Weekend Box Office Wrap Up: May 19 2013

Published 2 years ago by

May 18 Box Office Star Trek Into Darkness Weekend Box Office Wrap Up: May 19 2013

Once again it’s a very front-loaded box office this weekend, with the top 3 films posting double figures and the rest trailing by a few million.

Coming in at number 1 is Star Trek Into Darkness (read our review) with $70 million. The sequel actually opened this Thursday (with select screenings on Wednesday) so it is already up to $84 million in domestic grosses and $115 million worldwide.

Surprisingly, Star Trek Into Darkness is one of those rare sequels to a well-regarded first film that fails to top its predecessor – even though Into Darkness had the added benefit of 3D and IMAX surcharges.

The film is by no means a failure – it will surely make back its $190 million budget easily – this is just something interesting to note. Now J.J. Abrams heads off to (hopefully) course-correct Star Wars.

After holding strong at number 1 for the past two weeks, Iron Man 3 drops to the number 2 spot this weekend with $35 million. Now at $337 million in domestic grosses and $1.07 billion worldwide, there isn’t much more to say about Iron Man 3. Yet another huge hit for Marvel, a member of the billion dollar club, and a strong candidate for highest-grossing movie of the year.

The Great Gatsby is the number 3 film with $23 million, which brings its two-week total up to $90 million. At one point the film seemed destined to flop – based on its post-Iron Man 3 opening weekend and 5-month delay – but the star power of Leonardo DiCaprio and a strong narrative foundation won out in the end.

In at number 4 is Pain & Gain with $3 million. Michael Bay’s low-budget feature seemingly did well enough to turn a profit, but Pain & Gain‘s $46 million over four weeks is certainly a low point for the Transformers director. And almost as if on cue, Dwayne Johnson is ready to replace this film with Fast and Furious 6 – the star’s fourth 2013 release.

star trek darkness kirk harrison Weekend Box Office Wrap Up: May 19 2013

Rounding out the top 5 is The Croods with $2.75 million. Fox’s animated film is now up to $176 million in domestic grosses.

42 comes in at number 6 with $2.73 million, which brings its domestic total up to $88 million. With both this film and Great Gatsby far exceeding expectations, one has to imagine Warner Bros. is mighty happy right now- especially since they have Man of Steel opening next month.

Oblivion comes in at number 7 with $2.2 million. Tom Cruise’s sci-fi flick continues to hold strong in the top 10 and is at $85 million in domestic grosses and $246 million worldwide. That’s 65% of the film’s total gross from international audiences.

2417 FPT 00334R 570x300 Weekend Box Office Wrap Up: May 19 2013

Mud holds tight at number 8 with $2.16 million, which brings its domestic total up to $11 million. That’s certainly enough to turn a profit for the independent coming-of-age drama.

In at number 9 is Tyler Perry Presents Peeples with $2.15 million. It’s more bad news for Tyler Perry as this film has only grossed $7 million over two weeks. To be fair, Perry only helped produce the film, but when your name’s front and center there’s a certain box office expectation.

The Big Wedding rounds out the top 10 with $1.1 million. The R-rated, star-filled comedy is now at $20 million overall.


[NOTE: These are only weekend box office estimates - based on Friday and Saturday ticket sales coupled with adjusted expectations for Sunday. Official weekend box office results will be released Monday, May 20th - at which time we'll update this post with any changes.]

Source: Box Office Mojo

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I thik JJ is overrated. Never been a fan of anything he’s doe. And I refuse to pay to see any of his movies, until I get a refund for Cloverfield.

    • He didnt direct cloverfield i swear everyone thinks its his film when its matt reeves

    • I’d give you the money from my three screenings and DVD purchase of Cloverfield but…..I loved the movie and JJ can keep my money for helping bring us such a fantastic movie.

      • +1

    • you made my day

      • Again j.j had nothing to do with the film he was a producer. So either love or hate matt reeves or drew goddard

        • This also.

          I mean, it says prominently in the credits “Directed by Matt Reeves” and that Abrams only had a hand in funding it through his production company. It’d be wise for people to remember that.

          Well said Trey.

    • Always a naysayer…

  2. watched Fast and Furious 6. brilliant movie. im still shocked because they are getting better and better. They probably took the easy way out for Letty working against them. Its kinda predictable.

    I loved all the action sequences and even though its less of a street racing movie the race they had was really great. loved Hobbs and Doms interactions too and i liked Roman, he was really just the comic character again but he was funny.

    I am super hyped for the next movie. they have brought the series up to Tokyo Drift finally and we know who killed Han in Tokyo and why he did it. looking forward to the next.

    • I didnt like the film the acting is terrible and the dialouge is choppy. But i wont deny the action sequences are over the top yet extremely well executed

      • you make it sound like the acting is horrid. there is nothing wrong with the acting. the film is not a heavily dramatic movie either. none of these movies are meant to be.
        i dont think people go to these types of movies expecting to have a tear or feel heartwarmed by the movie

        all those movies come out during the oscar movie season where they are trying to gaint he attention of the academy. this is not that movie lol

    • I liked 4 and 5. 2 and 3 bombed for me… I think Justin Lin has made a “trilogy” here and thus could be the reason for the success.

      The dialogue is a little cheesy, but the drama and action WAY more make up for it.

      • F&F was never meant to be amazingly acted though, it was just a cheap and cheesy petrolhead flick tha aimed low and targeted so-called “meathead” viewers but somehow became bigger than it meant to be.

        I only saw the first and second and didn’t like them at all but hats off to them for somehow finding the X factor to become a success.

        • Thats what im saying its good for what is, which is a cheesy over the top action film. I just keep it in a seperate catigory of the truely great films that can be well acted and have good action

  3. Gatsby exceeding expectations? Has it just not opened worldwide? (oh wait, it did). Yes it did better against IM3 and ST2 than it should’ve, but financially its a flop so far.

    WB superheroes in June. Look it up. Unless this film is doubly as awesome as foretold, it will tank in the expectations dept…

    • No its not.. after 2 weeks its 5 million from its budget. It will clearly exceed its budget

      • There was an interesting report about Gatsby that said most of the 3D viewing audience in the US at least were female while male viewers tended to prefer going to the 2D screening.

    • With Gatsby domestic and foreign(not all markets have even opened) totals at 135million(so far) against a budget of 90 million… do the math. Now they’re paying for their marketing campaign. This movie is FAR from a flop.

      • CORRECTION: hmmm IMDB and Boxofficemojo have different stats on the budget, Mojo says Gatsby had a 105 budget so the domestic shortfall is only 15 million… still, hardly a flop

        • A movie has to make twice it’s budget just to break even. Learn about Hollywood accounting.

  4. I’m surprised at Into Darkness not doing too well with the IMAX and 3D screenings to help but I’m not all that shocked.

    I’d hazard a guess that here at least, only the die hard Trek fans and those who wanted to see a movie and happened to choose that one helped it but most of the promotion the past few weeks has been IM3 and F&F6 related and knowing how juge that franchise does over here, I can see more people going to see that this past weekend.

    We haven’t had any MOS promotional stuff in the UK yet but those who care do know about it and they’re saving their money for it.

    Not sure if international profits will help 42 even more because movies like that generally don’t appear outside the US unless a TV network picks it up cheap and airs it. Same for Pain and Gain, I’ve heard nothing about whether it’ll release here but even if it did, I wouldn’t watch it.

    I’m shocked about The Croods still being there raking in cash but then I think to Mamma Mia! and how that became the UK’s biggest selling movie for a few years purely because it released in May 2008 and never actually left theaters until March 2009. Usually movies have a 2-4 week cycle before being removed from screens.

    • Why the shock about The Croods? It’s the only kid-friendly movie out right now. Pretty good timing to counter all the action/drama stuff.

      • I just didn’t think The Croods looked that good and it still seems to be showing despite coming out in February or March.

        • Dude, bignerd just gave you the reason why the croods is so popular, and counter that by saying “I didn’t think The Croods looked that good”


  5. Darn Yahoo’s story on the box office weekend totally contained Star Trek spoilers. SOB’s.

  6. Surprising to see Trek not do that great. Though this one was good it had too many references to the older movies/ series. I liked how Trek 2009 was a standalone film. The 3d works very well in the moviein the sequel though and I hate 3d.

    “Yet another huge hit for Marvel”.. I think that statement is relative. 337 million domestic is ok for a Marvel movie in these days. Nearly 70% of its earnings came from international audience. I think we’re disregarding the Chinese movie that’s out there.

    • Another “the only good money is American money” comment. I have feeling movie execs don’t care where the money comes from, as long as it ends up in their bank accounts.

      • Maybe the reason that the foreign box office has been so great, on average- better than American Box office – for IM3 is because they will pay to see a blockbuster summer movie no matter how bad it is.

        China CERTAINLY has Marvel’s back, if ya know what I mean >> $$$$$$

        • I made this argument in a different post, but Marvel movies tend to do well in Asian markets. I believe this is primarily due to their easy “accessibility”.

          So, IM3 gets most of it’s gross from foreign markets compared to domestic. Compare this with the Dark Knight series, which garnered most of it’s gross domestically.

          Infer what you will from this post…

          • That’s the same “inference” I was making.

            As I said, the Chinese have Marvel’s back…but that’s because Marvel has their back. ( wink wink )

            • It was the number 1 movie here for 2-3 weeks too though. I’m not even sure if The Avengers managed that. Star Trek supplanted it last weekend but Fast 6 released on friday so I imagine that’ll take the top spot by this weekend.

    • This comment is very ignorant. Any movie than can go over 300 million domestic in america is a huge hit! I don’t know if pay attention much. Captain America,Thor and Hulk came short of 300 million in america, so how is 337 just ok for a marvel movie these days lol im sure green lantern wish it made that.

    • Dude, the US is only 4.5% of the world’s population. So you can take your comment, and shove it you know where.

  7. Star Trek is going to have legs, I think next week we will see it only drop by 35 or 40 percent, instead of the usual 60. It’s a brilliant movie that is emotional, action packed, and awesome.

    • Next week Fast & Furious 6 and The Hangover Part III both open. It’s dead, where it belongs.

      • As much as I don’t appreciate Johnny B’s dismissal of “Into Darkness” I must, begrudgingly admit he makes a point.

        The trajectory of “Into Darkness” is not as strong as projected.

        I would go as far to say that “Fast & Furious 6″ will be tops at the box office next weekend. And I loathe those insipid flicks!

        Vin Diesel be damned….

  8. It’s a shame. Into Darkness was a great movie, and this date confusion is upsetting, unless people just generally weren’t interested. It’s depressing an action film with actual quality in acting and emotion gets tossed aside for simple and popular action movies.

    • Dude, don’t bury the flick yet. This is its first week and it will have a few more to follow. It’s not as if it’s a disaster.

      • Although I will add that it is disconcerting when a superior film such as “Into Darkness” doesn’t do as well as at the box office as an inferior movie like IM3 has.

        • Seriously. Again? Another IM3 comment. People say its not a butt-hurt fan boy reaction to an unpopular twist, but I haven’t seen this much negativity and hate towards a movie since Green Lantern. It happened, get over it. IM3 is where it belongs. Good on Marvel Studios I say. Congratulations on getting another film into the billion dollar club, and congrats on having the balls on letting Shane Black tell the story he wanted to tell. If Marvel ever doubted they should be doing those sort of character twists with comic book characters, they arnt anymore.


          • Have you noticed I’m not the only one on this thread to mention how awful IM3 is?

            Go on and pick on someone your own size, if you can actually find someone as small as you.

            • IM3 did not suck! The movie did its job, which was to entertain. It’s not meant to be some oscar contender for best film of the year. Most people enjoyed the movie,get over it. It has 83% audience approval on RT. People just want to start the anti marvel movement because the films are doing so well and are popular with people.

          • You keep espousing how good the movie is. You keep reemphasizing how much money it made, so as to back up your arguments.

            On a fanboy dedicated site like this, thems fighting words. People will respond with their opinions. Get used to it.

            • And yes, IM3 does suck.

        • Kryptonic…

          I wholeheartedly agree.

          • Thumbs up, Archaeon.

  9. This is a superb year for Science Fiction flicks. Not just the obvious like “Star Trek Into Darkness” (and even IM3, like MOS, is just as much sci fi as it is Superhero genre) but other movies such as “Oblivion” “Elysium” “After Earth” “Pacific Rim” “Enders Game” “Oblivion” and later this year, “Gravity.”

    Okay. Now let’s get the rest of this month out of the way and get straight to the one movie that matters the most: MAN OF STEEL!

    • I mentioned “Oblivion” twice.

      Subtract 1 Oblivion and Add 1 “Riddick.”

  10. I saw “Star Trek Into Darkness” on Saturday evening. It was great. I am happy that ONE of the two current, more established Sherlocks delivered a wonderful film experience in my mind, Cumberbatch’s turn in the Trek universe FINALLY successfully opened the summer action film season after RDJ’s fourth IM outing, in my opinion, failed to deliver on almost all levels.

    • Oops…forgot a period after “wonderful film experience”.

      Sigh…butter fingers.

  11. I watched Star Trek on friday in 3D and I have to say I loved it! Full of action, great VFX (a little too much lens flare, but it’s JJ so…), and the acting was superb! Cumberbatch, Pine, Quinto and company were amazing!! Specially Cumberbatch, it was the first time I’ve seen him acting, and I have to say I was impressed! You could see his character come alive in his rage through him.
    I think that Star Wars will be just fine in JJ’s hands! Can’t wait for that one now.

    • Except in this case, people are accurately judging Star Trek because Star Trek Into Darkness is extraordinarily dumb.

      • I”m guessing you’re a fan of movies like “Oblivion” and “A Good Day to Die Hard”?

        • I haven’t seen either one of those.

          • Oh dang!.. its just, if you thought STID was extraordinarily dumb, I assumed you like crappy movies.

            • No. I like well-written movies. Star Trek Into Darkness isn’t one of them. It’s a movie made by people who don’t care about Star Trek for people who don’t care about Star Trek. The entire film is nonsensical from a narrative and character motivation standpoint, but it’s full of “cool” moments, which is all that matters to people who think movies are nothing more than amusement park rides.

              • > It’s a movie made by people who don’t care about Star Trek
                > for people who don’t care about Star Trek


                Basically, it’s JJ’s vision of Star Trek, not Gene Roddenberry’s.

                I am a hardcore trekkie, and as a Trek film, it’s disappointing. Just a bunch of recycled ideas.

                However, if I view it as a fun, action adventure, it works (especially for the casual fan).

                I suspect that the reason it didn’t do so well is two-fold:

                1. It didn’t appeal to the hardcore Trek fan, so there wouldn’t be any repeat ticket sales from this section of the fan base.
                2. As Trey said, it’s still Star Trek, and JJ simply didn’t do enough to bring in more casual fans into the fold.

              • “The entire film is nonsensical from a narrative and character motivation standpoint, but it’s full of “cool” moments, which is all that matters to people who think movies are nothing more than amusement park rides.”

                No, it’s for people who think that summer blockbusters are nothing more than amusement park rides, and that’s what Into Darkness is. Star Trek has hundreds of hours of good and smart story-telling under its belt, because that’s what the TV shows were for. The movies are supposed to have some fun, which was always the case for Trek movies, except for the first one.

                Also, I keep seing the “die hard trekkies will be disappointed” argument, which usually comes from indivudual disappointed die hard trekkies making blanket statement as if they were the spokesperson for everyone. Well, I’ve watched every single Star Trek show and movie multiple times, I have them on DVD, I have the nerdy Technical Manuals and a Star Trek pin lying around somewhere. Is that enough to qualify as a die hard trekkie? I don’t know… but I do know that I really loved the Abrams Trek movies, despite their more than obvious shortcomings in story-telling. They are good entertainment that is expertly crafted in every other aspect. The actors bring these characters to life perfectly. The chemistry between them works. The humor is fun, the drama is tense, the action is great, the music is awesome, the visual effects are top notch… I could go on… That’s good enough for me.

                Would I love a smarter story to go along with the eye-candy? Sure. But I don’t hate on it if it doesn’t, as long as everything else is well done. A movie is about more than its story, after all.

                • Well, I guess not everyone is a whiny, jaded, cynical d-bag ;)

                  I’ve been watching Star Trek for over 30 years, seen every episode of TOS and NG, seen every movie. The franchise was headed for an extended hibernation until Abrams came along and breathed new life into it.

                  I love the new films and I can’t wait to see the next one. I’m hoping they keep this group together for a while, too.

        • “I”m guessing you’re a fan of movies like “Oblivion” and “A Good Day to Die Hard”?”

          I’m guessing you haven’t heard of Ad Hominem?

      • Johnny B….

        Not even close.

        • Then perhaps you can explain Khan’s magic blood that resurrects the dead? Perhaps you can tell me why Khan is white, when he is the exact same Khan from “Space Seed”? How is it that someone can beam themselves across the galaxy, yet not be beamed out of a volcano from much closer? Why did they hide a starship the size of a small town underwater to avoid detection when they could have just stayed in orbit? How does the Earth’s gravitational field grab the Enterprise when it’s next to the moon? Why didn’t McCoy just use the magic blood of on of the other 72 prisoners who shared Khan’s genetic makeup? This is just a cursory list of this film’s problems. This film is nothing more than juvenile fanfic.

          • The last one makes a lot of sense but i liked the film a lot

          • Wow, nice. You covered some of the flaws I found, as well as some I didn’t notice.

          • @Johnny B.
            It was a typecast against ethnic. But then again, a Mexican played an Indian Sikh in Space Seed.

            Was Transwarp Beaming that beamed Harrison/Khan. Was explained in the first Star Trek Movie. Into Darkness, they needed a direct line of sight to beam Spock out of the Volcano. As such, communications of garbled and then lost.

            The Whole underwater thing was misleading and honestly stupid.
            However it was Homage to “The Great Bird of the Galaxy,”

            Traveling at Warp, warp field was broken, Enterprise was getting hit and there were explosions aboard it and then Explosive decompression.
            Rule of Physics, an Object in Motion tends to stay in motion. Let say the Enterprise was traveling at Warp 5. That translates to 230 Billion Kilometers per hour. Sudden disruption of Warp Field, the Enterprise is still going to be in motion. She came out close to the moon, therefore her speed combined with the gravity of the moon would slingshot her around the moon and into Earth Gravity. You see anything between the Earth and the Moon is influenced by Earths Gravity. So anything within earths gravity Well would be drawn in if not in a geosynchronous orbit around planets. Why Satellites are position in away they they orbit earth and slowly decay over time due to gravity, they are high enough to be effective, their solar panels allow for small attitude adjustments that keep them in space longer.

            Because. They Stated in the movie they could not break the pods and wake them out of Stasis for fear of killing them. They removed them from the torpedoes. Was explained in the movie. No Doctor is going to kill one person to save another.

            • Snap

            • > “It was a typecast against ethnic. But then again, a Mexican > played an Indian Sikh in Space Seed.”

              Why couldn’t they cast someone dark-skinned in STID? Yes, Ricardo Montalban was Mexican, but it was the ’60s and Rodenberry had to fight to get him in the role. The network would have never in a million years cast an actual Indian actor as Khan at the time. Benicio del Toro – another hispanic actor – was originally cast in the Khan role for STID in 2013, yet when he bailed on it, they went with the pastiest, most British actor they could find, despite the fact that there are plenty of darker-skinned actors – even some from the Asian subcontinent – who could have filled the role just as well. This represents a major continuity flaw, and exemplifies the laziness and indifference with which this property has been treated.

              “Was Transwarp Beaming that beamed Harrison/Khan. Was explained in the first Star Trek Movie. Into Darkness, they needed a direct line of sight to beam Spock out of the Volcano. As such, communications of garbled and then lost.”

              In the original series, which these new Trek films are directly tied to even though there have been some alterations in the timeline, the transporter could transport an object through thick layers of rock with no line of sight. The average distance that something could be transported was 40,000 kilometers. Are you saying that this is suddenly impossible now that they are able to transport an object intergalactically? Space is not empty, and there are plenty of sources of energetic interference that could disrupt the integrity of the transporter beam and obscure line of sight – a beam that would have to be so powerfully concentrated and focused that it seems to me a few layers of igneous rock from a few miles away would be negligible. Also, remember in Trek ’09 how they were able to transport Kirk and Scotty off a relatively stationary planet to a ship moving at warp speed, yet in STID they can’t get a lock on Khan because he is “going to fast”? Huh? This is lazy writing and directing from people who just do not care if what they are doing makes sense and who were trying to establish drama where none should exist by deliberately discarding the rules of the universe in which these characters inhabit when it is convenient to forward the plot or build tension. It’s just bad.

              You made a good point about the gravitational physics of the Enterprise being sucked into Earth’s atmosphere, so I’ll drop that particular point. However, I don’t think it’s because the writers are smart. I think it’s because they just got lucky with that one.

              As to your point about Dr. McCoy no willing to kill one person to save another – Doctor’s let people die all the time, and in some countries are legally allowed to euthanize the terminally ill. This is a very progressive idea, and one of the most salient themes of Star Trek is progress. It also raises questions about what it means to be human and about the nature of humanity as well. All of which are thematically in line with the Trek ethos. Nevertheless, they successfully removed Khan. Why wouldn’t the same procedure work for one of the others? Why couldn’t 23rd century engineers figure out how 20th century technology worked(they did it once already)and find a safe way to remove another of the prisoners to get the magic blood(ugh)which, I might add, was never referenced in Space Seed? All that aside, this could have been an interesting dilemma for McCoy – choose between Kirk’s life and his medical ethics – but there wouldn’t be any room for an exciting chase scene in that scenario.

              Bottom line for me is this movie is intensely stupid and neither the writers nor the director cared enough to make the film make sense on a fundamental level. It’s just about chases and explosions an ham-fisted drama. Imagine what we could have gotten instead if smart people who cared were in charge of this property. Instead we got Star Trek Into Dumbness.

          • @Johnny B.

            You say the movie is for Juvenile fanfic. But most Juvenile have a basic understanding of physics.

            So to answer your question on how the ship was close to the moon and got pulled into earth’s gravity.

            3 Theories to ponder.
            1 Driving a Car on a paved dry road at 100 miles per hour and then you step on the brakes full force, you do not come to a full stop, you go a distance before you stop.

            2 Driving a car on a iced surface at 100 mph and then step on the brakes at the same point as you did on the dry road…Your distance till you come to a complete stop is greater because of the reduced friction.

            3 Same scenario only on an oily surface with 50% less friction than the iced surface your stopping distance is still increased.
            Now here is your question.
            How far would a ship traveling at 250 Billion miles per hour travel if it came to a abrupt stop in the zero friction vacuum of space? 260,000 Miles from a planet? What is the end result?

            • Not to add heat to the argument cause I love the film. The biggest thought I had when watching the film was how on earth could there be no defenses around or in-between the moon and earth. There was two ships battling it out in warp speed then falling to earth and there was no star fleet backup? no radar that is like hey there is something coming right at earth we should check it out? just a thought id love for someone to answer.

            • Well, because of special relativity, an object’s mass increases with its velocity. Therefore, if the ship’s trajectory were in line with a planetary body, it would impact the planet with so much stored energy that it would most likely obliterate it.

          • Johnny B….

            I do agree that it was no masterpiece; neither was its 2009 precursor. I do, however, believe that these two films reinvigorated what had become a stale franchise. While I think that both Abrams and others have a lighter (read: perhaps shallower) take on movie-making, I also think they are able to provide an entertaining viewing experience. STID had a number things I found wanting, but as an opener to the summer action movie period, I found it (unlike another movie) to be a fun romp. Also, while I didn’t think it was an extraordinarily SMART film, I stand by my previous response that it was not a DUMB film. It had an enjoyable, hyperkinetic feel to it, and that’s okay. The characters interacted easily and well with one another (and I loved Cumberbatch’s sinister intensity). I liked a number of the battles (both ship and individual). Some of the SMALLER nostalgic touches were great, although, yes, many of the bigger ones were unoriginal and, sometimes, even uninteresting. IMO, it provided a great introduction to an action-filled summer (film-wise).

            For the record, these two most recent films are not in my list of favorites…those remain “Khan”, “Search”, and “Voyage”, with “First Contact” nipping at their heels.

            • The writers and director don’t know anything about Star Trek. They quite obviously didn’t even try to understand anything about it and thought they could get a free pass by reworking Space Seed/The Wrath of Khan. This is what hacks do.

              If you were entertained by it, that’s great. I will admit that the Abrams does have a flair for action, and that his set pieces are generally well executed. I also think the cast has great chemistry, and to be honest, I think the cast should be credited largely with the success of Trek ’09, which I also enjoyed at first, but liked a lot less the more I thought about. However, what Abrams and his writers, Orci, Kurtzman, an Lindelof do not have a flair for is storytelling, and good storytelling should be the first priority. Some very basic research on Wikipedia would have helped this film immensely, but they just didn’t care. They knew what beats they wanted to hit and where they wanted this to end up and they weren’t going to let anything as trivial as simple logic get in the way. There are just too many contradictions and nonsensical choices in this film for me to forgive it for its sins. The story was just lazy and dumb.

              Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for new Trek stories, but I think they are being terribly mishandled in the hands of the people who are in charge of them now. I also think they made a mistake of doing a semi-reboot, because they are still burdened by original continuity. Just starting from scratch would have been a better choice.

              >For the record, these two most recent films are not in my list >of favorites…those remain “Khan”, “Search”, and “Voyage”, with >“First Contact” nipping at their heels.

              Nice to see some love for The Search for Spock. I would put The Undiscovered Country in there, too. I would rank my favorites as Khan, Voyage, Undiscovered Country, and Search for Spock.

              • Not “the Abrams”. Just Abrams.

          • @ JohnnyB

            Jesus dude! HOW ABOUT NOT SPOILING THE DARN MOVIE FOR EVERYBODY!! Just because you didn’t like it, doesn’t mean you get to spoil the movie for everyone!! Vic or someone, please remove this post or place a spoiler alert on it! SHEESH!!! I bet you’re one of those people who would have come out of The Empire Strikes Back on opening day and told everyone that Vader was Luke’s father as you passed them walking into the theater.

    • God, you almost sound as if this is a huge flop. I guess Into Darkness will probably make about the same amount of money, than the last one if you consider that the film performed 70% better on international markets than last time.

  12. It’s unfortunate when studios release their otherwise good movies against known juggernaut movies like IM3 and ST:ITD. Can’t expect people to go see your movie when they blew their budget for the week on that blockbuster (and then another blockbuster the following week!).

    • Regarding STID, I think they should’ve released it in the spring, similar to what they did in 2009.

      Releasing it in the summer is asking for trouble.

      • They did release it in the Spring. Last time I checked, Summer Starts in June.

        • OK, you got me there.

          Let me be more clear: they should’ve released it before May.

    • Why watch it then “super Trekkie”? If he’s a hack, get him where it hurts and don’t pay for a ticket. I mean, duh, right?

      I personally enjoyed it very much. It makes me wonder what you thought of the ridiculous Generations film. An extra-dimentional Kirk to help Picard stop a mad man? Talk about a hacky plot.

      • > Why watch it then “super Trekkie”? If he’s a hack, get him where it
        > hurts and don’t pay for a ticket. I mean, duh, right?

        Uh, he didn’t know what to expect. Just as I didn’t. I paid for the movie, walked in, and got an alternative version of TWOK.

        Now, I’m not going to call JJ a hack, but as Voodoo said, why retread TWOK? This will be a hit or miss with old school trekkies; some will be OK with it, others will dismiss it. I’m in the latter category.

        I’m all for this new crew. If I view it as a fun, action adventure, I’m fine with it. The die-hard Trek fan in me, however, had me cringing at some of the story elements in the film. Voodoo (and others) are responding to this, and I think it is a fair criticism.

        All JJ has to do (especially for the 3rd film) is to come up with an original story that highlights this crew, and the alternative nature of their universe. No retreads. Give me something I haven’t seen before. Bring something unique to this franchise. Is that to much to ask?

        • Something unique? You mean like the first movie?

          There’s bound to be tie-ins since it’s an alternate timeline. I cringed when Spock yelled “Khaaaan!” but other than that, I didn’t see a big problem with the movie or it’s take on the lore. People just seem to be overly picky to me. This is a great time to go see movies, enjoy it people.

          • > Something unique? You mean like the first movie?

            Yeah, sorta. At least it wasn’t a retread.

            ST2 and 3 are really epic Trek films that have yet to matched. They are serious films (ie. not fun), and the themes of life and death, crew and family are so well presented that it’s hard to see a “watered” down version in STID. I’d rather see a new story, emphasizing JJ’s interpretation of these characters, and not a retread forcing me to compare what once was.

            • I saw TWOK when it first came out in theaters. I was 8 years old and it blew my mind, lol.

              Watching STID, I didn’t get the feeling I was watching a retread. It really seemed like it’s own entity to me. Right up until Spock yelled out Khan’s name, that is. Other than that, it was an improvement over the 2009 film to me.

              • @FILTHpig

                Honestly, as much as I hate Star Trek (film critic Mark Kermode – a devoted Trekkie – even said that the problem with the show was that it was too talky and that put viewers off from watching, something I agreed with), it still looks good even if I won’t bother seeing it myself.

                I just get the feeling that the people who complain about STID are the same who complained about IM3. Just looking for something to complain about and nitpick to feel superior and show themselves to be “more knowledgable” than others.

                Like, “I spent my life dedicated to the source material and I found it to be terrible, if you liked it then that means you like crappy movies”.

                It’s disgusting behaviour really.

                What well have to remember though is that this is just OPENING WEEKEND sales. It may have under-performed on opening weekend but that doesn’t mean it’s a flop. It still has several weeks left on the big screen to go past its budget.

                • I agree with the IM3 comment. I hate that elitist attitude. That’s coming from someone who’s read comics and watched popular sci-fi his whole life.

                  STID will do fine, I think. It’s way to early to pronounce it dead.

  13. Caught Gatsby this weekend, really glad I did since I almost considered waiting til DVD. Hoping I have time to see Star Trek Into Darkness, but we’ll see. Wanted to see IM3, Gatsby, Trek, F&F 6, and Hangover this month, and with both of the last two coming out this week, I’m hoping Trek will fit in for me. I like this month for movies! More than I’ve wanted to see so far this year (literally three movies in the first four months combined).

  14. What I am wondering is if Star Trek will have a much better than expected second weekend.

    The awful thing about seeing a Trek film too early is you have a cinema full of die hard fans laughing like buffoons at any little in joke.

    It’s a painful experience and I think a lot of normal people will wait a week, maybe two before they see it for that reason.

  15. 1. Hangover III (I don’t know why Warner brothers moved up the release date but I still think it will win the weekend because its for males 25 and up and this demo tends to have more money )
    2.F&F 6 at a close second ( it loses out to hangover 3 because its demo are young people who have finals this week and proms and may not have much money after blowing every thing they have on IM3. It will have legs and will in the end make more money than Hangover III. Another success for paramount )
    3. Epic ( the only kids movie at the movies for a while )
    4. Star Trek into darkness ( drop 60% ,will do average in foreign lands. Disappointment for paramount )
    5. IM 3
    6. Great gatsby
    7. I will go out and say Mud because there will be a lot of adults next weekend and they might want to see a great movie

    • F&F 6 is universal not paramount

  16. I may not be popular saying this, but I thought STID was WAY better than ST2009, will it ever be like the old TOS…NOPE. But they did a hella better job making me think I was watching Kirk and the crew doing what they do this time. I enjoyed it and will go see it in IMAX again!

  17. To all fans out there I have one piece of advice to give. Don’t try to see A movie wene there are storm warnings out. I went to see Star Trek on saturday and just as the movie was about to start. It was stoped because there were tornadoes reported in the area. No refund but they did give me A free pass to the next movie want to see. But i’m A little bumed being out the $12.50 for soda and popcorn.

    • They didn’t refund the food? My theater refunds everything when the movie is cancelled or you have to leave for serious reasons.

  18. I feel left out by hollywood.
    I’m a theater enthusiast and a bibliophile.
    I don’t live in the big city New York or LA (no independent movie for me )
    I love dramas and there is nothing out there for me. I guess I’m going to have to see mud for the third time.

    • I saw Mud 3 times an absolute fantastic movie and the best film I have seen all year. The summer season is very dry when it comes to real drama’s. My hopes is to see mud in some Oscar contention by the end of the year much like Beasts Of The Southern Wild

  19. Did we have to have seen the first Star Trek film before seeing this one? I want to see Into the Darkness, but I don’t want to be lost.

  20. I too was surprised by STID underperformance in the US , particularly when the 1st movie grossed over 250 million domestically and had such a strong reception amongst public and critics.

    With an increased budget, 3D and IMAX sales i fully expected at least a 100 million opening weekend. As many have stated, even this new version of Star Trek doesn’t have that mainstream appeal especially internationally. I found this suprising as well, since it is structured to clearly be a fun based, accessible,summer blockbuster.

    I guess there was just nothing exceptionally different displayed this time. Many have noted the four year gap from the original didn’t help either. Also the competition is very intense in May with so many sure fire franchise hits approaching, it’s hard to stand out. The title of movie event of the year has already been taken surely with Iron Man 3.

    I still think STID will outgross the 2009 film, but may only end up with 500- 600 million gross and i thought it would’ve made more than that.

    I personally enjoyed the film,just thought the constant references to Wrath of Khan exposed a huge lack of originality. Abrams thought this would please older fans but it’s had quite the opposite effect.

  21. I’m shocked, Star Trek was amazing. Far better than Iron Man 3.

    • @Wally

      I agree.

      STID was better, had a more compelling story, and managed to have many moments of humour without losing the seriousness of the plot.

  22. Does anyone think Benedict Cumberbatch would make a good batman?

  23. god I’m praying so hard that he doesn’t f*** up the Star Wars franchise