Eek.

That's what they're doing with the new animated series (supposedly, anyway).

Heh, i liked National Treasure and Sorcerors Apprentice

:spock:

Totally agree.

National Treasure was decent but the sequel was pretty awful and ruined any chance of a "franchise". I didn't see Sorcerer's Apprentice but the idea of Nic Cage as a Sorcerer?

Plus, I don't think special effects are his thing and he's too much of a "feel good" type of director for something like Star Wars.

IMO, the names in the mix should be Brad Bird, Andrew Stanton, Matthew Vaughn and even Gore Verbinski, who did quite well with Rango.

So, the movie has made $70 million at this point.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm

Why is this bad, again?

Because the numbers mirror the original, which cost $40 million less to produce. Movie studios don't dump an extra $40 million into a sequel hoping for similar results, especially if they're spending more money.

I thought they were planning to make a third Treasure movie. Did that get shelved?

Yes, as far as I know. JT's on to other things so I doubt it will happen.

It's only been out 12 days.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdow...ekshowdown.htm

That page pretty much sums it up.

Yea, it appears there was no audience growth. Star Trek = limited female and under 21 appeal.

Summer Movies are extremely front loaded now days. I'm sure Dane can break down the numbers better but most movies make about 75% of their total gross in the first few weeks.

Calling it "Into Darkness" was probably a misstep as well. The people who would buy into a title like that were already going to see it. Not that Star Trek: Vengeance would have been any better. Either way, it's a bit of a gloomy title for a summer popcorn flick. Not to mention that it just sounds goofy.