Top
180°

Star Trek Into Darkness Weak $84 Million Domestic Box Office Follows Paramount Video Game Flop

Forbes - Despite having a decent Metacritic rating of 73, the Star Trek Into Darkness movie failed to build on the domestic success that the original JJ Abrams reboot had established four years ago. The film, which was forecast to break the $100 million barrier over its extended weekend launch, made just $84 million ($2 million Wednesday, $11.5 million Thursday, $22 million Friday, $27.2 million Saturday and an estimated $21.2 million Sunday). And that’s the second consecutive piece of bad news for Paramount Pictures.

The Hollywood studio, which officially entered the Star Trek video game space with Digital Extremes’ Star Trek: The Video Game in April, crashed and burned with that interactive adventure. That game, which had a full three years of development because of Star Trek II’s delay, still felt rushed when it hit store shelves and was plagued with glitches galore. That resulted in a horrendous 39 Metacritic score on PC (the most powerful platform) and a 43 and 46 rating on Xbox 360...

The story is too old to be commented.
jagiii1231d ago

Thank god Paramount isn't in charge of the Star Wars games.

Godmars2901230d ago

And what's EA's track record towards movie-games?

morganfell1230d ago

And what is Forbes' record of financial predictions?

Godmars2901230d ago

@morganfell:
My question still trumps yours. Given the history of movie-games.

DeadlyFire1230d ago

Last ones I remember from EA was LOTR games. They made a couple of awesome hack and slash LOTR games to tie into the movies in the PS2 era.

I think EA has the potential. They are just very misguided in how they use their talent in most cases.

Aery1230d ago (Edited 1230d ago )

This movie is an insult to any real fan of Star Trek,
but if you love an action sci-fi movie maybe you can get some fun.

CalvinKlein1230d ago (Edited 1230d ago )

probably because it is not boring enough to be startrek, hahahahaha.

Thats just a joke as Im not defending the movie either as I havent seen it and never liked star trek much anyways. Im sure you are right tho, all hollywood does now-a-days is tape some explosions, add CGI and then put some old franchise name on it as they cant call it Explosions 54: more exploded and still get the same amount of people to go see it(although that might get alot of people still, explosions are very popular).

dafegamer1230d ago

not sure what you're talking about, I thought the movie was amazing

kwyjibo1230d ago

Aery's right. I've not seen Into Darkness yet, but Abrams clearly isn't a Star Trek fan. Hence his movies are all space lasers, pew pew, and not space diplomacy.

I'm not a Trekkie, so I prefer this direction, but can understand why fans of the show don't like it.

jeffgoldwin1230d ago (Edited 1230d ago )

Any blockbuster movie nowadays is bound to be 90% explosions and set your congnitive processes to low settings (because some things just wouldn't happen that way).

But with that said, if you can get a decent 10% plot and acting, most people are happy with that. Pretty much the polar opposite of how films were 20-30+ years ago because there wasn't the technology available to focus most resources into special effects.

Peanuts1101230d ago

I loved the movie. I seen it twice. The first go I felt like you. Seen it 2D first and then 3D. 3D was much better. Once you get over the knee jerk reaction you'll appreciate it more. Considering that the franchise hasn't come out with more stuff. Some Star Trek is better than no Star Trek anytime.I'll take what I can get.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1230d ago
WooHooAlex1230d ago

Saw the movie yesterday, I thought it was great! It definitely deserved to do more than 84 (even tho that's pretty damn good). Way better than Iron Man 3.

Qrphe1230d ago

Agreed, I enjoyed it as well and way more than Tin Man 3: Tony has Problems Edition

WhyWai881230d ago

I have to agree..
Ironman 3 seem like a fetish movie for the director who love to watch armor suits being blown up...

AngelicIceDiamond1230d ago

Iron Man was just shy of the Avengers numbers. And it was a great movie to.

I do admit Marvel is stretching him a bit to far just so people can stay interested.

Milking the character/movies isn't helping either.

ps3_pwns1230d ago

it was good movie but i dont think it was better then the first one. i think this movie was also equal to or less then ironman 3 because iron man has a marvel universe around it so its like a side story and avengers 2 is the main story.

nix1230d ago

i agreed to you only because it's better than Iron Man 3. the way they wasted a villain in that movie was quite stoopid.

and yeah.. i thought "Wrath of Khan" was better than this star trek remake.

jakmckratos1230d ago

But..but star trek was amazing?!?!?

Godmars2901230d ago (Edited 1230d ago )

As an action movie. As a Star Trek movie it was an insulting if somewhat entertaining hack job which used its spirit without understanding its soul.

Like most things modern which exploit nostalgia the young'ins and old folks are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Dms20121230d ago

I am 44, a Star Trek fan, and I thoroughly enjoyed Into Darkness. Now I suppose someone will tell me why I shouldn't have enjoyed it.

Godmars2901230d ago

@Dms2012:

Not really a question of whether or not you enjoyed it but rather with its apparent box office failure what the studio does next.

IcyEyes1230d ago

This movie its about crash-bang-boom ... nothing more because the REAL Star Trek is something really different.

This movie is a very, very generic FPS :D

-Ikon-1230d ago

This, it may be bellow expectations but 84 million is a success and a sequel is sure to follow..

Oh and it should have dropped before Iron Man 3 if it wanted to hit it big..

kneon1230d ago

Not necessarily, how much did it cost to make? Even if a movie makes money it doesn't guarantee a sequel if the studio deems the ROI too low.

DeadlyFire1230d ago (Edited 1230d ago )

Sequel is very likely to happen. imdb.com already has it listed as of January this year for 2016. So its aim is solid. 2016 is the 50th anniversary of Star Trek. So the 3rd movie will have a massive launch I believe. They are teasing so many things in the 2nd movie, but many of them to me look to be on the horizon for a 3rd movie.

Only bad side to this movie's ticket sales I believe is the congested movies releasing all at the same time this/next month and so on. Not all my favorites, but many popular movies releasing this time around. If marketing doesn't have the movie posted everywhere before its release in such a congested launch window then its not going to launch at #1 every time. Iron Man 3 benefited by launching first.

coolbeans1230d ago

I was rather surprised to see our 8:30 showing (in one of the most popular theaters in this area) on Friday wasn't even close to being a packed house. Since I still find Abrams and co's typical action-movie focus for the series to be a bit sacrilegious, I'm not going to say I feel sorry to see this news.

kneon1230d ago

I'm not surprised, I've seen very little advertisements for this movie. Did they think everyone would just know it was out without much publicity?

Show all comments (38)
The story is too old to be commented.