You will be redirected back to your article in seconds

Weekend B.O. May 17-19 (What’s A Disappointment?)

Weekend B.O. May 17-19 (What's A Disappointment?)

Only in the film business can a movie make $84 million over the weekend and still be considered
a disappointment. But that’s what some people are saying about Star Trek: Into Darkness.

Since it opened Weds night, the film
has grossed that amount, which is about equal to what the
previous Star Trek reboot made, during its first weekend in 2009, adjusted for today dollars. There were originally
predictions of a $100 million weekend, but it fell short. Still $84 million is definitely nothing to sneeze at.

Iron
Man 3
has already passed the $1 billion mark worldwide which explains why Robert Downey is reportedly
asking for the moon from Marvel Productions
and Disney, to reprise the role again.

Meanwhile 42
keeps chugging along, still in the top ten, approaching $90 million. The film could just edge out $95 million by the time it drops out of the top ten.

1) Star Trek Into Darkness Par. $70,555,000Total: $84,091,000 
2) Iron Man 3 BV $35,182,000  Total: $337,073,000 
3) The Great Gatsby WB $23,415,000 Total: $90,159,000
4) Pain and Gain Par. $3,100,000 Total: $46,574,000 
5) The Croods Fox $2,750,000 Total: $176,750,000 
6) 42 WB $2,730,000 Total: $88,735,000 
7) Oblivion Uni. $2,222,000 Total: $85,500,000 
8) Mud RAtt. $2,160,000 Total: $11,588,000 
9) Tyler Perry Presents Peeples LGF $2,150,000 Total: $7,858,000 
10) The Big Wedding LGF $1,100,000 Total: $20,198,000 

This Article is related to: Box Office


Comments

Geneva Girl

Arrggghh!! (How do you spell a scream?) STID has only opened in the German-speaking part of Switzerland and won't open in the French-speaking part until mid-June! Heck, it'll be on DVD by then. I'm a die-hard Trekker and this is one movie that I'll pay $22 for 3D and pay for a babysitter, if I could only see it.

saadiyah

I saw it on Friday and LOVED IT! It took my mind of the abomination that was the Scandal Finale!

Yes it wasn't as good as the first, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

sosgemini

Why the sympathetic take on STID's results? We have a film that cost more than the original yet grossed similar results despite inflation *and* higher ticket prices for IMAX and 3D? It appears that JJ's bastardization of Star Trek is cooked. I wonder what's next for this series. Maybe a take that's more reliable to the spirit of its original content? Or at least something that's a lil bit longer lasting to enjoy than a microwaved Thanksgiving dinner? (Great upon initial taste but hard to swallow afterwards…)

JEFTCG

Well, after reading the spoiler-heavy comments below, I can now say it's a good thing I'm not going to see the Star Trek movie. (that was sarcasm.) Thanks a lot, a-holes. (that was not.)

AccidentalVisitor

The boxoffice gurus had to keep downgrading the box office expectations all weekend long. It was pretty sad. The film made 70 million from Friday thru Sunday which should be pretty impressive in previous eras. But we are in the era of the Billion dollar blockbusters, an era where films are released in other nations before they open in the USA. These are different times. This movie cost supposedly $190 million to make (why?) and that does not include all the money for promotions. Studios want results. They expect sequels to open stronger than the first films (the Drak Knight made far more its first weekend than Batman Begins had). Paramount's eggs were all in this basket, this is their lone franchise outside of Transformers. Experts now figure the film will not make it to $300 million domestically and may not even surpass the domestic gross of the previous film from four years ago. Thus, it is considered a disappointment.

ALM

"Into Darkness" was not as good as the reboot from a couple of years ago, just like "Iron Man 2" was not nearly as good as the first "Iron Man" with RDJ.

The good news for the "Star Trek" franchise is that "Iron Man 3" brought the quality level back up, so hopefully the next "Star Trek" movie will be better than this one was.

SPOILERS AHEAD****

A big gripe that I and a family member of mine had were that there were parts of "Into Darkness" that were not explained well and were left hanging, almost as if the filmmakers did not watch the final product and forgot to tie up certain loose ends.

One example of this was after the little girl was injected with Khan's blood. The audience is left to assume that she is one of the people cryogenically frozen in the torpedos.

Another example is the fact that the ring Khan gave the girl's father exploded when placed in water, but the admiral had the same ring on and that ring had absolutely no significance.

A third example was the random addition of the admiral's daughter to the Enterprise. I kept thinking that Khan's blood somehow transformed the little girl that I mentioned in example one to the admiral's daughter, but that was not the case. The admiral's daughter was just a very RANDOM character, and certain parts of the movie felt as if they were made by amateur filmmakers.

Josh

I feel they wet the bed in the third act. Khan was at his most interesting when he was shifting between villian and anti-villian. After he beams his people aboard he just becomes a one dimensional psycho. Hated how it ended with a footchase. Can these guys please go into space and stay there!?

Adam Scott Thompson

I went to see it with my die-hard Trekkie mother. We both enjoyed it but felt that it just towed the line from the first film and didn't take enough risks.

But… we're both predicting that the next installment will be the "Iron Man 3" of the new franchise if the war with the Klingons that was foreshadowed in this film comes to pass.

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