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...

[jagiii]

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

[Godmars290]

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

[morganfell]

And what is Forbes' record of financial predictions?

[Godmars290]

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

[DeadlyFire]

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.

[Aery]

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.

[Unicron]

Insult? Why?

[CalvinKlein]

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).

[dafegamer]

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

[kwyjibo]

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.

[jeffgoldwin]

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.

[Peanuts110]

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.

[WooHooAlex]

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.

[Qrphe]

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

[WhyWai88]

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

[AngelicIceDiamond]

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_pwns]

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.

[nix]

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.

[jakmckratos]

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

[Godmars290]

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.

[Dms2012]

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.

[Godmars290]

@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.

[IcyEyes]

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

[listenkids]

"Just $84 million"

Just

[-Ikon-]

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..

[kneon]

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.

[DeadlyFire]

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.

[coolbeans]

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.

[kneon]

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?

[MysticStrummer]

I like how it's weak based on a forecast, as if the forecast couldn't just have been wrong. I also like how they felt the need to put "(the most powerful platform)" after the games's PC Metacritic rating.

[GenericNameHere]

JJ Abrams directed Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness.
JJ Abrams is confirmed as the director for Star Wars Episode 7.

Both franchises are huge rivals, and their fans would defend their respective franchises to death. Imagine if Joss Whedon is also confirmed as the director for the Justice League movie. The general public won't know the difference and won't care, but the fans will. They'll feel "betrayed" and boycott the movie. I think this is what's happening. There are already people who complained and hated the 2009 movie for being less Trek smarticles, more action. Then Abrams agreed to direct SWEp7 just a few months ago? That's deserving of severe fan backlash, and probably loss of movie sales too.

[Ashunderfire86]

I thought Joss Whedon would of been the better pick for Star Wars 7, but JJ Abram is still good.

[Ashunderfire86]

First off I saw both Iron Man 3 and Star Trek 2 in theaters, but I thought Iron Man 3 was better and thought Star Trek 1 was a little better. I still like Star Trek 2, but my biggest criticism about it, and it's a little problem not too much, is that many of the aliens shown are just one dimensional. What I mean is that they show these aliens at random and never truly explain who they are, their just there. Like that little midget alien with that Scottish Scientist , the aliens on the enterprise, plus the aliens on that one world at the beginning( Don't want to spoil). We all know what Spock race is(Vulcan), but not too much for the other alien races. The great thing about Star Wars( In my opinion a better franchise and more of a fan) is that you know what almost all the aliens are in a single Star Wars movie, even when the plot is more focus on the Jedi and the Sith in just 2 hours. You know what a Wookie is, those little Jawas, Biths (Cantina Band), Droids, Hutts, Yoda's race( kind of unknown but you know who he is), Rancor, and etc. I digress.

I am not new to Star Trek, cause I watch it before, just was not too much of a fan of it like I was with the Star Wars universe. I hope that JJ Abram give us his A game on the New Star Wars 7 movie due out 2015.

[jeeves86]

That's the benefit of the television shows. In a movie, you have maybe an hour and a half to two hours to get everything in. In the television shows, that stuff can be brought up each and every episode.

[Peanuts110]

Star Trek was always an Intellectual/personality driven show first and action second. You get to know everyone/everyalien on a more personal level and enjoy the conflicts/struggle and the clever conclusions.
Speeding through the story just takes out some of that magic. I enjoyed the movie. I hope that they get a little more Roddenberry's formula into the mix or they might loose more credibility.

[urwifeminder]

Cool time to find a torrent to help undermine their success lol.