RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

TrekToday title image

Trek Takes Weekend Top Spot

Posted by T'Bonz - 20/05/13 at 10:05 am


Share |

Star Trek into Darkness did well this weekend, dethroning Iron Man 3 from the top spot.

However, the movie fell short of Paramount Pictures’ expectations for the domestic opening.

Star Trek into Darkness took in $84.4 million since it opened on Thursday, finishing ahead of Iron Man 3 ($35 million), The Great Gatsby ($23 million), Pain and Gain ($3.1 million), and The Croods ($2.7 million).

Paramount had been expecting larger numbers though, hoping for figures in the $100 million range. Star Trek into Darkness had cost $190 million to make.

The figures for Star Trek into Darkness are higher than those from Star Trek (2009), by six percent. Ratings are decent too, with 87% at Rotten Tomatoes (compare this to 78% for Iron Man 3), and an average grade of “A” according to CinemaScore, a market research firm.

Star Trek into Darkness is doing very well abroad too, with $80.5 earned this weekend, for a total of $164.6 million earned thus far abroad.

“That’s where we put the emphasis, educating the international market on what Star Trek is today,” said Paramount Pictures Vice Chairman Rob Moore.

Source: The Los Angeles Timesvia Examiner.com

Tags:

  • A Trek Fan

    It was a good movie, but not a great one. I guess that’s what they get for “listening” to the fans who wanted a remake, which is what this was. I did enjoy Peter Weller’s part in the movie, but was very sad to see Pike die. Was that really necessary? Some fanbases were left out, which was a mistake. I don’t think Cumberbatch was the scene stealer some claim him to be. He was good, but the Klingon was better. Next time, the writers should pay attention to the opening statement that the Star Trek series stands on, “to boldly go where no man/one has gone before,” and go there. Oh, and lose the meaningless bra and panty scene. I truly hope there will be another movie but next time, don’t wait an extra year, and don’t release so many trailers. I saw Star Trek 2009 three times, I don’t know if I will see this one again before it comes out on DVD.

  • Rad

    Perhaps if they would have started DOMESTICALLY instead of internationally first, the domestic sales numbers would have been much higher. By the time it opened here, we all knew all the secrets and climaxes. I also agree with A Trek Fan; keep the bra and panties out of Trek.

  • Mike

    I don’t see how it was a good movie, it barely made any sense when you break it down… More than Iron Man 3, but barely. And it certainly doesn’t stand on its own. Every emotional beat in the film is reliant on the Prime Universe and our familiarity with that and those characters. The big emotional happenings in this movie have nothing to do with this movie or with Star Trek(2009). Which gives proof to the lie that this was all done in some great way to ensure the openness of the possibilities of Trek writing. In truth, it was just so they could rehash established characters and even settings and plots… that’s why when it came time for Star Trek 2, it was a given what it would be. Now, I really didn’t like the 2009 debacle because there was no reason in continuity for Spock to not have returned within his own timeline and thusly destroyed all Trek we’d ever known (aside from Enterprise), but even I’ll admit it was an entertaining movie. It was fun. And they want to pretend that it’s somehow an alternate, so I can roll with that, if it’s fun… This movie wasn’t fun at all, didn’t earn anything it did based on its or its predecessors merits, and, when broken down, doesn’t remotely make sense. I really hope JJ Abrams doesn’t make another Star Trek movie, nor any of his cadre.

    The only thing I walked away from Star Trek Into Darkness feeling was a great amount of foreboding about 2015… To coin a phrase, “I’ve got a bad feeling about this…”

  • SJStar

    Yeah, right. As if we would listen to a proven fraud and liar.
    Your opinion is worth less than used toilet paper.
    (This New Mexican dumb ass doesn’t even realise the original actors are too old or now dead!)

  • SJStar

    “…to boldly go where no man/one has gone before,” Eh? Didn’t you see the end?

    Really. The story was mostly on the characters becoming bonded as the crew of the Enterprise. Remake? We never saw how the Enterprise bonded together before, know did me.

    I saw the “bra and panty scene” adding much to Kirk’s reputation as a ladies man. (as did the two aliens with tails in bed with Kirk.) Really, I’ve seen worst walking down the street or down at the beach!!

    Sorry, there are now two kinds of Trek fans. (Three, if you count turds like Mike) Those who openly brace the future, and those going the way of the dinosaurs.

  • SJStar

    Rad. Another who just doesn’t get. The foreign market makes up two-thirds of the monies taken at the cinemas. Furthermore the financing of the movie was foreign capital &#8212 especially in light of the disastrous US economy as it was in 2010.

    You look like just another American who thinks they are first in the world because of their birthright, and then whinge and moan about it when someone else gets there first. The decision was made to maximise profits, not to keep the one-eyed patriotic fanboys happy.

  • Mike

    lol, you’re too funny.

    Where did I suggest the use of original actors?

    Your desperate attempts to engage me are really entertaining. Please, continue to show what a nut you are by attacking me like this.

    The people that are capable of reading can read what I wrote above… none of it had anything to do with getting the original actors to reprise their roles. lol I actually have to wonder if you’re trying to be this stupid, or if you’re really that desperate over the internet that you’d grasp at such silly straws.

    You could’ve said, “it made total sense.” At which point we could’ve discussed why it did, in fact, not make sense.

    You could’ve said, “the emotional beats were totally their own, having been earned during this and the last movie.” Which, we could’ve debated, and I could’ve illustrated how that’s totally not true.

    You could’ve cried foul over me saying this proves Abrams’ notion of an open ended Trek to be total bs… but, you didn’t….

    No, instead you decided to invent a position for me and attack that. lol Good one.

  • Mike

    His reputation of a ladies man isn’t predicated on stealing looks at women changing… it just makes Kirk a pervert.

    As for it being a remake… yeah, it was a remake of the Wrath of Khan, obviously… minus all the motivating emotion and personal character beats that made that movie worthwhile.

    There are definitely several kinds of Star Trek fans: Those that are willing to accept crap, those that aren’t, and those that don’t even know it’s crap… psssst, that’s you.

  • Mike

    Yeah, Rad, quit whinging… However the hell you whinge……

  • A Trek Fan

    “…to boldly go where no man/one has gone before,” I was talking about the writers, not the end of the movie. I was hoping for new material, not something I’d seen before. There were way too many inferences to TWOK.

    If you watched the first few episodes of TOS you observe an Enterprise crew coming together and relying on each other. You see Spock, uncomfortable as First Officer, yet performing to the best of his abilities. He is also unsure of his relationship with Kirk. The bra and panty scene was unnecessary to affirm Kirk’s reputation as a ladies man, weren’t the kitty cats, the chick in the bar, Kirk introducing himself to anything that walked in a skirt, enough?

    There actually are two kinds of Trek fans, I agree with this. There are ones who have always been, and the ones that have recently come out of nowhere. I can embrace change along with the next person, but the reason I started watching Star Trek back in 1966, when I was nine years old, was because it presented new and wonderful things to a society that was afraid to embrace the unknown, and who had yet to send a man to the moon.

    It was a good movie, but it could have been better. It had a lot of action and kept moving. The Klingons worked better for me than Khan did. Thankfully, they did stay true to Khan and kept him the murdering bastard he was in the first movie. Sorry, no matter how much Cumberbatch tried, I couldn’t work up any sympathy for Khan or his sleeping “family” of thugs, because I already knew how bad they were.
    And as for overseas earnings, it counts for a third, not two-thirds of the total gross, since theatres in the U.S. are required to send 100% of the ticket sales to the studio for the first four weeks that the movie premiers, and theatres overseas, aren’t.

  • SJStar

    Whatta Frackin’ idiot, The guy want to make sense when he be proven as a fraud and a liar. Ass wipe more likely…

  • SJStar

    I disagree. It was a good movie because it focussed on the characters amid chaos, and how in all of it they show their metal. Best of all it was fun and entertaining. It has nothing to do with past series, Also who says you have to have sympathy for Khan, as it is clear he is the paragon of an enhanced psychopathic — the classic bad guy.

    The first and second movie has set up the third onwards, and they can go anywhere you like from there.

    As for Kirk he accidentally walked in on her, and the shot was mere seconds long. Worse she was embarrassed and Kirk was apologetic — natural reactions I’d think. If anything, you and others comments on this are prudish and silly. Gosh we saw her bellybutton, so the whole morality of the audience is totally shot to hell.
    You see more flesh on a hot summer’s day.

    As for movie earnings, you’ve clear missed my earlier posts on this. Nothing you say on this breaches the reality of the situation.

    Really, I prefer to see some Trek than no Trek at all.

    As for dog poo here, just ignore him.

  • SJStar

    Whinging is better than being a huge New Mexican turd who thinks it is OK to be a liar and fraud.

  • Mike

    Who knew ebonics had spread to the Kiwis… How am I a liar and fraud again? I can’t seem to remember… I just seem to recall that I post about Star Trek, and you try feebly to post about me… It’s all good. I think you think that you annoy me. You don’t. You amuse the Hell out of me being this stupid. I’m still waiting on that flood of spam that was supposed to be headed my way, btw… anyway, keep up the good work in focusing on me and not Star Trek, chum. We are all entertained, I’m sure.

  • Mike

    Hmmmm, I guess they released a different movie internationally than they did here… because here, Kirk didn’t walk in on anyone, and certainly wasn’t apologetic. He was there before she started changing, she told him not to turn around, he snuck a peak, she reaffirmed that he not turn around, he was a pervert and turned around to see her in her bra and panties… He then mockingly was apologetic, but not remotely remorseful… I can see why you liked this movie, you clearly didn’t pay attention during it or didn’t understand the material as presented… typical.

    As for the reality of the numbers, SJStar will never accept reality. He will never accept that just because more people and more gross was earned internationally that it doesn’t remotely translate to a higher net… that’s just to big of a concept for him to wrap his brain around…

    No, if you actually want to discuss things and have facts, reality, and information have any bearing, SJStar isn’t the person to engage.

  • Mike

    I don’t think it’s okay to be a liar… I haven’t lied. I don’t think it’s okay to be a fraud, I haven’t been fraudulent. However, you’re definitely an asshole… if that helps.

  • John (not McCain)

    Obsess much? I bet you have sex dreams about Mike.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    I initially read that as “Obese much”. That brought images to mind that I really did not want to have. Dreadful, frightful images.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    *ahem* Mettle. Showing their metal would involve teasing their hair out to ridiculous proportions and donning ripped denim and/or assorted leather fetish gear.

  • Mike

    I know I do…

  • SJStar

    A American turd is still an American turd, and your frackin’ full of it!
    (Jerk-offs that want to follow you are equally fully of crap.)

  • SJStar

    Good to see you drumming up all your little mates to support your crap. You are a fracking fraud because you are prepared to pretend you are two people arguing the same point. Your or so cowardly, that you can’t stand on your own words. Dog poo is what you, and you will get no quarter from me.

  • SJStar

    Frack off. It is my opinion and all you can do is piss on me…
    Don’t like it. don’t read it, dog poo.

    So back off American arsehole!

  • Mike

    Ohhhh, the irony… See, chum, not only are you the only person that actually follows me around like a lost little puppy on this site, but you are, quite literally, the only person who “Follows” me on Disqus… So, yeah, I’d have to agree with you… spot on… THE PERSON who follows me, pssst, that’s you, is a jerk-off who’s full of crap. Indeed.

  • Mike

    “It is my opinion and all you can do is piss on me…”

    I can?!?! Awesome…… WHY DIDN’T YOU SAY SO BEFORE!?!?!

    Hilarious that you’re telling me to back off… I discuss Star Trek and you follow me around to accuse me of being all the people that post as guest here… and yet, I should back off? LOL Delusions… Again….

  • Mike

    lol And by drumming up support, you mean posting to a public forum and allowing the public to choose whether they want to respond or vote up or down a comment? Then, yes, I’m just drumming away.

    Last time: When you make a post, if you then toggle to delete that post, it doesn’t, it just deletes the attribution of the poster. I had responded, the response was no longer necessary, I went to delete it, thinking it would, you know, delete it, but instead it just made the authorship guest… But you know that… And you also know that I’m not the ones posting as guest around the site… See, you follow me on Disqus… You know when I make any post, and thus, you would know if I made a post as me and then deleted my attribution… and it happened exactly once and I promptly explained it. But, again, you know that’s true, you just want to try to make believe things that simply aren’t true.

    In short, I think everyone is waking up to the fact that you’re just a garden variety troll….. and, that, will get no quarter from me. So… I guess it’s settled then. I’ll continue posting about Star Trek, and you’ll continue to follow me and anyone who posts as a guest around this site harassing them… note, I said them because you aren’t harassing me… you’re amusing me with your stupidity and desperation.

  • John (not McCain)

    No quarter? Really? I hope you have access to good mental health care.

    I mean, good god. You are actually making me have charitable thoughts about somebody I rather thoroughly disagree with on all the retro review posts, and down vote pretty much all the time. So instead of Mike drumming up all his little mates for support, you are causing people who usually DON’T support him to do so. Look up counterproductive at dictionary.com.

  • BlueThunder

    After witnessing the colorful and brutal exchange between Mike and SJStar, I’ve come to the inevitable conclusion that once again, the dark side of Star Trek fandom has reared its ugly head.

    Talk about gasoline and matches creating an explosive combination.

    Or in 23rd Century terms, matter and anti-matter certainly don’t mix.

  • SJStar

    Dog poo. I do not follow you on Discus.

  • Mike

    lol… yeah you did… See, Disqus emails the person being followed when someone follows them… Here’s the text of the email… I’ll happily forward it to you or anyone else… Liar and fraud? Hmmmmm… beginning to sound like you.

    Hi
    Mike,

    You
    have a new follower on Disqus.

    SJStar

    Follow
    SJStar

    Somehow, I restrained myself from clicking the link to follow you.