Star Trek's box office not so great...trailer to blame?

[Earth 2 Chris]

^I have to agree. It was marketed plenty, but even I, a longtime Trek fan, questioned the tone of this film, from what I saw in the trailers. The trailers showed very little of the cast in traditional uniform and lots of very grim scenes that could have come from any number of sci-fi flicks on the way. But the movie is actually pure Trek, with some old themes revisited in very exciting ways.

So going back to Enyawd's orginal post...yes, I think the trailer may have hurt the BO a bit. I don't think this movie will be considered a dud, though. I still think folks overestimated the impact this would make. As others have said, Trek movies have never due astronomical business. And this is one busy summer!

Chris

[Bionicfanboy66]

This is why people shouldn't be singing praises about Man Of Steel until they see the actual movie. IIRC, 1979's ST:The Motion Picture was actually considered a box office flop. That is why Roddenberry was pulled from any future ST features and was replaced by Harve Bennett. These days, I usually try to avoid watching too many trailers before I go see the actual film. There should be a one trailer per film limit. Do we really need half a dozen trailers leading up to the movie itself?

[mego73]

The Motion Picture was not a flop, it was actually a huge hit. Paramount was upset at the inflated budget and blamed Roddenberry (although a lot of the inflated costs can be pinned on Paramount ping ponging Trek between making a TV show and a movie for years. They were even in the midst of constructing sets and the model for TV when Paramount decided to bump it up into a movie again, meaning the model and sets had to be rebuilt. It all added on to the costs).

This is why people shouldn't be singing praises about Man Of Steel until they see the actual movie. IIRC, 1979's ST:The Motion Picture was actually considered a box office flop. That is why Roddenberry was pulled from any future ST features and was replaced by Harve Bennett. These days, I usually try to avoid watching too many trailers before I go see the actual film. There should be a one trailer per film limit. Do we really need half a dozen trailers leading up to the movie itself?

[mego73]

Not only the trailer, but the one sheet/promo art was so unlike Star Trek.

^I have to agree. It was marketed plenty, but even I, a longtime Trek fan, questioned the tone of this film, from what I saw in the trailers. The trailers showed very little of the cast in traditional uniform and lots of very grim scenes that could have come from any number of sci-fi flicks on the way. But the movie is actually pure Trek, with some old themes revisited in very exciting ways.

So going back to Enyawd's orginal post...yes, I think the trailer may have hurt the BO a bit. I don't think this movie will be considered a dud, though. I still think folks overestimated the impact this would make. As others have said, Trek movies have never due astronomical business. And this is one busy summer!

Chris

[sprytel]

The Motion Picture was not a flop, it was actually a huge hit. Paramount was upset at the inflated budget and blamed Roddenberry (although a lot of the inflated costs can be pinned on Paramount ping ponging Trek between making a TV show and a movie for years. They were even in the midst of constructing sets and the model for TV when Paramount decided to bump it up into a movie again, meaning the model and sets had to be rebuilt. It all added on to the costs).

Yep. The Motion Picture set an opening weekend record when it came out... beating out the previous record holder, Superman.
For that matter, Wrath of Khan set an opening weekend record when it was released too.

[mego73]

Not that Roddenbery was blameless. For instance, he ended up going with a special effects company Abel and Associates that did great and groundbreaking work for TV commercials but was untested for film work. That wasted a lot of money. About the only sequence from them that was good for using was the wormhole sequence interiors.

Yep. The Motion Picture set an opening weekend record when it came out... beating out the previous record holder, Superman.
For that matter, Wrath of Khan set an opening weekend record when it was released too.

[Hector]

Motion Picture was made for $35 million and made $82 million domestically...its foreign take was almost non existent...for a total of $42 million profit.

So yes, it made money, but hardly a box office record breaking film.

Trek Into Darkness' budget was $190 million, and its total worldwide take is currently $249 million...$59 million profit so far...so it already passed the Motion Picture in profit despite the adjusted for inflation prices.

But yes, Darkness numbers have indeed been disappointed, Trek flicks just don't do well overseas, never have.

The first Star Trek reboot made $385 million worldwide with a $150 million budget, a $235 million profit, so that's the highest grossing Trek film of all times, adjusted for inflation or not.

[mego73]

Foreign take for TMP was actually fairly good, upping it's overall total to 139 million.

Motion Picture was made for $35 million and made $82 million domestically...its foreign take was almost non existent...for a total of $42 million profit.

So yes, it made money, but hardly a box office record breaking film.

Trek Into Darkness' budget was $190 million, and its total worldwide take is currently $249 million...$59 million profit so far...so it already passed the Motion Picture in profit despite the adjusted for inflation prices.

But yes, Darkness numbers have indeed been disappointed, Trek flicks just don't do well overseas, never have.

The first Star Trek reboot made $385 million worldwide with a $150 million budget, a $235 million profit, so that's the highest grossing Trek film of all times, adjusted for inflation or not.

[Hector]

Fair enough...

[mego73]

I got to always stand up for TMP.

Fair enough...

[jwyblejr]

I've noticed there is more info in the tie-in ads than in the trailers.

[supes]

Just came back from taking the family to see Star Trek, thought it was AWESOME, we all really enjoyed it. That being said I agree the trailers for this movie did it no justice. Every trailer I saw I remember saying to my kids looks like an interesting movie, but it doesn't look like a Star Trek movie. I mainly went to see it because I enjoyed the first reboot, and my kids wanted to see this one.

[Earth 2 Chris]

Looks like Into Darkness is just right behind the Trek reboot now. Only about 300,000 difference during the same period. And yes, I know ticket inflation, but the fact that it still had legs this weekend says a lot.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/

Chris

[mego73]

Good to hear.

BTW, I was browsing youtube reviews of ID and they were pretty good too. But one of them said something that took me aback. One said, because of ID, they checked out Wrath Of Khan again on Netflix. They said, it's great, you ought to look it up but be warned the pacing is a little slow. I never heard anyone call Star Trek 2 slow paced before. But I guess, compared to the density of action scenes in most movies of that type today, Into Darkness included, many of what we thought were action packed/ exciting movies are slow now. It makes me think I am lucky, I can enjoy today's ADD designed spectacles but the dramatic tension of movies like Wrath Of Khan is also excited and keeps people like me thinking it is slow paced.

It's just like horror movies now, as opposed to them. look at The Exorcist, it spends a methodical 45 minutes of buildup before it gets to the "money scenes" yet I was never bored.

Looks like Into Darkness is just right behind the Trek reboot now. Only about 300,000 difference during the same period. And yes, I know ticket inflation, but the fact that it still had legs this weekend says a lot.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/

Chris

[Earth 2 Chris]

I think the real story here is that Fast & Furious 6 did incredible business, and most importantly, The Hangover Part III only did about half the business of the previous film. Maybe this will make the folks at Paramount appreciate Trek keeping it's audience.

Chris