Box Office: ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Opens At Number #1 But Falls Below Expectations

Box Office: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Opens At Number #1 But Falls Below Expectations

Has anyone stopped to think that maybe the success of 2009’s “Star Trek” was a fluke? Coming off the worst-performing entry of a ten film series (“Star Trek Nemesis” grossed $43 million in 2002), Paramount produced a big-budgeted sexy version of what was once considered a “nerdy property” and broke out with a $385 million worldwide gross. With “Star Trek Into Darkness,” most were expecting audience goodwill and the addition of 3D would boost this picture into a four-day opening close to $100 million. That was assuming that most of the public was aware the studio made a last-minute decision to push the release from Friday to Thursday, and either the $81 million four-day take suggests they weren’t, or that maybe we’ve overestimated the appeal of these films in the first place.

Granted, audiences still seem to like these films, and this one in particular: it received an ‘A’ Cinemascore rating, and generally positive reviews. Though we won’t be judging this opening in terms of profitability as much as industry expectations, these results are somewhat weaker than the $75 million take by “Star Trek” four years ago. Ads for ‘Into Darkness’ didn’t seem to up the ante from the last picture, keeping the plot vague. Worse yet, the advertising centered on its villain, and on that note they opted for JJ Abrams-sponsored secrecy. Except you can’t be secretive about the film’s major threat if he’s also played by a nobody. And in spite of the many gif-happy fans the actor may have on Tumblr, Benedict Cumberbatch is very much a nobody to about 95% of the intended audience for the usual blockbuster.

For that matter, so is the bulk of this film’s cast, in any other role. Chris Pine is the only actor in this cast that would be considered “bankable” and his greatest success was playing the co-lead in “Unstoppable,” a programmer that played to middling results as a Denzel Washington picture. Pine’s “This Means War” was also rejected, and “People Like Us” (from “Trek” co-scribes Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci) failed to move the needle at all. Supporting players like Simon Pegg and Karl Urban have also featured in their share of flops, while Zoe Saldana can’t seem to gain any traction as a leading lady, judging by the roles she’s taken in recent years. Eventually with the original “Trek,” William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy would become household names. Can’t see the same situation outcome for Zachary Quinto, who doesn’t seem interested in stardom anyway.

Of course, the big unanswered question is if studios can fully bank on films that underperform domestically but surge overseas compared to their predecessors. Recent installments of “Pirates Of The Caribbean” and “Spider-Man” added 3D and actually saw their domestic results diminish, but international receipts were stronger than ever. Disappointing sequel “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” almost doubled its domestic haul overseas, and the similarly-weak “A Good Day To Die Hard” nearly quadrupled it. We’re cherry-picking — “Iron Man 3” has already out-grossed the previous films in the series by a very wide margin stateside and abroad, for example. But a large focus was placed on “Star Trek” traditionally playing to crickets overseas, and for the last go-round, yielding only decent international numbers. “Into Darkness” has 3D and a much higher profile than the earlier film, so it will probably do the same business every 3D blockbuster seems to do internationally, with a basement expectation of $200-$300 million. 

So,
given this weaker opening for the $190 million-budgeted “Into Darkness,” if the film doesn’t have the legs of its predecessor, it’s
likely to finish around $200 million domestically, over $50 million less than
the earlier effort, even with inflation and 3D. But if international numbers are
even just okay, this will easily be a bigger worldwide hit than 2009’s “Star
Trek.” All things considered, this “Trek” is opening not only after the
gorilla-sized “Iron Man 3,” but also a spectacular $50 million opener in “The
Great Gatsby
.” With some audiences clutching their cash in preparation for
Memorial Day’s massive “Fast And Furious 6”/”The Hangover Part III” showdown, it
probably could have been worse

Not
only did “Iron Man 3” successfully cross $1 billion earlier this week, it
also surprisingly held strong against “Into Darkness,” with results suggesting this will
be the first time Tony Stark coasts over $400 million domestic. “Iron Man 3”
will likely finish its run as one of the ten highest-grossing films in history
domestically, and if “The Avengers 2” performs up to expectations, then three
of the ten biggest domestic (also worldwide?) films in history will feature
Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark. That creates, how do we say… bargaining power?
Now the question remains, if “Iron Man 3” received a post-“Avengers” bump, and
what this means for sequels “Thor: The Dark World” and “Captain America: The
Winter Soldier
”: can they improve on the two original films, neither of which
crossed $500 million worldwide, and if so by how much?

Despite
an apparently tough Cinemascore rating, the word-of-mouth on “The Great Gatsby
seems to be doing just fine, old sport. The 3D drama lost a little over half
its audience as it represented adult counterprogramming to the PG-13 suck of
superheroes and spaceships, and it should cross $100 million domestic by
mid-week. Kudos to Hollywood, as we are three weeks into summer without a
megabudget flop; things are usually more dire for someone at this point, and
everyone expected “Gatsby” to be the weak sister in a crowded May. Nobody’s
getting fired!

Pain
And Gain
” and “42” both held steady in the top five, benefiting from
blockbuster spillover. “42” is at the cusp of $90 million already, and some are
wondering if Jackie Robinson can leg it out to $100 million. The Michael Bay
drama/thriller/whatsit is likely going to start dropping screens soon, and it
should find its proper home as a Redbox Memory. Everyone got to stretch out,
now put Marky Mark and The Rock back in their respective franchise playsets.

Again
with the smallest drop in the top ten was “The Croods,” which will see its
reign as the only ‘toon on the marketplace challenged by next weekend’s “Epic.”
Though that film has been billed as an afterthought compared to the matchup between
“The Hangover” and “Fast And Furious,” the kiddie audience has been largely
under-served this year, and the Blue Sky offering could easily be a juggernaut.
Which would, of course, finally purge “The Croods” from the theaters, but with
a take that could limp over $180 million in the next couple of weeks,
Dreamworks is counting this as a major success, their first at Fox.

Oblivion
is about to get an overseas boost from a Japanese release, though by and large
the story’s been told about this underperformer. With military precision, Tom
Cruise
has “All You Need Is Kill,” “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” and “Mission:
Impossible 5
” ready to deploy next year, so if you don’t like his latest
blockbuster (the second straight to crap out before reaching $100 million
domestic) then maybe you’ll like his next one. Or his next one. Capsizing below
the sci-fi thriller was “Tyler Perry Presents Peeples,” which just barely
stayed ahead of “The Big Wedding” and “Mud,” both simply hanging around until
DVD, though the low-budget “Mud,” to its credit, has been a solid arthouse
performer for distributor Roadside Attractions.

1. Star Trek: After Dark (Paramount) – $70.6 million ($81 mil.)
2. Maybe Now You’ll Buy The Damn Iron Man Comics You Philistine (Disney) – $35.2 million ($337 mil.)
3. The Great Gatsby (Warner Bros.) – $23.4 million ($90 mil.)
4. Pained And Drained (Paramount) – $3.1 million ($46 mil.)
5. 42 (Warner Bros.) – $2.8 million ($89 mil.)
6. The Croods (Fox) – $2.8 million ($176 mil.)
7. Oblivion (Universal) – $2.3 million ($86 mil.)

8. Mud (Roadside Attractions) – $2.2 million ($11 mil)
9. Tyler Perry Presents Steeples (Lionsgate) – $2.1 million ($7.8 mil.)
10. The Big-ish Wedding (Lionsgate) – $1.1 million ($20 mil.)

This Article is related to: Box Office and tagged , , ,


Comments

Alan B

Meh. Paramount REPEATEDLY said that the intent was to improve the international box office from the first film. Only 33% of the 2009 film's box office total came from international receipts, which explains why Paramount wanted to broaden Star Trek's market internationally. Considering that STID is doing 80% better than its predecessor internationally, I say it probably worked.

Real

I think they waited too long to release the sequel to ST 2009. 4 years is a long time between movies.

Washington

Maybe I was just fucking busy that weekend

oogle monster

Stoked to see Gatsby doing so well!! This film should easily make its budget back and then some.

Maxine

Judging by Paramount's domestic marketing, including domestic trailers, TV spots and the domestic poster, it's fair to say that they didn't sell this film as a Villain/ Cumberbatch movie at all in the US, which is quite right considering how underwritten and underutilized the villain and Cumberbatch is in this movie; the movie's international marketing is a huge misleading, but at least in the UK, where Cumberbatch is a well known star, the film's performance is better than Star Trek (2009). In this one, 95% of the film is about Chris Pine's Captain Kirk's journey and 90% about Kirk and Spock's friendship, and this is, based on most of critics, a much more Star Trek film than Star Trek (2009), but many of them also pointed out that the callbacks might not work to the film's advantage and actually don't play well to some hardcore Trek fans. What you should really be questioning about the underperformance of this movie is what doesn't work on the the side of the marketing strategy and the core creative team, which consists of the producers, writers and the director.

couchkik

What about those overseas Fast6 numbers??

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *