Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) (1 Viewer)

[Michael Elliott]

Btw, it opened soft to $70 million over the 3 days and $85 million since Wednesday. Its 4day total is about even with the last film. Although it is doing much better overseas and has already grossed $80 million( the first did $127 million total international) for $165 million worldwide.

That's pretty bad especially considering it's going to be going up against three giant pictures next weekend.

 

[Tino]

We'll see how it holds up. It received an "A" cinemascore from audiences so it should have good word of mouth and decent legs. Here is an excerpt from www.boxofficeguru.com about Trek's opening numbers:

THIS WEEKEND Vulcans and their comrades came out to power the sci-fi sequel Star Trek Into Darkness into the number one spot at the North American box office, however grosses were substantially below industry expectations across the board. The Paramount franchise film had an extended release and grossed $70.6M over the Friday-to-Sunday period with a total of $84.1M since its start on Wednesday night in IMAX locations making for a debut that was smaller than its 2009 predecessor's.The studio chose to make the highly anticipated 3D tentpole available to fans earlier via premium large-format screens. The release kicked off on Wednesday with about $2M in ticket sales from 336 higher-priced IMAX 3D screens with shows starting at 8:00pm. Thursday was the official full opening day with $11.5M in business. The figure was not too impressive, however the release date was changed very late in the game from Friday so not all moviegoers knew about the earlier debut. Friday jumped 91% to $22.1M, Saturday climbed another 25% to $27.5M and Sunday was estimated to drop 24% to $21M. Over the Friday-to-Sunday period, the new Trek averaged $18,241 from 3,868 locations.Four years ago, Star Trek opened in a slightly different format. It was slotted into the second weekend of May with a Friday release kicking off with Thursday night shows in all theaters starting at 7:00pm. It had an IMAX release in 138 locations, but was all 2D. Its opening was $75.2M over the three-day period and $79.2M including $4M from Thursday night shows. Add in that film's Monday gross to make a similar 4.5-day start, and its $86.7M was bigger than the $84.1M of Darkness despite the new chapter having higher 2D ticket prices plus 3D surcharges plus 200 additional IMAX screens.Studio research showed that the audience was 64% male and 73% 25 and older. A very high 16% of the gross ($13.5M) came from IMAX indicating that fans were willing to pay extra in this case given that about 30 minutes of the film were shot with those special cameras making for a premium experience. Overall, 45% of the gross came from 3D screens including IMAX.The underperforming numbers of Into Darkness were downright baffling. Paramount made a good product and picked a fine time to release it giving it two weeks distance from the summer's other action tentpole Iron Man 3. Reviews were mostly positive (more than good enough for a sci-fi sequel) and audiences also liked the film with opening day ticket buyers giving an A grade from CinemaScore. The marketing push was strong and normal for May action tentpoles. 2009's Star Trek not only opened well, it also had solid legs with 70% of its domestic business coming after the first weekend. Sequels to leggy blockbusters like these usually open bigger, especially if 3D is added in.Before the film's release, Paramount openly predicted a $100M opening through Sunday. Studios routinely low-ball these forecasts so the final numbers end up looking like they are above expectations. So the performance was probably much lower than what the studio internally believed was likely.If internal factors were not to blame, it may have been external ones that were in play - namely competition and erosion of audience interest. Competition that the two Trek movies faced was almost identical, although allocated differently. The rest of the Top 15 films this weekend grossed $77M which was 10% more than the $70M that 2009's Trek faced. Factor in four years of ticket price increases and the same number of people saw competing movies each time.But what was in fact different was how much the second and third place films dominated the rest of the marketplace while all other movies made chump change. In both years, the runnerup pic was a superhero flick (Iron Man 3 and 2009's X-Men Origins: Wolverine) and the third place film was a female-skewing pic (The Great Gatsby and 2009's Ghosts of Girlfriends Past). This year's duo grossed a stellar $58.6M, up a whopping 60% from 2009's $36.7M. This weekend's two holdovers were an awesome twosome that combined for the highest gross in box office history for the second and third place movies on the critical third weekend of May and they may have taken away some of Trek's potential audience.Darkness also came out four years after the Star Trek reboot and some fans, especially those who are not die-hard ones, may have lost interest in the franchise during that gap. The first nine Star Trek films spanned two decades and never had a gap this big. 2002's Nemesis came out after a four-year void, ended up as the lowest-grossing film in series history, and was credited with killing the franchise. Until J.J. Abrams rebooted it six and a half years later.Most franchises in recent years have not taken that much time off in between installments including Twilight, Harry Potter, Iron Man, Transformers, and the Star Wars prequels. Even newer ones like Hobbit and Hunger Games have told fans that they will get a new chapter every year. Last year, however, there were a pair of films that came out exactly four years after their last installments and opened bigger without even needing 3D - The Dark Knight Rises and Skyfall. Both were threequels to a reboot and followed sequels that were also very successful so audiences were more hooked to the brands. The love shown for 2009's Star Trek could have been somewhat of an anomaly. It certainly brought in a broader more mainstream crowd, but many may have lost the excitement this time around especially with popular alternative options from Mr. Stark and Mr. Gatsby out there right now.This is not the first time this year that Paramount has found itself in this situation. March's G.I. Joe: Retaliation was the follow-up to the studio's summer 2009 hit The Rise of Cobra and also had a 3D upgrade and a shift in opening day from Friday to Thursday with Wednesday night previews. The new pic (with added starpower) opened to $51M over 4.5 days which did not match up to the $54.7M three-day opening of the 2D Cobra. The sequel is on track to end with $122M, short of the first film's $150.2M, but is seeing much better numbers from overseas markets.The road ahead will be tricky for Into Darkness. It is well-liked for the most part and it has the Memorial Day holiday weekend on its second frame. But the core adult male audience will be tempted away with two more big sequels opening at the end of this week - Fast & Furious 6 and The Hangover Part III. Also sci-fi sequels tend to draw the bulk of their audiences upfront, even if word-of-mouth is very good.Overall, Into Darkness is not likely to match the $257.7M final domestic gross of the last Star Trek. However, it still has a shot at $200M if it can hold up relatively well next weekend. Budgeted at $190M, the Kirk-and-Spock sequel will definitely see substantial growth on the international side as several key overseas markets have become much more lucrative since 2009.This weekend, the new Trek launched in 33 international markets and grossed an estimated $40M from those plus seven holdover territories that bowed last week. Cume outside of North America is $80.5M with the global gross at $164.6M. Russia led the new markets with $8M (quadruple the opening of the last Trek) while the U.K. led the holdovers with a $5.9M weekend and $24M total. Half of the international marketplace has yet to open so plenty of potential is ahead with debuts scheduled in China (May 28), Korea (May 30), France (June 12), Italy (June 13), Brazil (June 14), Spain (July 5) and Japan (August 23).

 

[Tim Glover]

Just saw it today in 3D and loved it. Not a fan of 3D but thought it was simply stunning. I was drawn in with all the characters....fantastic visuals & well crafted action sequences. A few nitpicking: felt Peter Wellers (marcus) moments weren't as convincing as they could have been. Some sequence felt a tad tacked on....but those are minor. Looking forward to seeing it again. 9/10.

 

[BryanZ]

This wasn't one of those movies that I thought was worth seeing in 3D. My wife and I saw the regular version of it but both of us enjoyed the movie.

ST: ID is a popcorn flick. It is not one of those movies you will look back on and say it was the greatest of it's time or even of the entire ST films. That being said, the movie did at least one major thing of note. There will be no Search For Spock.

The real accomplishment was the ending. The franchise is now free to go any number of ways including ending the new movies. Other options are returning back to TV, going the way of Wagon Trail to the Stars as in the ST books, or going in another direction entirely.

Looking at it as a spirngboard film and it surpasses that goal.

My one major gripe with the film was the rebuild time for the Enterprise. After that much damage it should have taken far longer to rebuild as it was near being totaled.

Se la ve and enjoy the popcorn flick!

 

[Brian L]

Wow, rough crowd. I just got back from seeing this, and I enjoyed it immensely.

+1. I could not agree more.

I went out of my way not to read much about it or read any reviews. I knew there was buzz that BC was going to by Khan, but I was still surprised the way they did the reveal. I have not enjoyed a film this much since.......well, I can't remember a film I have enjoyed this much.

 

[MattBradley]

I saw the movie and enjoyed it. Probably helped that my dad was sitting next to me and he was practically cheering in his seat and this is a man who doesn't get into "that sci-fi crap". haha He walked out loving it.

I loved the opening sequence. The villain reveal was not a big surprise for me and I had put it together with the torpedo story. I really enjoyed the performances and was not expecting the surprise cameo where Spock seeked out advice. The ending was familiar and the Kirk's death story resolution was very obvious. Knew it would be resolved like that. I am also excited about how the next movie is set to unfold. Let the 5 years begin. Oh, and that Klingon looked freaky!

 

[Traveling Matt]

Saw it last night and found it mildly enjoyable. I think the biggest mistake that can be made when bringing Star Trek to the screen (big or small) is to skip clear, quality social commentary. It should be a very difficult error to make considering the placement of Trek lore in our culture, but it was. Without it, a show simply becomes another sci-fi adventure which is what Into Darkness basically is. It didn't really feel like Star Trek.

On the bright side, I thought the Wrath of Khan sequence had a nice, quick payoff. That was fun.

 

[Bill Coolidge]

I just saw it today in an XD theater with 3D and Dolby Atmos and thought it was great. I left feeling the same way I felt after seeing "Wrath of Khan": it was a great invigoration of the franchise and I hope they live up to their promise. And as for people complaining about there being no ships in the area: there are never ships in the area. This is a Star Trek movie. There are certain rules. If there were ships, the commanders would have to be insane, incompetent or both.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

I saw the movie and enjoyed it. Probably helped that my dad was sitting next to me and he was practically cheering in his seat and this is a man who doesn't get into "that sci-fi crap". haha He walked out loving it.

I loved the opening sequence. The villain reveal was not a big surprise for me and I had put it together with the torpedo story. I really enjoyed the performances and was not expecting the surprise cameo where Spock seeked out advice. The ending was familiar and the Kirk's death story resolution was very obvious. Knew it would be resolved like that. I am also excited about how the next movie is set to unfold. Let the 5 years begin. Oh, and that Klingon looked freaky!


I think the movie will definitly appeal to non-trek fan who like wall to wall action Sequences with not much thought given to plot, Trek Fans, and Sci Fi fans in General that like thoughtful screenplays that make sense, will think otherwise

 

[TravisR]

I think the movie will definitly appeal to non-trek fan who like wall to wall action Sequences with not much thought given to plot, Trek Fans, and Sci Fi fans in General that like thoughtful screenplays that make sense, will think otherwise

I dumb so me like movie with shiny spaceships. If I was smart enough to be Trek and sci-fi fan, me would have hated it.

 

[Brett_M]

Jeez a lot of hate here. I loved it. I disagree with most of the criticisms but hey that's just me.An improvement in every way on the first film, which I loved. This film had it all, great action, great performances, a great story and great 3D.This IS Star Trek to me, and ive been a fan since the 70's, and that's all that matters. It met my expectations and exceeded them.Ymmv.

Ditto.

 

[Richard V]

I dumb so me like movie with shiny spaceships. If I was smart enough to be Trek and sci-fi fan, me would have hated it.

LOL, dam, you smart too much am.

 

[Greg.K]

I saw it yesterday and really enjoyed it.

Many of the criticisms here are absolutely correct, I rolled my eyes at the line-by-line rehash of the WOK ending, (You know it's bad when you think you know exactly what line will be said next, and it is. And Spock's "Khaaaaaan!" - meh) I did wonder why they needed Khan's blood when they had 72 more of his comrades at the ready. Also, having the leader or other high level insider of the organization (Admiral Marcus) turn out to be the Big Bad is a cliche at this point.

On the other hand, I think Pine and Quinto are coming into their own in the roles. They felt more like Kirk and Spock to me here than they did in the '09 film (which ultimiately, I felt was a let down). Urban, Pegg and Saldana and the rest were also great. I also loved some of the callouts to classic Trek episodes (tribbles, Mudd, McCoy's, Bone's line about delivering the Gorn octuplets had me rolling - yeah, I know they hadn't had contact with the Gorn yet in the original timeline). Cumberbatch and Weller made great bad guys (cliche & originality aside)

 

[Greg Chenoweth]

I really liked the 2009 film and I am "old school" Star Trek with 43 years viewing experience. I purposely didn't read any info or watch any trailers going in; I like to be surprised. I was not bothered at first that Khan was in the film but I absolutely detested how everything played out after that. It would have been much better to do something different with Khan than to reinvent what was done in the WRATH OF KHAN, which is the best TREK film so far. I don't mind a reboot but there are so many different ways to go with things, why kill Kirk instead of Spock? Why not play up how Khan and his crew were exiled for the wrong reasons and have Kirk and Spock help right the wrong? The best part of the film was when Kirk, Scotty and Khan were all working together.

 

[Richard V]

I really liked the 2009 film and I am "old school" Star Trek with 43 years viewing experience. I purposely didn't read any info or watch any trailers going in; I like to be surprised. I was not bothered at first that Khan was in the film but I absolutely detested how everything played out after that. It would have been much better to do something different with Khan than to reinvent what was done in the WRATH OF KHAN, which is the best TREK film so far. I don't mind a reboot but there are so many different ways to go with things, why kill Kirk instead of Spock? Why not play up how Khan and his crew were exiled for the wrong reasons and have Kirk and Spock help right the wrong? The best part of the film was when Kirk, Scotty and Khan were all working together.

Umm, I normal don't get into discussions of Star Trek canon, or other philsophical Star Trek issues, but did they actually say what crimes they were accused of? I don't recall the movie actually giving us the details of what the "Super Beings" did? Perhaps they were not "wronged", perhaps they did commit terrible crimes. Did I miss the explaination for their "exile"?

 

[Greg Chenoweth]

Umm, I normal don't get into discussions of Star Trek canon, or other philsophical Star Trek issues, but did they actually say what crimes they were accused of? I don't recall the movie actually giving us the details of what the "Super Beings" did? Perhaps they were not "wronged", perhaps they did commit terrible crimes. Did I miss the explaination for their "exile"?

They never mentioned the crimes. The film just said that they were war criminals put in cryogenic freeze. This is what I'm talking about. The film could have delved into the whole back story about their exile and what caused them to go into cryogenic freeze, just like the episode SPACE SPEED did in STAR TREK TOS. The film completely ignored this whole point.

 

[RobertR]

They never mentioned the crimes. The film just said that they were war criminals put in cryogenic freeze. This is what I'm talking about. The film could have delved into the whole back story about their exile and what caused them to go into cryogenic freeze, just like the episode SPACE SPEED did in STAR TREK TOS. The film completely ignored this whole point.

For the film to ignore the backstory is kind of the point, though. They're not interested in being tied to any past. They want to be free to portray anything any way they like.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

I didn't hate the movie; in fact, I had fun with the first half. I still like this cast a lot, and some of the energy from the 2009 film was still there.

But I had some big, big problems with the second half. First of all, I really wish they hadn't gone down the Khan route at all. Khan has already been done brilliantly; plenty of other concepts from throughout the franchise that maybe didn't work as well. Why not choose one of them and do it right? Or better yet, why not do something completely new (which was the whole point of rebooting, I thought)? However, if you're going to do Khan, why not really delve into why he was so evil, instead of just having "Spock Prime" show up and remind us how good That Other Movie was?

And speaking of that, I never thought I'd say this, but I thought there were actually too many references to the older films and series. There were times when I felt like I was watching an actual remake of Wrath of Khan, and it became distracting. The movie really imploded for me during the "death" scene, which failed on so many levels. The awkward inversion of the original WOK scene coupled with the fact that we knew there was no way they were actually going to leave Kirk dead sucked all the drama out of it. Then Spock suddenly Shatners out "KHAAAAAAAAN!!!" and I almost burst out laughing. One of the most ill-advised and inappropriate "homages" I've ever seen in a movie. Ever.

Then, the device they used to revive Kirk was also ridiculous. I know it was established way back in "Space Seed" that Khan's blood showed remarkable regenerative properties. And of course, it was used at the beginning of Into Darkness to heal a sick little girl. But it's quite a leap from both that and reanimating a tribble to bringing a dead, irradiated adult back to life, and a clumsily set up leap at that:

"Bones, what are you doing with that tribble?""It's called plant and payoff, Jim."

I just didn't buy that at all. And incidentally, Starfleet now has access to a serum that can cure death.

And I guess I appreciate the attempt at social relevance with the terrorism theme, but it felt rather perfunctory, with mostly just lip service given out a few times.

It's really too bad; there are some things in the movie I enjoyed, but it just fell so completely apart in the third act that no amount of witty banter or flashy effects could save it.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I can remember Bryan Singer getting roasted for paying too much homage to the original Superman (Donner) film with his "Superman Returns" film, but ST:N2D is getting quite a pass for aping the hell out of WoK. Then again, I went to this film with a group of friends, and was flabberghasted to find out one of them had never ever seen WoK (they did see the ST 2009 film). I literally just went slack-jawed and couldn't form a coherent thought for about 10 seconds. I mean, if you just had your TV on in the background Saturday or Sunday, WoK would have been playing on the screen easily enough. Wow...

 

[Chuck Anstey]

I didn't really like it for most of the reasons the last few posts talk about and I like the 2009 movie just fine. I was also extremely disappointed that they didn't even discuss the ethical dilemma that last shot of the cryotubes implied. Do we continute to keep alive but frozen 73 individuals who would attempt to take over the Federation, turn it into a military conquest, and kill everyone who stands in their way if they were ever unfrozen on purpose or by accident or do we fire their pods into the sun because they are by their very nature too dangerous for civilization.

Also, Section 31 was just a group of loosely connected individuals, not a secret wing of the Federation with the ability to build a monster starship. I just think of how much better this movie could have been if they had used Garth of Izar as the villain, especially with the perfect setup of a massively powerful explosive the size of a ring. He could have been one of the few agents of Section 31 and he went a bit overboard by personally attempting to start a war with the Klingons to "save Earth's way of life before its too late". The point of Section 31 was to find and use any and all alien technology to protect the Federation when the normal action in TOS was to seal away powerful technology next to the Ark of the Covenant (or magically forget all about it). So easy to write yet they went with easier and lazier.

One more thought. During the initial discussion between Pike, Kirk, and Spock about Kirk's misdeeds and poor commanding, Spock was much more like Sheldon Cooper than Spock. Spock was honest but not an idiot and would know exactly what was going to happen. Sheldon Cooper on the other hand would write the report that way because he is oblivious to other people's feeling or social consequences of his actions and the statements Spock made sounded exactly like Sheldon Cooper.