RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

TrekToday title image

Star Trek Into Darkness Opening Figures

Posted by T'Bonz - 16/05/13 at 12:05 pm


Share |

Last night, Star Trek into Darkness opened and grossed 3.3 million dollars in both the Wednesday night and midnight runs.

Most of that opening figure came from IMAX showings ($1.3 million).

The U.S. general release is today, and the movie is expected to post $100 million for its first four days, which would surpass the $75 million grossed by Star Trek (2009) in its debut.

Source: The Hollywood Reporter

Tags:

  • milojthatch

    Don’t buy the Paramount or Bad Robot Kool-Aid, this film bombed. On a larger budget then the previos film, it brought less in (accounting for inflation) and fewer butts into seats (accounting for high and premium ticket prices). Yes, it will make a lot of money, but nothing close to what the studio needs it to make.

    Another fan did the math on the previous 11 films and adjusted for inflation to show how much revenue the various films ACTUALLY brought the studio. Clearly, JJ-Trek is not the savior of the franchise that the studio is trying to portray it as. Hopefully, this farce will end and we can get back to the REAL STar Trek again!

    STAR TREK MOVIES BUDGET AND GROSS REVEUE THEN AND NOW 2012:
    STAR TREK MOVIE BUDGET AND GROSS REVENUE.
    THEN / NOW.

    BUDGET ST:TMP 1979 : $ 46,000,000/$ 145,970,000.
    BOX OFFICE $ 139,000,000/$ 441,800,000 = 302.1% gross revenue (GR).

    ST:TWOK 1982 $ 11.2mill/ $ 26.74mill.
    $ 89.0mill/$ 212.47mill = 794.6% GR.

    ST:TSFS 1984 $ 13/$ 121.7.
    $ 87/$ 192.191 = 669.2% GR.

    ST:TVH 1986 $ 21/$ 41.14.
    $ 133/$ 279.57 = 633.3% GR.

    ST:TFF 1989 $ 33/$ 61.31.
    $ 63/$ 117.05 = 190.9% GR.

    ST:TUC 1991 $ 27/$ 45.
    $ 97/$ 164.07 = 359.2% GR.

    ST:GEN 1994 $ 35/ $ 54.41.
    $ 118.07/ $ 183.54 = 337.3% GR.

    ST:FC 1996 $ 45/$ 66.7.
    $ 146.02 /$ 214.42 = 324.5% GR.

    ST:INS 1998 $ 58/$ 81.98.
    $ 112.58/$ 159.13 = 192.1% GR.

    ST:NEM 2002 $ 60/ $ 76.84.
    $ 67.31 /$ 86.20 = 112.1% GR.

    STAR TREK 2009 $ 150 /$ 161.08.
    $385.49 /$ 413.96 = 256.9% GR.

  • http://twitter.com/bydefault bydefault

    Agreed, after a four-year wait I was very disappointed by NuTrek 2: The R(eh)ash of Khan (now re-imagined as a pasty white dude).

    I have so many problems with STID, I really don’t know where to begin but here’s my overall assessment:
    Visual presentation = Shiny red bow
    Character vignettes/trekisms = Sprinkles
    Plot = Steaming pile

    But hey, it’s all about the red bows and sprinkles now, isn’t it?

    With JJ off to play in his Star Wars playground, I can only hope another team will step in to recover from this Bad Reboot drek, creating something truly inspired and visionary.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Owch. I guess I had forgotten just how profitable a Trek movie usually is. I realize that the cost of promotion and distribution isn’t factored in, but promotion is not as huge an expense when you have a strong fan base.
    I really do hate to say this, since it may mean Trek will be buried for another 5-10 years, but I hope that Star Trek Into Retreads ends up failing.
    I liked Trek XI a good deal. Everything I’ve heard indicates that what they did well in the last film, they blew off or screwed the pooch on in this one.
    In another recent post Karl Urban, who played a fantastic Leonard McCoy, talked about how he asked JJ to lay off on the corny metaphors because it was laying it on too thick, and JJ not only didn’t lay off, he added a “fuck you I’m the director” line to boot.
    JJ knows what he’s doing, but he’s stopped accepting that other people also know what they’re doing. It’s Michael Bay syndrome. Economic failure is the only known cure.

  • http://twitter.com/mcgla lydia mcgehee

    Saw the movie twice and the first time in IMAX. I have to say, I was furious the first time seeing it, but then going in the second time KNOWING who the bad guy really is, I wasn’t as mad and I just accepted it because Benedict is a GREAT actor either way. So overall I prefer the first reboot to the new, but if you take all the aspects of the special effects and how J.J. presented the new villain it’s not as bad as I thought. But I would totally go a different way for the third film. And considering that there is NO WAY J.J. can direct ST and SW at the same time, hopefully the new director will give us something totally fresh for the 3rd film and give the fans respect for the 50th anniversary.

  • Mike

    Well, maybe the second time through it actually made sense for Khan to go to Qo’noS… because, the first time, it certainly didn’t… Khan knew Admiral Marcus wanted to precipitate a war with the Klingons, so, he goes to the one place that will help Admiral Marcus… Oooooh, he’s really punishing him….. But, it must’ve made more sense the second time through… So, what was the reason?

    And upon rewatching, does it make any sense that Khan gives himself up? He thinks his people were killed by the Admiral… There’s nothing to tell us why he thinks they’re still on the torpedoes when he specifically should think they aren’t… by his own dialogue…

    And, most importantly, the divergence between this timeline and the prime universe happen with Nero’s incursion to the past, right? So, why did Khan let his wife and all those people on Ceti Alpha VI die, when all they needed was a little blood transfusion? Superior intellect, indeed.

    This movie is the Star Trek equivalent to Christian Bale’s Batman voice still being used after people know it’s Bruce Wayne as Batman… That stupidity in The Dark Knight Rises hurts The Dark Knight, and this stupidity in Star Trek Into Darkness hurts The Wrath of Khan.

    A short list, not remotely covering all the stupidity of this movie… just a heaping helping.