown on more IMAX screens, and was in 3D resulting in the more expensive 3D tickets being sold. It still did worse than Star Trek 2009 did. Especially in this day and age where sequels are supposed to out perform their predecessors, then it is imposable to deny that Star Trek Into Darkness wasn't quite what Paramount was hoping for.
Then again every big budget movie this summer did worse than was expected. Except, Iron Man 3 which did about as well as was expected.
I used to really like trekmovie, but has waned in recent years. There are often long periods of time with no updates. They used to do science Saturday and discuss non- trek movies. There used to be a lot of interesting content to keep you interested until Trek news popped up, but it has gone down hill. That's not so say that I agree with the guy about STID, though I do think that JJ Trek has its issues.
Am sorry, I know this may be off topic but what the heck is on your Avatar?
You are glamorising Killing an actor because you don't want to see him in a film role. Please I find that disturbing and it is doesn't make you look cool. All is does is confirm how messed up many Nolan fans are.
You guys need to stop playing God with peoples lives. Has it ever occurred to you that neither The Joker, Batman or even Star Trek is real? Ben Affleck is actually a real person, he has a wife and 3 kids. there is no need to kill this man just because you don't want to see him play a fictional character like Batman.
Back to the topic. Star Trek is far from broken but it is showing a few cracks. A few cracks that can be fixed with a great film in 2016.
I think we should allow Chuck respond to the questions posed about his avatar before pursuing this line of discussion.
Chuck, are you advocating the killing of Ben Affleck as your avatar reads?
1. Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013) $462 million 2. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) $447.1 million 3. Star Trek (2009) $419.8 million 4. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) $283.4 million 5. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) $234.2 million 6. Star Trek: First Contact (1996) $223.2 million 7. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) $195.5 million 8. Star Trek: Generations (1994) $189.1 million 9. Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) $168.8 million 10. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) $166.1 million 11. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) $132.2 million 12. Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) $87.4 million Source: 1701News
Above you see the Top Star Trek World Box Office - Adjusted For Inflation chart. I have updated STID's box office figure to its current one. It's likely to top out at around $470 million.
But here's the thing, it'll likely make another $100million in DVD sales and maybe the same again in blu-ray sales. And you know they will be issuing different versions on different formats for years to come.
STID is likely to be one of Paramounts most profitable movies over the long run. I'd make the same point about Star Trek Nemesis - sure it was beaten by Maid in Manhatten, but I'd bet the house that Star Trek Nemesis will have sold more DVD's and Blu-Rays than MIM.
As the above chart proves, Star Trek Into Darkness is a success. Ignore the crazy fans who say otherwise!!
The 3D and IMAX 3D prices. If you take that away, STiD's box office may just be a little over 400m or less.
Star Trek is far from broken but it is showing a few cracks.
They were always a JJ Abrams Trek advocacy website. I guess they're still coming to terms that STID failed at bringing in new fans w/out alienating too many old fans the way the first movie did. Which was basically the reboots mission statement.
The 3D and IMAX 3D prices. If you take that away, STiD's box office may just be a little over 400m or less.
The 3D and IMAX 3D prices. If you take that away, STiD's box office may just be a little over 400m or less.
Should we handicap all the films the same way? Should we hold it against TMP that it got to spend six months in wide spread release as opposed to the three that Into Darkness got? Should we hold it against TMP that it was released in December and got the playing field mostly to itself where Into Darkness got sandwiched between Iron Man 3 and Fast and Furious 6? Should we hold it against TMP that it was the only new live-action Trek in a decade and that there were only 79 episodes of Trek where Into Darkness was following on from seven-hundred hours of Trek?
Every movie has favorable and unfavorable conditions that it has to deal with. Like it or not, Into Darkness is the number two money earner in the Trek movie series.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.