RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

TrekToday title image

Content filter

Want to find something specific?

Filter content by category

Filter content by date

Star Trek Into Darkness Selling Briskly

Posted by T'Bonz - 19/09/13 at 10:09 am


Share |

STIDDVDBluRay-071913

The first week of the Star Trek into Darkness Blu-ray and DVD release has been a success.

Star Trek into Darkness is number one on three different sales charts.

The second movie in the J.J. Abrams rebooted series came out ahead of Now You See Me, which has dropped to second place on all three charts; Nielsen VideoScan’s First Alert, Nielsen’s dedicated Blu-ray Disc chart, and Home Media Magazine‘s weekly rental chart.

Seventy-two percent of the sales for Star Trek into Darkness were for the combination Blu-ray/DVD edition.

Some other releases on the lists include the sixth season of The Big Bang Theory, Peeples, the second season of Homeland, The Smurfs: The Legend of Smurfy Hollow, and the eight season of The Supernatural.

Source: The Hollywood Reporter

Tags:

  • John Terry

    “Star Trek Into Darkness Selling Briskly”…. A fool and his money are soon parted”

  • Star Trek lives

    Great news, brilliant film.

  • Jon

    Honestly, I am sorry to hear this but certainly not surprised. I was hoping for poorer than expected sales to accompany the poorer than expected box office receipts to motivate the powers-that-be to point Trek in a better direction for the next movie.

    If you enjoyed this movie, that’s certainly your right (and I don’t begrudge you at all:)), but speaking as a long time fan of Trek…(loved TOS, TNG, most of DS9, not so much Voyager, and last season of Enterprise), this will be the first ST movie that I will not purchase on any format. Again, this film is simply not “Star Trek” to me, and it has nothing to do with me being stodgy or “old.” I mostly enjoyed the previous film and the new actors. While the latter are still good, it is the core of Trek (statements on the human condition, strong characterizations, moving scenes,) that is completely MIA in this film. I expect these things in my Trek, and without them, and coupled with the awful plot holes and inconsistencies throughout this debacle, I could not enjoy this movie at all. My wife and I almost walked out when Cumberbatch said he was “Khan.” This alone has got to be the most egregious miscasting of all time!

    I can only hope that the next film is better and at least returns to these Trek core values. As the majority of the movie-going public seems to want these action/special effects extravaganzas that lack any real substance, I am not optimistic at this point.

    My piece is said…your mileage may differ…

  • Daniel Ireland

    Yes, because only a fool would buy a film he enjoyed watching once already.

  • Dr.WhoCares

    A lot of people loved Into Darkness. I thought is was without a doubt one of the best. Just because you did not like the movie does not me you have to be a little bitch about it. Get a life.

  • BearJew

    Shut up and get a life. It was the highest grossing star trek movie and had very good reviews. Keep your worthless opinion to yourself.

  • BearJew

    Into Darkness rocked. Cumberbatch killed Montalban imo. See yeah people enjoyed the movie.

  • Matt

    I completely agree with what you just said. But someone will say it eventually, so I’ll say it now: Fuck you for not saying Into Darkness is anything less than the greatest thing in the history of everything. How dare you mention the obvious plot holes and terrible miscasting. Into Darkness was kind of well liked by 87% of professional critics. And it made a bit more money than Star Trek 2009, despite STiD’s boost from 3D and IMAX ticket sales, and a much bigger budget. Into Darkness was the Star Trek franchise going back to it’s roots, it’s big dumb Michael Bay style roots. Anyone who admits to liking TNG and DS9 obviously is no Star Trek fan. Abrams Trek isn’t for you, etc. etc. So as Roberto Orci would say: Fuck off.

  • Theragen Derivative

    Other 2013 items selling briskly:

    – Miley Cyrus twerking lessons
    – Syrian chemical weapon demos
    – Louisiana brain-eating amoebas
    – Congressional staff exemptions from their bosses’ laws
    – The San Francisco 49ers
    – Kim Jong Un/Dennis Rodman buddy comedies
    – The far left
    – The far right
    – One Direction: The Motion Picture
    – Fukushima radiation
    – Venereal disease (perennial seller)
    – Disqus snark

  • tommy

    A lot if jealous butthurt from you two. Find another hobby in your nothingness lives.

  • Daniel Ireland

    I thought there was plenty of substance. The theme of family and seeing how far one is willing to go to protect them and the developing friendship between Kirk and Spock for a couple examples. Also, the recasting of Kahn was done well in my opinion. People need to understand they’re not just remaking the same movies we already love. This is their own take on an alternate outcome of the Enterprise’s dealings with Kahn. I didn’t let the fact that the Kahn in this movie wasn’t a Ricardo Montalban look-alike change my opinion of the acting. Benedict Cumberbatch did a great job.

  • Theragen Derivative

    Bob, please stop playing around in the comments and take a creative writing class before you start on the next film.

  • James

    Well said. I also agree that there was plenty of substance. I understand that not everyone will like the film, but people who say that it’s a remake of TWOK don’t seem to have watched the same film that I did.

    The movie acts as a metaphor for America’s descent into moral ambiguity following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The hunt for John Harrison is analagous to the search for Bin Laden and the debate about whether to launch photon torpedoes at the Klingon home world is relevant to current debates regarding the morality of drone strikes. The film concludes with Kirk realising that he lost perspective following the terrorist attack on Starfleet. He then rededicates himself to science and peaceful exploration and begins the famous five year mission, to explore strange new worlds and to seek out new life.

    My full review here:

    http://ryesofthegeek.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/star-trek-into-darkness-film-review/

  • Guest

    Orci insists its finances are proof that it must have been good.

  • Corey Donovan Kirkpatrick

    The only reason I did not purchase, is not because of the movie itself. it was cause of the whole situation with the bonus content being spread across different retail releases. Basically have to buy 4 versions to get all the bonus material.

    I was hoping more people would have found out about that fiasco and not buy.

  • judgefredd

    So, because you do not like somebody elses opinion, you get abusive?? A great sign of intelligence…….(that’s sarcasm BTW)

  • AirSarge

    If you say so. I saw an ass load of them warming the shelves in Wal mart the other day

  • josekuhn

    The problem with the STID nay sayers that bugs the $^&^ out of me, is that it resonates to the memory of naysayers from another thing that I love dearly. I love the music of Yes.

    There is a minority but loud segment of Yes fanboys that the 1980′s version of Yes is not real Yes. Trevor Rabin (the 1980′s guitarist ) ruined Yes… Blah Blah Blah. Sounds familiar?

    The similarities between those whiny fanboys and the whiny trek fan boys are eerily similar. So similar in fact that, there must be a type of wiring in the human brain, that fosters this behavior just like my adult ADHD makes me comfortable with anything new.

  • josekuhn

    I thought it took a lot of brass to tackle the Kirk death scene as a Juxtaposition of WoK.

    I thought they did it very well. Quinto was amazing!

  • josekuhn

    Give this man a bottle of kanar and I will visit him tomorrow to say hello.

  • Randy H.

    I bought a copy! But that’s because I get all the Trek films – it doesn’t mean I think it a fine cinematic work. For example, I also own Star Trek V but that doesn’t mean I think it’s great. And worst of all I own “Shades of Gray” from TNG’s Season 2 – doubtless the worst filmed Trek of all time. So don’t translate purchases into votes of confidence, because it doesn’t work that way.

  • Randy H.

    The film *attempted* to have those themes. Just like Trek V *attempted* to have themes of family loyalty, religious fervor, and inquiries into what God means to different people. Neither one truly succeeded in those goals in any coherent way.

    Put another way: just because someone swings for the fences doesn’t mean I have to applaud the actual foul ball.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Indeed! So it’s right up there with venereal disease.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    In all fairness, “Shades of Gray” does come with the box set.

  • jerr

    what about sharks in the wind?

  • jerr

    just because someone has an opinion, doesn’t mean you can get all homophonic on him

  • James

    Fair enough Randy, in your opinion the film did not succeed in dealing with those themes, clearly others including myself would beg to differ.

  • The_Comic

    Hi There,

    Your argument about Star Trek into Darkness is interesting,
    but for me it is flawed. Firstly proving a film has resonance with the current
    political zeitgeist, especially one as shocking as 9/11 and its aftermath

    does not mean it is of merit. If I write a play about a medieval city attacking with

    another city to find a gang leader called Lin Baden that wouldn’t automatically be a better
    play than Hamlet, or even a good play because it was demonstrably politically relevant,
    I can tell you that, given I’d be writing it, it would probably be a crap play.

    You argue that it was not a remake of Wrath of Khan, no it wasn’t
    a shot for shot remake like Vince Vaughan’s Psycho but it was a copy. In The
    Wrath of Khan, Khan is angry with a Starfleet admiral (Kirk) who he blames for
    the deaths and suffering of his crew. Killing or hurting all those who get in
    his way (Reliant crew/Regula 1 crew)Khan manipulates Starfleet officers to do
    his bidding (Tyrell/Chekov) Khan uses a stolen Starfleet vessel (The Reliant)
    to further his plan and attempt to kill the admiral before ultimately dying at
    his own hands having obtained a special torpedo (The genesis device). In this
    film Khan is angry with a Starfleet admiral (Marcus) who he blames for the
    deaths of his crew. Khan manipulates Starfleet officer to do his bidding (Noel
    Clarke Character) Killing or hurting all those who get in his way (Kelvin
    Archive, Starfleet command, Klingons) Khan ultimately uses a stolen Starfleet vessel
    (The Vengeance) to further his plan and kill the admiral before ultimately destroying
    the vessel having obtained a special torpedo (The botany bay crew torpedos). They
    are pretty similar plots, and re-using such iconic scenes as the death of Spock
    and the Kirk Khaaaaaaan yell are both deliberate references that invoke the
    original. In much the same was as if one hums the jaws durrr dum music in a
    swimming pool most people on the planet know what you are getting at. So no it wasn’t
    explicitly a remake, but it wasn’t exactly a fresh and original take on the
    character either was it? You cannot complain that people are comparing STID with TWOK when the film deliberatly imitates its superior predecessor. I am sure if I pitched “the crew travel to 2013 to
    collect and bring to the future the last two breeding Bengal tigers in an
    attempt to stop a probe whose roaring noises in deep space are inadvertently destroying
    starships, scenes include Spock neck pinching an apple genius, scotty flying a
    helicopter and Uhura breaking into a zoo after learning to speak tiger” for
    star trek 3 you would suspect I was plagiarising Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home

    You state that STID is analogous to The USA’s war on terror
    following the September 11th atrocities. Unfortunately I think you
    are seeing moral complexity where none exists. The film is predicated on
    Starfleet operating in secret, the war on terror was public. Marcus’s Paranoia
    is about coming war with the Klingons, war that we know is inevitable given how
    antagonistic the Klingon race (As seen in all Star Trek series). If you are paranoid
    about a genuine threat, that is not paranoia its rational and understandable fear.
    Equally Marcus’s mistreatment of Khan is understandable because this is Khan,
    not a soldier, not a misunderstood individual but Khan Noonien Singh, the fact
    that they use a genocidal villain hardly invokes moral ambiguity does it.
    Starfleet’s plan, to destroy via torpedo a genocidal murderer in unoccupied territory
    hardly does justice to the very real moral ambiguities of the Iraq or Afghanistan
    wars does it? In fact the worst atrocities committed by Starfleet are a
    Starfleet captain repeatedly hitting a prisoner, for ten seconds or so, and a
    Starfleet Doctor using a prisoner’s blood for experiments without permission. The
    actions of Marcus don’t really count as he is clearly unhinged and acting
    outside of his authority. I see no credible parallel between STID and any
    current political situation. Especially given the central antagonist,
    Harrison/Khan, is motivated only by seeking revenge for the ‘deaths’ of his
    crew his act of ‘terrorism’ is simply a way to ensure he knows where and when
    Marcus will be so that he can kill him, the deaths of the people in the
    institute are collateral damage to him. Star Trek has tackled both terrorism
    and moral ambiguity of war in great depth in the excellent and original Star
    Trek Deep Space Nine episodes like Duet & In The Pale Moonlight (amongst
    many others).

    I also feel that themes like family were poorly explored,
    Spock realised he liked Kirk with little or no interaction between the two, he
    just got angry when Kirk died… exactly like he did when his mom died in the
    previous movie. What exactly did Kirk learn from his ‘mistake’ on Nibiru, he
    disobeyed every order Marcus gave him (rightly, but still?) And wasn’t his
    resurrection via “Super Blood” more of him relying on “blind luck”? So Kirk’s
    arc doesn’t make sense, Spock’s arc is identical to the last film, and Khan,
    who is responsible for the cold bloodied killings of thousands, gets to go back
    to sleep without trial. Now look at Kirk stealing the Enterprise in Star Trek 3
    to rescue his friend Spock, and see Kirk struck with grief following the death
    of his son and tell me STID is a potent exploration of family? I would argue it
    is not even a competent exploration of the theme.

  • James

    Good post, a very articulate deconstruction and I agree with you that there are some structural similarities with TWOK, but then there are also a structural resemblance with Nemesis and even First Contact.

    I agree that the themes in the movie are a bit jumbled, but I think you’re being a little ungenerous with the movie. There are multiple references made by characters that the reason Kirk captured Khan was a moral one (Spock congratulating him for this reason, Khan saying Kirk had a conscience, etc).

    Also, Kirk stated specifically that he intended to bring Khan to Earth for a trial, rather than an extrajudicial execution. He could have handed Khan over if he wanted to. I suspect the simplest reason we saw no trial is because the movie was over, and to have a trial would simply take too long to portray. But comment about his conviction would have been useful.

    Despite your attempts to encourage me to think otherwise, I still firmly believe that, yes, Star Trek: Into Darkness is an allegory, and furthermore, I think it’s an interesting one, as the moral waters are a bit muddied, vis-a-vis the contrast between Kirk’s intervention on the volcano planet (ambiguous, but strong sense of moral justification), and the idea of extrajudicial assassination (ambiguous, but strong sense of lack of moral justification).

    I respect your opinion though and you make your arguments very well.

  • The_Comic

    Hi James

    Agreeing to disagree? you are aware this is the internet right? You could have called me a few names!
    For the record i loved Trek 2009 so i am not against JJ Trek per se I also agree that structurally Treks 2, 5,6,8,9,10&11 are all very similar, ie baddie with a superweapon/mission of revenge and that whilst TWOk did in many ways relight the franchise it also doomed it, cinematically, to several ever decreasing paler versions of itself. I did actually buy the movie because despite, what i consider to be many flaws, i did find some of it entertaining and so i will take from it what I can, for example Scotty’s arc is very interesting and heartfelt, like Kirk throwing away his admiralcy in Trek 3 Scotty gives up his beloved engine room. For me Scotty’s arc is actually the richest and most prominent in the film. I think in all art interpretation the viewer brings a lot of themselves to the reading and so equally I disagree with but ultimately respect your take too. I just hope that the next movie does something original (please no Klingons bent on revenge) as much as i apprecieated a foray to future Earth I’d love to see an old school adventure on an alien planet. I just hope Orci and Kurtzman dont read my Tiger pitch just in case ;)

  • Jon

    Tommy,

    I am sorry, but I must take exception to your comments if you are referring back to mine. I assure you that I am not jealous nor “butthurt” in any way over this movie and its for-the-most-part monetary success. My statement here is my opinion, and I even state therein that I don’t begrudge those who did like this movie even if I don’t personally understand why.

    I am happy to debate those who disagree with my take on the film and ST in general, but I will only do so when respect for both sides is maintained. Simple and generalizing statements such as “find another hobby in your nothingless lives” is hardly conducive to such a debate, would you not agree? And I can assure you that I have numerous other hobbies, a rich and wonderful family life, and an overall life that is quite fulfilling at this time on a number of levels.

    Please remember this advice when responding to internet discussions of any kind in the future.

    Take care.

  • Milo

    It was also the most expensive, so what’s your point?

  • Milo

    Too bad this is about the only JJ-Trek merchandise doing “well,” whatever that means! :P

  • Milo

    I get all the Star Trek films too, which is why this one and the 2009 film are not in my collection.

  • Jon

    Daniel,

    Here is my two cents on why I consider this to be the biggest miscasting of all time (again, this is my opinion and in no way meant to denigrate yours:)): I have no problem with Cumberbatch as an actor, nor the other new principal actors. They all did fine jobs with what they were given. But at what point does the recasting of a role simply become too unbelievable despite the use of a new actor? For me, Cumberbatch as Khan crossed that line and then some as not only was his race completely wrong, the character as written bore absolutely no resemblance to the original Khan whatsoever. There was no hint of the massive ambition, the enormous ego, the smoldering, just under the surface passion/rage all of which so quintessentially defined Khan as he was originally conceived and so vigorously brought to life by the late Mr. Montalban. Again, Cumberbatch was fine but it was the combination of wrong race and the way the character was written that I just could not reconcile. It would be like casting me (your average Caucasian/Jewish guy and assuming that I was a good actor (I’m not:)) as Malcolm X…no matter how much I might give my all to the performance, I doubt anyone would be able to accept me as Malcolm X :).

  • Tommy

    “I assure you that I am not jealous nor “butthurt” in any way over this movie and its for-the-most-part monetary success.”

    You are. “I was hoping for poorer than expected sales to accompany the poorer than
    expected box office receipts to motivate the powers-that-be to point
    Trek in a better direction for the next movie.” It’s comments like these that make the rest of the world think Trek fans are stupid.

    “My statement here is my opinion, and I even state therein that I don’t
    begrudge those who did like this movie even if I don’t personally
    understand why.” That shouldn’t even have to be stated. People like it because they do.

    “I am happy to debate those who disagree with my take on the film and ST
    in general, but I will only do so when respect for both sides is
    maintained.” So wishing for failure and putting dozens of people out of a job and hurting their careers is “respectful?”

    “And I can assure you that I have numerous other hobbies, a rich and
    wonderful family life, and an overall life that is quite fulfilling at
    this time on a number of levels.

    Please remember this advice when responding to internet discussions of any kind in the future.” No.

  • Tommy

    “I get all the Star Trek films too, which is why this one and the 2009 film are not in my collection.”

    It’s really too bad your parents pay your internet bill.

  • JOn

    I gotta say, Milo, that yours is one of the best quick comments on the STID debated I’ve read ever! I laughed out loud when I first read it. Whatever one’s opinion on JJTrek, you gotta admit that Milo makes his opinion here known with a wonderfully witty comment! :)

  • Jon

    Sigh…I tried to “reach across the aisle” with you, but sadly you insist on continuing to behave like a child. Such a shame but not surprising either…my comments are my opinion…yours obviously differs. How can one debate a subject if the only response is simplistic statements like “People like it because they do” or just “No.”? Or to bombastically extrapolate that because I want Trek to go in another direction and don’t like the current one is tantamount to wishing people out of a job or hurting their careers?

    For comparison, and to back up my statement (something you continue to
    fail to do), if a company is being run by someone who is taking in a
    direction I don’t like or that I see will hurt the company in the long
    run or is simply incompetent, of course I would want that person to be
    fired. If I have an employee who isn’t doing the job I hired him to do
    and I have tried and tried to help him but things are not getting
    better, as much as it may pain me to do so, should I not have to let him
    go? If a politician you voted for turns out to support policies you no
    longer agree with, do you not want him voted out of office? Is that
    now how it works in our free society?

    And how does my opinion that I want Trek to go in another direction equate to being “stupid”? It is my opinion and I have every right to have it just as you have yours. By your apparent reasoning, anyone who didn’t like the film is just “stupid?” May I ask what sort of criticism you would accept as valid?

    I am voting with my feet on this movie and I am forced to conclude that I do not want the JJ team anymore…they did OK with the previous movie, but this one was simply not what I want for my ST to be, so I am expressing my opinion as such with my reasons for feeling as I do.

    Actually, I find it fascinating that folks can see the same movie and have such differing opinions, and believe it or not, I’m enjoying the debates I’m having with a lot of folks on the subject. Who knows? Maybe someone will change my mind on STID down the road even :). But for now, I will simply continue to hope that the next film is better…

  • frogzilla

    Get a life people ………. Its only a move….. have fun with it

  • Milo

    I can honestly say I pay my own internet bill. Can you say the same?

  • Milo

    A lot of people also hated it. Checkmate!

  • Milo

    Says the guy who post on a Star Trek fan site. Come on, you know Star Trek means a lot to you just as much as the rest of us, lets not BS everyone here.

  • Milo

    And the thing that bugs me about JJ lovers is how many of these same guys were slamming DS9, Voyager, Enterprise and the TNG films. Unless you were backing each and every show or film with the Star Trek name, you have no firm ground to stand on.

    For me, personally, I backed each and every Star Trek title right up to JJ-Trek while all the other “fans” were “whining” (if you want to call it that) about Rick Berman or Brannon Braga or whoever or whatever. It was JJ Abrams that actually pissed me off. It was Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman who did what no one else could do to me: turn me off to Star Trek.

    Maybe, just maybe, ALL OF US really care about this franchise and what it means to us. It’s not just “a movie” or “a tv show,” it’s an idea, it’s a community, it’s a mythology that has become even bigger than Roddenberry, Berman or Abrams. You may not agree with me or the many others who don’t like JJ-Trek, but please cut the crap. Just admit that you don’t agree with all the places Trek has been and we can agree to disagree. To do otherwise kind of makes you and every JJ fan like you a hypocrite.

  • josekuhn

    Life makes hypocrites of us all.

    I am the type of Yes fan that was disappointed that Trevor Rabin, Bill Bruford and Rick Wakeman never got to get together to see what that would be like. I like new. I like change. I like going forward.

    Ignorance however is a choice.

    I am not a JJ fanboy. I did not care for Lost or Super 8. I did like Cloverfield. My youngest son is named Benjamin Avery #### named after…… I have whined about the powers that be at Paramount that got in the way of Trek. Temporal Cold war was forced onto Braga and Berman. Stuart Baird, great editor but horrible director.

    I think JJ is a great director. However, I am older so the fast paced editing sometimes leaves me wanting more.

    So before you open your mouth to show the world how ignorant you are you should do your homework. If you want to continue to make Star Trek “hard core” fans sound like wacko Tea Party members than you can continue to randomly sling hyperbole filled rejoinders.

    Star Trek has meant more to me than most on this forum. But I am open minded enough to understand for Star Trek to survive it needed to be reframed for my children’s generation.

    If I want to be nostalgic I can always watch “In the Pale Moonlight” for the 1000th time as can you!

  • Guest

    I respectfully disagree. It didn’t take “brass”, as it was not an original, bold, and audacious move. Killing Spock in STII took brass. Destroying the Enterprise in STIII took brass. Giving Spock Uhura as a girlfriend in ST09 took brass. Killing Kirk for a few minutes in STID was simply lazy; a cheat from writers who could not come up with their own original emotional scene. It had the obvious artistic intent of trying to improve their own film by cribbing from an iconic moment in a better one. In the next movie Orci will probably show his “brass” by having McCoy die saying “Rosebud”, or the helmsman screaming “They call me *Mr. Sulu*!”, or maybe even the head of Engineering cutting a section out of a door, poking his face through and yelling “Heeeere’s Scotty!” So no, not brass and artistic juxtaposition so much as intellectual and artistic thievery in the guise of creativity.

  • josekuhn

    The problem is that you view it as a Kirk death scene when it is really a scene where Spock realizes this man is his friend when it is too late. It is not a Kirk moment, it is a Spock moment.

    For me this scene had far more emotional impact than Spock dying.

    As for destroying the Enterprise in Star Trek III, with the ship being decommissioned, the enterprise destruction was obvious. I was sad but I was not surprised when it happened.

  • JakartaTrek

    STID rules!!!! :-)