This post is, without a shred of doubt, the most ignorant non-football post I've read in the history of Chiefsplanet.

Why? Isn't 84m a lot?

1. Into Darkness earned $70 million it's opening weekend. Star Trek earned $75 million.

2. Industry analysts and the studio expected $90-$100 million, so it's far short of expectations.

3. Studios DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT expect sequels to earn less than their predecessors, especially when the budget of the sequel is $40 million more than the original. Look no further than Spiderman 2, The Dark Knight, The Matrix Reloaded, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, etc. Iron Man 2 was slightly below Iron Man ($6 million less) but Iron Man 3 has already exceeded both films.

4. Into Darkness will likely earn its $190 million dollar budget back domestically (minus marketing, of course) but it won't be a major earner and will certainly have a disappointing take. Generally speaking, a film begins to decline in its second week of release by 50%. Given that next weekend is a 3 day holiday, it's likely that Star Trek will only see a modest loss of maybe 30%-40%, so the total would be around $135 million or so in week two (and I'm being optimistic).

By week three, the domestic gross would likely be around $20 million and by week four, all bets are off because The Man of Steel is released and it will get crushed. $10 million in week four would be huge.

So for the sake of guessing, that puts the film at the following:

Week 1: $85 million
Week 2: $50 million ($135)
Week 3: $20 million ($155)
Week 4: $10 million ($165).

By the end of an 8 week run, it should probably reach $190 million but that isn't exactly a given, especially when considering the tepid response the film received this weekend and the other choices available in Iron Man 3, Man of Steel, in a addition to Monsters University and World War Z the weekend of June 18th.

If it hasn't hit its budget by the end of June, it's dead in the water.

What about the overseas take? That doesn't count for anything?

Did you see the movie, Dane?

Yeah, it counts but with this film, foreign is already at $80 million and it was released earlier than the U.S. If the film does recoup its $190 million dollar budget domestically, the additional $80-$100 million it does internationally basically covers the cost of worldwide marketing, with a little profit thrown in.

Given that actors, producers and directors are usually given some backend (depending on the final numbers, of course), this film will be lucky to break even with its theatrical release.

No, unfortunately I haven't seen it. With everything that's going on my household, it's likely to be a PPV or DVD screener.

I'm bummed because we went to opening night at the Cinerama Dome back in 2009, which was a blast! I'm pretty sure I mentioned it but more than 75% of the audience was dressed in TOS gear and some cast members came out to greet us.

That's too bad - I really liked the 3D. It's worth seeing in the theater.

Damn, who knew Dane was a corporate bean counter? :)

Another thing about the opening - wasn't changing the opening from Friday to Thursday a last minute thing? I don't think a lot of people realized it. Mainly because I saw it Thursday night at 8:00 and the theater was only about 2/3rds full.

Clay's ranting aside, this is a good movie. It's gotten good reviews and everybody I've talked to that saw it has liked it.

Is it possible that Abrams dicking around for four years lost some non-Trekkies?

LMAO

Yeah, ten years at Paramount and Uni kind of clued me in.

:D

Maybe I can catch a late night showing before it leaves the theaters. That's probably my best bet.

Have the 3D glasses improved since Avatar? I got a massive headache and had to take them off repeatedly when watching it in the theater.

I have a good friend that's working on 3D holographic programming that is incredible, with glasses that weight less than like 3 ounces, but it's not available for feature film just yet.

I personally don't mind 3D at all now.

I'd prefer NOT to have it, since the picture is brighter without it, but it's worth the tradeoff of seeing the film in IMAX.

Seems like 9/10 movies I want to see that are on the IMAX here are shown only in 3D. Which sucks, because when they're not, it's truly amazing. I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark in IMAX 2D a few months ago and it was epic.

I saw it in regular 3D and 3D Imax. The regular 3D glasses were a kind I hadn't seen before and seemed better than those I'd worn in the past (they were solid, the stems didn't fold). The Imax 3D glasses were the standard crappy ones.

Imax doesn't really do anything for me. Seemed like a waste of money.

It's a good movie that unfortunately is very forgettable, and doesn't deserve to be ranked with the best Star Trek movies.

The third act is horrific, stupid and insulting.