If you only count non-3D, non-IMAX ticket sales and only in Luxemburg, Into Darkness is the LOWEST GROSSING TREK FILM OF ALL TIME!!!!!!!1!!!1oneoneone
TrekMOVIE Is Broken
- Thread starter Devon
- Start date
The only thing that can save Trek is Robert Downey Jr.
If I was Paramount I'd give him 50 million to be in the next movie as Harry Mudd. With him we are guaranteed to reach 1 Billion and finally have a JJTrek film that will break even.
If I was Paramount I'd give him 50 million to be in the next movie as Harry Mudd. With him we are guaranteed to reach 1 Billion and finally have a JJTrek film that will break even.
What happened, did he get banned?
Did he go into witness protection or what?
That Trek is Broken article... I'm sure that the suits at Paramount are quaking in their boots over it.
That Trek is Broken article... I'm sure that the suits at Paramount are quaking in their boots over it.
You can't seem to accomplish much of anything without "taking away".
These desperate attempts to portray Into Darkness as a disaster are going to backfire, from a PR point of view. So far, Paramount seems to be doing everything right with Star Trek 3. From its much reduced budget to its much longer run in China, Star Trek 3 is bound to come across as one of the bigger comebacks in cinema history.
No it isn't.
This is not proven fact. It's been suggested that in some cases it's the opposite.
Yes it does, and yes it does. If these things didn't matter, release dates would be completely arbitrary.
In your opinion. This is a logical fallacy.
It did.
So?
What is your basis for this? No Trek film has had anything close to a hundred million opening weekend.
How so? STiD has made 80m more than ST09 did.
They've already realized their mistake in the US market and have worked to rectify it--as noted in the Bluray thread.
And?
It's fucking Superman. Even the bad ones do well. And the really, really, really bad one managed to pull 15m.
How do you know? You're assuming. Assumptions don't equate truth.
Last edited:
Is there any reason why you couldn't have pursued this ridiculous tangent via PM?
It's clearly a joke avatar and not a serious suggestion to kill Ben Affleck, so settle down.
And what's with the extension of the opinion from the avatar into a baseless insult of all Nolan Batman fans as if they are universally against Affleck and want to see him killed?
I don't want to see this kind of post from you again or else you'll receive a trolling warning. Knock it off.
Care to post an actual statement from Paramount or Bad Robot that says that?
serenitytrek1
Commander
NO but I will say Amen to that.
So when you say "The Truth is", you mean "This is my own opinion, and it's not based on any facts" then. And when you say, "It's no secret", you mean "I have no link to back up this claim".
Got it.
serenitytrek1
Commander
1. It is very much a proven fact that movies with 3D helps a film overall earnings. Please read this article: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...d-films-the-next-film-revolution-1059197.html
Every film especially the summer’s films have benefited from 3D inflated prices
2. No it doesn’t really matter; ST09 had a lot of competition at the box office and it more than held its own.
3. No it is not really my opinion. ST09 is overall a better film, if you are judging its overall quality and reception
ST09 = 95% RT
Metacrtiic=83/100
STiD = 87% RT
Metacrtic = 72/100
4. FF6 made more money than STiD and did I mention that FF6 was not converted to 3D.
5. Boxoffice.com projected that trek will have a 108m opening weekend and 325m final gross at the USA Box office.
Box-office mojo predicted that STiD would earn 650m worldwide: 250m domestically and 400m internationally. Sadly it didn’t happen. So yes STiD underperformed.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3674
6. And?
And what?
Listen, when many people voice negative opinions of a particular scene in a film, it affects the credibility of the film. Many fans didn’t like Kirk’s death scene and they also hated the Khan scream.
If you don't believe me look at all the comment on Spock screaming Khan. Not once has any one said he screamed khan because he watched Kirk die. everyone says he screamed Khan because it was about paying homage to Shatner and WOK.
The fact that that Kirk's death scene and Spock screaming Khan broke the 4th wall so much that it questioned the authenticity of STiD is bad for the film.
Watch honest trailers of STiD, it explains it better than I do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B22Uy7SBe4
7. No it’s not fucking Superman. Superman may be a cultural icon but he was never a box office juggernaut that was until MOS was released.
8. Am not assuming anything, . Comic book resources ran an article of how film insiders said Paramount was disappointed. The Hollywood reporter also had a similar story of Paramount’s true feelings on STiD’s. Even trekmovie.com has admitted that the box office of STiD was disappointing.
there is no point in self denial on this topic.
lets all deal with it and move on.
Last edited:
In my opinion three things killed the Into Darkness box office here in the States:
1) Terrible marketing that revolved around hiding who Cumberbatch was playing.
2) Opening up in the U.S., after you had released the film in other major markets.
3) Competing against Iron Man 3 and Fast and Furious 6. You can go on about how the 2009 film had to compete as well, but it wasn't surrounded by two films that did $1.6 billion dollars combined.
It was a strategy for failure.
You forgot to mention that on Rotten Tomatoes, that out of 229,000 people who voted, 91% liked Into Darkness.
1) Terrible marketing that revolved around hiding who Cumberbatch was playing.
2) Opening up in the U.S., after you had released the film in other major markets.
3) Competing against Iron Man 3 and Fast and Furious 6. You can go on about how the 2009 film had to compete as well, but it wasn't surrounded by two films that did $1.6 billion dollars combined.
It was a strategy for failure.
You forgot to mention that on Rotten Tomatoes, that out of 229,000 people who voted, 91% liked Into Darkness.
Chuck Finley
Commander
It's OK Locutus, I'm not offended.
Yeah, but if you take away the votes from people who saw the Imax version, the 3D version, and anyone named "Steve," then you would see that Star Trek Into Darkness was also a critical failure with the general audience too. It's no secret!
No.
That article is from five years ago when 3D was still novelty. It draws a conclusion based on a false correlation. I might point out, it kind of got things wrong.
The article proves nothing. Also, it's five years old.
This article from about a year ago (and this one from earlier this year) suggests popularity in 3D continues to wane. Also, it seems TBBSers feel the same way.
Lately the question has been asked, since theaters are still trying to promote their 3D screens, could they be doing more harm than good? If a film is being shown on three 2D screens and five 3D screens, and the 2D screens sell out, do people bite the bullet and watch in 3D or do they go watch something else--or go home!?
Replace the 3D screens with 2D screens a those who came to see 3D will likely stay and watch it anyway, while those who would otherwise turn away, might stay too. So, in essence, the theater has sold 100 tickets at $10 instead of 70 tickets at $13. It's more or less a zero sum.
Of course, it's impossible to know either way, but my hypothesis is based on data much more recent than yours.
Not going to repeat myself. Release dates matter. There's a whole "science" behind them and people get paid a lot of money to figure them out.
Whether it's your opinion or the opinion of the Lakeland Dental Academy's football team is irrelevant. It's still an opinion. Don't promote it as fact.
Uh. See number one.
When I was 10, I projected I was going to be a rock star by the time I was 30. That didn't happen. I don't think my parents would say I "underperformed." Nor am I disappointed about how my life turned out.
Paramount got overzealous and made a brash and unrealistic exclamation. People like to set lofty goals. When they don't achieve those goals, it doesn't mean they're disappointed with the actual outcome. Unless you work for Paramount, any thing you say about its reaction to the film's performance is complete speculation.
And that was a non sequitur.And what?
I did. Still not proof of anything.
More opinion as fact.
Superman was one of the highest grossing films of the 70s. Yet more speculation. And yet more proof of nothing.
What does this even mean?
I see we're in repeats in this thread. This was covered July 7th in the 'STiD "Tracking"' thread. Let me add the next part:
The popular expression once used to describe this was "everyone is out of step but Johnny."
serenitytrek1
Commander
No.
That article is from five years ago when 3D was still novelty. It draws a conclusion based on a false correlation. I might point out, it kind of got things wrong.
The article proves nothing. Also, it's five years old.
This article from about a year ago (and this one from earlier this year) suggests popularity in 3D continues to wane. Also, it seems TBBSers feel the same way.
Lately the question has been asked, since theaters are still trying to promote their 3D screens, could they be doing more harm than good? If a film is being shown on three 2D screens and five 3D screens, and the 2D screens sell out, do people bite the bullet and watch in 3D or do they go watch something else--or go home!?
Replace the 3D screens with 2D screens a those who came to see 3D will likely stay and watch it anyway, while those who would otherwise turn away, might stay too. So, in essence, the theater has sold 100 tickets at $10 instead of 70 tickets at $13. It's more or less a zero sum.
Of course, it's impossible to know either way, but my hypothesis is based on data much more recent than yours.
Not going to repeat myself. Release dates matter. There's a whole "science" behind them and people get paid a lot of money to figure them out.
Whether it's your opinion or the opinion of the Lakeland Dental Academy's football team is irrelevant. It's still an opinion. Don't promote it as fact.
Uh. See number one.
When I was 10, I projected I was going to be a rock star by the time I was 30. That didn't happen. I don't think my parents would say I "underperformed." Nor am I disappointed about how my life turned out.
Paramount got overzealous and made a brash and unrealistic exclamation. People like to set lofty goals. When they don't achieve those goals, it doesn't mean they're disappointed with the actual outcome. Unless you work for Paramount, any thing you say about its reaction to the film's performance is complete speculation.
And that was a non sequitur.
I did. Still not proof of anything.
More opinion as fact.
Yet more speculation. And yet more proof of nothing.
What does this even mean?
Okay then if you choose to leave in self denial there is nothing I can do.
Paramount were the ones that projected first that STiD will earn a 100m opening weekend. that what was the original projected and it didn't happen.
STiD even with competition could have done better. Instead of blaming the time of it release maybe you should blame why the film had a poor demographic of young people. the same young people who would flock to see Star Wars in a heartbeat.
In a way it does promote fact. Let me give you a perfect example. imagine two students with a GPA of 3.0 and 3.5. while there might be opinions among lecturers about who is overall the better student. it is of fact that that student with a GPA of 3.5 has the better degree.
When films are release everyone references their score on RT and Metacritic. while opinions might vary, it is quite clear that a film with a higher RT and Metatcritic score is technically seen as the better film. This is fact, it is not opinion.
Superman may be the highest grossing films but it could not eve touch Burton's Batman and this was before the Nolan batman series. Superman and the Trek films use to gross around the same but now MOS has left STiD in the dust.
Look I know you are trying to see the positive side with STiD box office, however something's are fact. If trek movie and the Hollywood reporter can admit the film underperformed including so many fans, then to an extent it is true.
May I add that there has bee no article saying STiD 3D ticket sales were poor. which means STiD did have a boost at the box office thanks to 3D.
If this film had not been released in 3D, I doubt the film would have cracked 200m domestically.
That phrase doesn't mean what you seem to think it does, so perhaps you ought to stop using it. The "let's all [do this thing]" and "I'm sure we all agree [about that thing]" shtick really should go, too.
