What's with people saying Into Darkness wasn't as profitable?

[AdmiralBruno]

I've read this several times. It's simply NOT true. It made more money relative to its budget... not by an enormous amount, but it was still marginally more successful than the first movie.

And as for critical reviews... 95% to 87%. For a sequel to retain almost all of the near universal critical praise is pretty good.

 

[Dukhat]

Only the Abrams haters say stuff like this. It's easily ignored when one looks at the facts, like you did.

And really, at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that the success of the films has finally opened CBS's eyes to a new series. The movies achieved their goal; it's as simple as that.

 

[JWPlatt]

Would that generalization be:

All Abrams haters?
Some Abrams haters?
All people saying so are Abrams haters?
Do any Abrams lovers say this?
Does anyone who doesn't care who made it and which universe it is in say this?

I'm just trying to see past the prejudice. Isn't it a little like saying (some portion of) star trek fans suck?

I don't go to the movie review sites. I don't read the critics. But when I come across articles about Star Trek films on news sites, the commonly acknowledged wisdom, right or wrong or subjective, is that STID was not as good and not as successful as ST. You're not fighting the fans; you're fighting the general perception of the movie. That perception wasn't helped by the staff exodus.

 

[Saul]

I've read this several times. It's simply NOT true. It made more money relative to its budget... not by an enormous amount, but it was still marginally more successful than the first movie.

And as for critical reviews... 95% to 87%. For a sequel to retain almost all of the near universal critical praise is pretty good.

I think why they say it wasn't as profitable was because the studio was expecting it to make a lot more than it actually did. Not marginally more. They were wanting a 'Batman Begins' ----> 'The Dark Knight' type of success.

 

[M'Sharak]

I've read this several times. It's simply NOT true. It made more money relative to its budget... not by an enormous amount, but it was still marginally more successful than the first movie.

And as for critical reviews... 95% to 87%. For a sequel to retain almost all of the near universal critical praise is pretty good.

I think why they say it wasn't as profitable was because the studio was expecting it to make a lot more than it actually did. Not marginally more. They were wanting a 'Batman Begins' ----> 'The Dark Knight' type of success.

There may have been some unrealistic expectations involved, though not necessarily on the part of anyone with a direct connection to the studio. I always thought it interesting that, after a lot of sources had for several weeks been forecasting a $70 million opening weekend box office, suddenly out of left field the week before release came wild predictions of an opening weekend take nearly double that.

Which, naturally, failed to materialize; the long-predicted $70 million figure proved to be quite accurate.

Would the studio have preferred an increase in the domestic take over what the 2009 film did? Undoubtedly. That there wasn't had to come as something of a disappointment, but the claims that STID was a big loser / less profitable / almost sunk Paramount / etc., ... well, those have never been very credible.

 

[Dukhat]

I'm just trying to see past the prejudice. Isn't it a little like saying (some portion of) star trek fans suck?

Prejudice? Puh-lease. Don't dramatize my statement as if it was some racial slur, or use words to that effect.

And feel free to generalize it any way you want.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I've read this several times. It's simply NOT true. It made more money relative to its budget... not by an enormous amount, but it was still marginally more successful than the first movie.

And as for critical reviews... 95% to 87%. For a sequel to retain almost all of the near universal critical praise is pretty good.

This article points out how nonsensical Hollywood's accounting is. If Into Darkness was a financial failure, it's certainly in good company.

It did well enough to get a sequel currently in post-production, have another sequel pencilled-in for 2019 and get a spin-off TV series set to launch in January 2017. As a big fan of reboot Trek, I can safely say I have everything Trek-wise I could have wanted!

 

[Campe]

STID did just fine at the box office.

 

[Nebusj]

Though the essay dates to 1923, it is always worth reviewing Robert Benchley's How To Understand International Finance whenever accounting is brought up.

 

[JWPlatt]

This article on ScreenRant.com gives a somewhat accurate summary of the love and hate for STID, plus an admission from Abrams that STID could have been better (despite its success).
http://screenrant.com/star-trek-into-darkness-jj-abrams-problems/

I like that the articles use "Trekkies" instead of the revisionistic "Trekkers."

Abrams' quote was sourced from Wired:
http://www.wired.com/?p=1922154

 

[M'Sharak]

Though the essay dates to 1923, it is always worth reviewing Robert Benchley's How To Understand International Finance whenever accounting is brought up.

Sums it up nicely, that does.

 

[Magellan]

I agree that Into Darkness was a successful movie. However, a movie can be a hit critically and commercially and still acquire the perception of failure. Look a The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. "Everybody" thinks it sucks, and was a failure but it made over 700 million worldwide and got a 78% on rottentomatoes. Perception is everything.

 

[Dales]

I've read this several times. It's simply NOT true. It made more money relative to its budget... not by an enormous amount, but it was still marginally more successful than the first movie.

And as for critical reviews... 95% to 87%. For a sequel to retain almost all of the near universal critical praise is pretty good.

I think why they say it wasn't as profitable was because the studio was expecting it to make a lot more than it actually did. Not marginally more. They were wanting a 'Batman Begins' ----> 'The Dark Knight' type of success.

tdk success was a result of the tragic death of Ledger, please look at batman's box office history none of the batman films had gone beyond 500 million before tdk. It makes no sense for paramount to expect that kind of sucess, they probably just wanted into darkness to pass the 500m dollar mark or gross almost double of the first film which would have put it in the 700-800m range.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

Paramount expected more, but STID was still a successful movie.

 

[BillJ]

I agree that Into Darkness was a successful movie. However, a movie can be a hit critically and commercially and still acquire the perception of failure. Look a The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. "Everybody" thinks it sucks, and was a failure but it made over 700 million worldwide and got a 78% on rottentomatoes. Perception is everything.

Or the movie simply was as bad as a few very loud people would have you believe?

 

[Tosk]

I've read this several times. It's simply NOT true. It made more money relative to its budget... not by an enormous amount, but it was still marginally more successful than the first movie.

ST11 cost 40 million less to make and made more domestically. For better or worse, there is still a bias towards domestic BO. It makes no sense at all, and it's shifting more and more these days, but perception beats facts. Also, inflation adjustment brings the two films much closer in terms of earnings.

 

[fireproof78]

For me, every time I read an article regarding STID's supposed "disappointment" it ends up being either exaggerated, using incorrect data, or pointing out flaws that don't impact Paramount's regarding of the film (i.e., nitpicking the story, Eve's lingerie shot, etc).

If Paramount didn't consider it a success, then we wouldn't have a sequel. A friend of mine in the film VFX industry noted that no matter how much Paramount wanted to make, STID still made enough money that no one was likely complaining or going to lose their job over it.

 

[Saul]

I've read this several times. It's simply NOT true. It made more money relative to its budget... not by an enormous amount, but it was still marginally more successful than the first movie.

And as for critical reviews... 95% to 87%. For a sequel to retain almost all of the near universal critical praise is pretty good.

I think why they say it wasn't as profitable was because the studio was expecting it to make a lot more than it actually did. Not marginally more. They were wanting a 'Batman Begins' ----> 'The Dark Knight' type of success.

tdk success was a result of the tragic death of Ledger, please look at batman's box office history none of the batman films had gone beyond 500 million before tdk. It makes no sense for paramount to expect that kind of sucess, they probably just wanted into darkness to pass the 500m dollar mark or gross almost double of the first film which would have put it in the 700-800m range.

Unfair to generalize it like that. TDK was a good film and already hyped before Ledger's death.
I didn't say Paramount was to expect that kind of money. I said they expected that "type" of success. 09 was fairly successful and they wanted to build off that success. Into Darkness had a bigger budget. Obviously they had some high expectation with 50 million more pumped into it.

 

[Tim Walker]

If Paramount didn't consider it a success, then we wouldn't have a sequel. A friend of mine in the film VFX industry noted that no matter how much Paramount wanted to make, STID still made enough money that no one was likely complaining or going to lose their job over it.

Have to agree. Even if hoping for more, the studio must regard STID as sufficiently profitable to justify a third J.J. film.

 

[RAMA]

BO+disc sales...ST09 $582,909,956. STID: $549,545,525
They did just fine