May 20 2024


An archive of Star Trek News

Third Place Star Trek

1 min read

The figures are out and Star Trek into Darkness finished third at the theaters this weekend.

The movie earned $47,000,000 for the holiday weekend; just behind The Hangover Part II, which earned $51,214,000. The number one earner this weekend was Fast & Furious 6, which earned $120,000,000.

So far, Star Trek into Darkness has earned $155,827,300 in domestic markets.

About The Author

15 thoughts on “Third Place Star Trek

  1. The film cost $190 million to produce and who knows how much to market. It’s not as big of a flop as “Nemesis” sadly was, but it’s not the big money maker the studio wanted/needed it to be either.

  2. The domestic performance is matching Trek 09, give or take 1 million dollars or so. The foreign is waaaaay up on Trek09 though. I don’t get why so many Trekkies are down on Star Trek’s box office. Word of mouth is amazing, which is why we see such a small drop from week one figures. The movie seems to be opening strongly in China, where it’ll probably take 20-30 million by the end of the weekend.

    Star Trek Into Darkness will very likely be the most successful Trek movie in history! It should earn anywhere between $400-$500 million, depending on the overseas figures. If it makes the higher end of the estimate then Trek will have shown that it has broken away from being a niche movie and should lay the way for Star Trek Into The Light to make $600-1bn in 2016.

    Star Trek Lives!

  3. If it doesn’t earn over ~$471,000,000 worldwide then it won’t beat ST:TMP’s gross ticket sales (~$139,000,000), as adjusted for inflation.

    And I didn’t realize this before looking it up, but even in non-inflation-adjusted figures TMP made more money than any of the real Trek movies except First Contact. That’s sort of amazing.

  4. Give someone new who actually likes Star Trek that money and see what kind of Star Trek movie they can make… a damned site better than this, I’d wager.

  5. The movie is doing better than I thought. What I saw seemed, as others have said, to be “superficial”, but what the heck do I know. Still think they wanted a lot more from it.

  6. I really liked the new film. However…..

    I personally was not happy with the 4 year hiatus and I think that could have been a factor with the lack of momentum. Further, the producers’ toying with the true identity of the villain plus the all the extra trailers and prescreenings I think hurt the anticipation factor with the film. I think the director was eager to show fans what the film was going to show in order to simmer the anxiousness to see the film in a timely manner. Too much of the film was pre-disclosed over this anticipation time frame.

  7. Not really. I just watched ST:TMP for the first time since high school the other day. The movie actually fitted the times very well, which is why it made cash. It’s not bad, it’s just not an all-time great. Watching it again, I was impressed by the very solid acting by all the cast and the attention to detail in makng a consistent universe. TMP came at a time, a brief two to three year window, when the general public, still in a post-Apollo glow and enthused by Star Wars, was willing to go to an SF movie in numbers, because it plausibly seemed the future.

    I say no Trek movie was as big of a cultural phenomena at the time of release as the first one. Not saying it was huge as a phenomena, just that it was one in a way the others haven’t been–because it came at a time, right after Star Wars, right at the begiining of the arcade revolution, when computers were starting to become more commonplace, and it was the first Trek movie.

    The DVD extras made me remember the incredible pent-up demand within fandom. Remember, the original show had been a failure. A lot of hopes and dreams rode on this one, and if it had been a complete turkey there might not have been even a chance for TWOK.

    As far as the movie itself–it is a solid SF story. I sometimes can’t figure out how the pacing in TMP is supposed to be dreadful but 2001 is a cinematic masterpiece (I read the book before I ever saw that movie. I have no idea how anyone who hasn’t done that knows what is going on).

  8. To add on–I think TMP will gain in stature as time goes on. At no point do the characters verge into stereotype, as later could be argued happened. The public at that time, fueled on Voyager, Viking, and Apollo, was somewhat sophisticated about space, in a way they quickly weren’t (for example, in the Abramsverse, planets are apparently parallel-parked next to each other), and the entire known portion of the galaxy seems as big as the backlot, based on how quickly they get everywhere.)

    For a ten-year old boy, already knowledgeable about real outer space, TMP was the right film at the right time. Though he didn’t bother, after a certain point, to see it again for the better part of three decades, because it just isn’t that kind of film.

  9. The film was disclosed to people that looked for it. I couldn’t believe the number of americans pouring over the trek xii forum in the week before release, when the rest of the world just wanted to discuss what they’d seen without spoiling it for the areas that hadn’t had the release.

  10. TMP has become my favorite Trek movie over the past few years, although I recognize that objectively speaking it isn’t the best. And believe me, I know there was pent up demand. At the time I was a 13 year old fella who had virtually no access to Trek – TOS was only on Sunday mornings at 11 when I usually wasn’t home. No cable, no VCRs. So it’s no shock to me that a Trek movie would do well at that time.

    I’m still surprised that it actually did better box office than any of the other movies. First Contact is a movie that both works as Trek and as a movie so it should have blown it away, but in real figures it didn’t do nearly as well. I wonder what the ancillary revenues (video, cable sales, etc.) would show.

  11. TMP Draws a lot of unfair criticism. It is a good film, and good Star Trek, recycled plot notwithstanding.
    The pacing problems were very, very apparent in the original theatrical release, and doubly so in the extended “special edition” rerelease which threw in the kitchen sink. The studio recut the film over Robert Wise’s objections to have more of the effects that they paid for shown on screen, and trimmed and even removed a few scenes to keep it at an almost-reasonable length. The Director’s Cut DVD edition is a huge, huge improvement.
    And yes, it did relieve the fandom’s collective blueballs.

    As for 2001… gorgeous film. Love it to pieces. But it puts me to sleep.
    It’s not the sweeping, lingering panoramas. It’s not the extensive, detailed scenes of the mundanity of space life, those are so detailed I just soak it in every time. No; If I were so presumptuous as to edit it, the only part I would significantly shorten would be the “stargate trip”. It goes on about 10 minutes too long. Yes, yes, it’s an incredible psychedelic passage outside of his universe, life, and anything he’s ever known WE GET IT ALREADY, STANLEY, LET’S MOVE ON.
    As I should do. Kang sometimes runs at the mouth. Sorry.

  12. …Except that I forgot an important point. Robert Wise was not a Trekkie. He wasn’t a fan. He didn’t know the mythology, the history, the Vulcan death grip, yadda yadda. Yet he “got” Kirk. He “got” Spock. He got the whole Kirk/Spock/McCoy dynamic pretty much perfectly. He knew how the characters interacted, what their motivations were, how they would respond to the challenges and troubles they faced. Why? BECAUSE HE GAVE A SHIT. These things were important to him, a vital part of the story that would go onscreen. In short he was more interested in making a good film than in making googobs of money.

Comments are closed.

©1999 - 2024 TrekToday and Christian Höhne Sparborth. Star Trek and related marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. TrekToday and its subsidiary sites are in no way affiliated with CBS Studios Inc. | Newsphere by AF themes.