• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Wkd Box Office 05•17-19•13 - Trek sets phasers to #1, Iron Man 3 rockets past a billi

Status
Not open for further replies.

xaosslug

Member
1.
5p7tNZ4.jpg
2.
DHAjVFD.jpg
3.
sh2ady0.jpg
4.
asAOqSJ.jpg
5.
v7r1Ue5.jpg


rottenwatch box office:
Cfk79.gif
87% Star Trek Into Darkness
9wcOG.gif
78% Iron Man 3
8mB0Q.gif
50% The Great Gatsby
3Pj0x.gif
47% Pain and Gain
0hJB1.gif
69% The Croods

metacritic box office:
*click pic(s) for source*

‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Sets Off With $84.1 Million Stateside. Fanboy-driven sequel improves overseas, grossing $165 million globally

With a softer-than-expected $84.1 million four-day Stateside tally, Paramount’s “Star Trek Into Darkness” reinforced this weekend where the franchise’s strengths lie — with fanboys — and with whom the series needs to improve — most everyone else.

Let’s be clear, however: The film’s domestic opening weekend (actually 6% better than its predecessor), added with an international gross of $80.5 million for a global cume of $164.6 million and counting, represents a truly solid number for the sequel. It’s only perhaps Paramount was a little too eager for a hit, setting its Stateside expectations too high at $100 million-plus.

The $190 million sequel, from Skydance Productions and Bad Robot, has done particularly well overseas, already doubling the lifetime cume of the 2009 original in many markets including Russia, Taiwan and Mexico. That’s reason for Par to be pleased, especially since the “Star Trek” franchise historically hasn’t traveled well outside the U.S.

Rob Moore, Par’s prexy and chairman, said the biggest coup this weekend was the film’s overseas growth.

“The one question that people kept asking us was, ‘People didn’t go see J.J.’s original reboot, why would they go see this film?’” Moore said. “So that’s why we spent so much time and effort in those markets and people are now showing up as movie fans.”

Stateside, though, the film played above average with fans, who contributed a higher-than-usual percentage of the pic’s total gross. For instance, Imax contributed 16% of the film’s bow (with $13.5 million), compared to “Iron Man 3,” which had less than 10% opening weekend come from Imax.

With franchise fans driving online chatter, “Star Trek Into Darkness” should develop strong word-of-mouth, with an ‘A’ CinemaScore rating.

However, a 27% Friday-to-Saturday increase vs. the last film, which grew only 1%, suggests “Into Darkness” had a much larger family turnout than the previous film. Moore said it’s most likely older Star Trek fans now taking their kids.

“Into Darkness” faced tough competition domestically, with “Iron Man 3” and “The Great Gatsby” still holding strong.

The Disney-Marvel film earned north of $35 million, down 52% in its third frame, while Warner Bros.’ “Gatsby” fell 53% in its second, with an estimated $23.4 million. “Iron Man 3″ has cumed $337 million Stateside; “Gatsby” crossed $90 million.​


*click pic for full list/source*
 

Alrus

Member
As I've said before, Star Trek will probably end up being successful on the back of a good overseas performance. Is the movie planned for China yet?

Paramount will probably be disappointed by domestic performance but expecting a mega blockbuster from the Star Trek franchise was a bit ridiculous to being with.

The Croods is an unexpected success too, it's going to pass Brave WW total. Dreamworks must be relieved after Rise of the Guardian bombed. New franchise for Dreamworks to sequelize I guess.

Edit: Damn next week end is packed. The Hangover 3 will probably do much worse than its predecessor, Fast 6 will probably do insanely well worldwide and Epic, I have no idea...
 

3N16MA

Banned
The Croods
WW Gross: $538,840,628

Brave
WW Gross: $538,788,207


Gitesh Pandya ‏@giteshpandya

Robust UK opening for Fast&Furious6 w/ series best $13.8M. Only 10% smaller than IM3 debut. Hits US + 59 mkts next wknd.
 
Yeah, next week will be pretty interesting. I don't trust CinemaScore for shit (it's been proven mostly worthless as an indicator of anything beyond basic binary reaction) but the word of mouth on this thing is...

Does anyone really know? I mean, I know that's asking for tons of anecdotal evidence from a skewed demographic (people who care about box office results on a gaming forum) but even the Trek nerds I know (and that includes people who put on Trek in the Park) thought it was good enough to warrant a second viewing, even WITH the problems they had.

I feel like this COULD have legs if word gets out that it's mostly an adventure movie, and not a serious drama as had been advertised. There ARE moments of serious drama, yeah, but this is way more like the first film than not.

edit: I don't know if Variety's opening sentence is fair: "Fanboys" alone have almost never contributed more than $30-35 million AT MOST to a film's totals, I've found.
 

numble

Member
As I've said before, Star Trek will probably end up being successful on the back of a good overseas performance. Is the movie planned for China yet?

Paramount will probably be disappointed by domestic performance but expecting a mega blockbuster from the Star Trek franchise was a bit ridiculous to being with.
I don't know why you have confidence in it doing well in China; Star Trek did only $8.5 million in China in the same year 2012 and Transformers topped $60 million; there is no brand presence to indicate it will do particularly well in China.
 

kswiston

Member
On the bright side, Star Trek into Darkness is 80% ahead of the original movies in the foreign territories it has opened in to date. It still has openings in China, Japan, France, Italy, Spain, Brazil and South Korea (plus a bunch of smaller territories) in coming weeks.
 
I have no intention of watching 42 in theatres, but I'm glad that a "black" movie that isn't tied to Tyler Perry is doing so well in the bo
 

3N16MA

Banned
Star Trek was pretty weak OS last time around but seems to have really taken off this time. 09 film earned $128 million OS total which will easily be surpassed.
 

kswiston

Member
Iron Man 3
Domestic: $337,100,000
Foreign: $736,200,000
Worldwide: $1,073,300,000


The Great Gatsby
Domestic: $90,160,000
Foreign: $42,100,000
Worldwide: $132,260,000
 

Matt_

World's #1 One Direction Fan: Everyone else in the room can see it, everyone else but you~~~
Quite a good hold for Gatsby considering the reviews its been getting, interested to see how it plays out over seas
 

RobbieNick

Junior Member
The Croods is still in the top five?! Hmmm.....

Between this and the Lomax, I guess the best time to release an animated movie is March.
 

kswiston

Member
The Croods
Domestic: $176,750,000
Foreign: $375,800,000
Worldwide: $552,550,000


Oblivion
Domestic: $85,500,000
Foreign: $173,500,000
Worldwide: $258,500,000


- Epic made $14.5M from its early release in 16 markets.

- Fast 6 Made $13.8M from its early release in the UK.
 

kswiston

Member
STID was expected to do a $100 million. It did worse than its predecessor even though it´s in 3D.

It would have done better than its predecessor in absolute terms than the first film if it didn't release a day early, but the 3D gross means that attendance was down a fair bit.
 
STID was expected to do a $100 million. It did worse than its predecessor even though it´s in 3D.

It was expected to do 100 mil MONTHS in advance of its release. Adjustments were adjusted downward weekly from that point on.

The marketing did a not good job. They made it look like a dire, serious, drab, colorless drama, built around hiding a secret general audiences couldn't have given less of a shit about.

Had they just blown their "Secret" and made it look like the candy-colored adventure it actually is for most of the movie, anticipation might have stayed high. But this film leaked goodwill for the last 6 months like a slowly deflating mylar balloon.

I can't imagine how upset with JJ Abrams Paramount must be right now. They wait 4 years for their sequel, thus stalling out the momentum the reboot created, and before it comes out, he jumps ship to Star Wars, and insists on a marketing campaign that handcuffs their ability to sell the film to the new audience they obviously want to reach.
 

Kusagari

Member
In the next 2 weeks Trek has to deal with Hangover 3, Fast Six and After Earth.

Hard to see it holding up well against that competition.
 

kswiston

Member
In the next 2 weeks Trek has to deal with Hangover 3, Fast Six and After Earth.

Hard to see it holding up well against that competition.

Well, one of the side "benefits" of completely missing the mark with the teen and college age crowd is that films that heavily appeal to those demographics like Fast 6 and Hangover 3 will steal away less business. Older adults don't rush out to see movies day one. Star Trek could manage alright legs.

I wonder if iron man will be able to past the 375 mil mark now.

The chance of that not happening is 0%
 

Hero

Member
The Croods
WW Gross: $538,840,628

Brave
WW Gross: $538,788,207

Wow, had no idea Brave was that low. Which is fine by me, that movie was completely awful.

Iron Man 3
Domestic: $337,100,000
Foreign: $736,200,000
Worldwide: $1,073,300,000


The Great Gatsby
Domestic: $90,160,000
Foreign: $42,100,000
Worldwide: $132,260,000

Excellent job, IM3. Wonder where it will end at. 1.25 billion?
 

FlyFaster

Member
really like Box Office Mojo alot better then the site the OP links.

glad that IM3 broke a billion, never was in doubt really.
 

Skel1ingt0n

I can't *believe* these lazy developers keep making file sizes so damn large. Btw, how does technology work?
Star Trek was really entertaining. Not nearly as good as the first - but still a great romp. Totally worth the ticket price. Hope we don't have any problem getting a third. I think we'll be okay; but after that, I could see Paramount shelving it.
 
With all these crowded weekends it was in Paramount's best interest that the movie opened really big to counter it's 2nd week drop against 3 other movies. I'm confused by the info on Star Trek skewing older. i thought all the young people were on that bandwagon these days.
 

Busty

Banned
Given the intense competition that STiD is going to face in the coming weeks it's going to be fascinating to see whether the Trek fans who went to see the first film multiple times will be able to push the sequel over the edge.

Could STiD, given the big films coming this Friday, get lost in the marketplace and miss crossing $200m in the US? Not impossible but, as with all things of this nature, we shall see soon enough.

Interesting to see who will direct Trek 3.

Knowing Paramount it will be someone who is a painfully dull, safe pair of hands rather than taking a chance on someone 'exciting'.

Though to be fair I doubt any 'name' director or anyone remotely exciting would want to direct part three of a franchise with a likely lower budget than the previous two installments enjoyed.

Oblivion
Domestic: $85,500,000
Foreign: $173,500,000
Worldwide: $258,500,000.

Taking WW gross into consideration I think Universal can probably put this in the win column...., just.

But missing out on $100m in North America must hurt. I really can't wait to see something from Cruise's next film All You Need Is Kill. Apparently WB are really confident about it. And rankly Cruise could do with a big win at the US box office after this and Jack Reacher.

STID doing okay overseas. Next week should be interesting

Fixed and yes I agree.
 

Blader

Member
Knowing Paramount it will be someone who is a painfully dull, safe pair of hands rather than taking a chance on someone 'exciting'.

Though to be fair I doubt any 'name' director or anyone remotely exciting would want to direct part three of a franchise with a likely lower budget than the previous two installments enjoyed.

JJ is still producing, so his replacement will probably come from the Bad Robot camp. I know Solo tossed out Matt Reeves as possibility but I wouldn't mind seeing Jack Bender do it.
 
JJ is still producing, so his replacement will probably come from the Bad Robot camp. I know Solo tossed out Matt Reeves as possibility but I wouldn't mind seeing Jack Bender do it.

Matt Reeves, Drew Goddard, Brad Anderson, Jack Bender, and Alex Kurtzmann are all possibilities.
 

Cheebo

Banned
There won't be a big name director for trek 3. It's still an Abrams and bad robot production. It will be a director who'd do Abrams bidding since he is too busy to direct himself. Probably one of Abrams protégées like Drew Goddard or Matt Reeves.
 

Busty

Banned
JJ is still producing, so his replacement will probably come from the Bad Robot camp. I know Solo tossed out Matt Reeves as possibility but I wouldn't mind seeing Jack Bender do it.

It depends what sort of terms Abrams is on with Paramount. As I've said before under PGA rules Paramount simply can't throw Bad Robot/Abrams off the film.

But what they could do is give him a producing credit in name only and simply do their own thing. Now Im not saying that they will do that but that situation does exist.

Also Matt Reeves would be a solid shout but I heard Matt Reeves and Abrams had fallen out a while ago. I have no idea if that is all resolved now so it could still be a goer.

I could also see Paramount go with a TV helmer as a safe pair of hands. If Brian Kirk does a good job with the Thor sequel he might get the nod. Unless he doesn't want to pigeon hole himself as just a shooter for hire.
 
Is Star Trek really better than the commercials indicate? Because it looks like Mass Effect 3 with Sherlock Holmes as evil Kirk.
 

Busty

Banned
Not fixed, its going GREAT overseas compared to the first films reception

The first film was a disaster overseas. To say it's doing better than a disaster does not warrant the use of the word great. Especially this early.

Faint praise is damning praise etc.
 

Cheebo

Banned
It depends what sort of terms Abrams is on with Paramount. As I've said before under PGA rules Paramount simply can't throw Bad Robot/Abrams off the film.

But what they could do is give him a producing credit in name only and simply do their own thing. Now Im not saying that they will do that but that situation does exist.

Also Matt Reeves would be a solid shout but I heard Matt Reeves and Abrams had fallen out a while ago. I have no idea if that is all resolved now so it could still be a goer.

I could also see Paramount go with a TV helmer as a safe pair of hands. If Brian Kirk does a good job with the Thor sequel he might get the nod. Unless he doesn't want to pigeon hole himself as just a shooter for hire.
they aren't going to do that. Orci and Kurtzman already confirmed Paramount is having them write trek 3 for. 2016 release date. It's still very much a bad robot film.
 
Is Star Trek really better than the commercials indicate? Because it looks like Mass Effect 3 with Sherlock Holmes as evil Kirk.

I think it's definitely DIFFERENT than the marketing indicates. Better will be in the eye of the beholder (I liked it) but the secret the trailers were built around isn't even the primary secret of the movie, so far as the plotting goes. So not only was protecting that secret ultimately frustrating, it was pointless, because even if that secret had been revealed by the marketing, it wouldn't have actually revealed the engine propelling the movie forward.
 

Tookay

Member
It was expected to do 100 mil MONTHS in advance of its release. Adjustments were adjusted downward weekly from that point on.

The marketing did a not good job. They made it look like a dire, serious, drab, colorless drama, built around hiding a secret general audiences couldn't have given less of a shit about.


Had they just blown their "Secret" and made it look like the candy-colored adventure it actually is for most of the movie, anticipation might have stayed high. But this film leaked goodwill for the last 6 months like a slowly deflating mylar balloon.

I can't imagine how upset with JJ Abrams Paramount must be right now. They wait 4 years for their sequel, thus stalling out the momentum the reboot created, and before it comes out, he jumps ship to Star Wars, and insists on a marketing campaign that handcuffs their ability to sell the film to the new audience they obviously want to reach.

Both of these are key.

In my showing, there was no perceptible surprise or reactions to the reveal. It meant nothing to them.

And waiting four years for a follow-up to ST 09 was really damaging; STID almost had to serve as reboot all over again in regaining ST's place in the public's consciousness.
 
I think it's definitely DIFFERENT than the marketing indicates. Better will be in the eye of the beholder (I liked it) but the secret the trailers were built around isn't even the primary secret of the movie, so far as the plotting goes. So not only was protecting that secret ultimately frustrating, it was pointless, because even if that secret had been revealed by the marketing, it wouldn't have actually revealed the engine propelling the movie forward.

Yeah, it sounds like a misfire by the marketing behind the movie. Nice to see there's more to it than just that secret. Hopefully I'll be watching it soon.
 

kswiston

Member
The first film was a disaster overseas. To say it's doing better than a disaster does not warrant the use of the word great. Especially this early.

Faint praise is damning praise etc.

Disaster is a strong word. The series has never had a presence overseas. The best foreign performance before Star Trek 2009 was First Contact with $54M. That was pretty weak for a sci fi film even in 1996. Alien 3 made $105M for example. Star Trek 2009's overseas performance is in line with the series' general overseas performance.
 

Busty

Banned
Matt Reeves, Drew Goddard, Brad Anderson, Jack Bender, and Alex Kurtzmann are all possibilities.

The job seems too big for Goddard who has just a single directing credit under his belt. Brad Anderson does TV work to pay the bills. A lot of 'art house' directors do this. A gig is a gig as they say.

Anderson is seen as an art house guy and I doubt he'd want the job never mind the studio not giving him it.

Jack Bender is a TV guy through and through. Paramount would take him because he'd tow the party line and be cheap. Kurtzman is a writer/producer and has never tackled a film of this size before especially when his directorial debut did nothing at the box office.

they aren't going to do that. Orci and Kurtzman already confirmed Paramount is having them write trek 3 for. 2016 release date. It's still very much a bad robot film.

It's by no means a straight forward thing. There is a reason that Abrams took the Star Wars job despite publicly turning it down once.

And as I said before Paramount can't simply throw Bad Robot off the trek films. Hollywood is a union town and the PGA, apart from the DGA arguably, have the most weight to throw around.

Bad Robot will definitely be involved in Trek3. The real question is to what degree they'll be involved.

Disaster is a strong word. The series has never had a presence overseas. The best foreign performance before Star Trek 2009 was First Contact with $54M. That was pretty weak for a sci fi film even in 1996. Alien 3 made $105M for example. Star Trek 2009's overseas performance is in line with the series' general overseas performance.

I agree with you and I stand by the use of the word disaster. You don't hire Abrams (who is NOT cheap) and give him a chunk of cash to make a film that 'falls in line with the series general overseas performance'.

It was such an issue for Paramount that they changed the way they approached the second film creatively. Only a 'disaster' would warrant such drastic action to remedy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom