BOX OFFICE: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Opens With A Disappointing $70.1 Million Weekend

BOX OFFICE: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Opens With A Disappointing $70.1 Million Weekend

The #1 movie in America isn't a flop, but it's far from a huge hit either. Even with the extra day taken into account, Star Trek Into Darkness was still a disappointment for Paramount as it finished its opening weekend with considerably less than expected.

It was thought that Star Trek Into Darkness would earn upwards of $100 million after opening on Wednesday evening last week, but not even the higher ticket prices for 3D and IMAX were ultimately enough to make that a reality. Instead, the J.J. Abrams helmed sequel finished its first four days in North America with $83.7 million in total. It's important to point out that this isn't a bad start and certainly doesn't make the movie another big budget flop on the level of John Carter, but the fact that it opened with less that 2009's Star Trek doesn't exactly help ensure a third instalment in the franchise. That will more than likely come down to how well it now does overseas where a strong marketing push from the studio has meant that it has far outperformed its predecessor. With the 50th anniversary of Star Trek set to be celebrated in 2016, it's likely that we'll see a third movie then, although Star Wars Episode VII should mean that J.J. Abrams won't be in the director's chair.

When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis. With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction. As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.


Chris Pine as Captain James T. Kirk
Zachary Quinto as Spock
Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison
Alice Eve as Dr. Carol Marcus
Karl Urban as Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy
Zoe Saldana as Nyota Uhura
Anton Yelchin as Pavel Chekov
John Cho as Hikaru Sulu
Simon Pegg as Montgomery "Scotty" Scott
Bruce Greenwood as Admiral Christopher Pike

Posted By:
Josh Wilding
Member Since 3/13/2009
Filed Under "Star Trek" 5/20/2013
DISCLAIMER: is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]
1 2 3 4
DaenerysTargaryen - 5/20/2013, 11:51 AM
Shame. The movie deserves more
Tony93 - 5/20/2013, 12:00 PM
thebearjew - 5/20/2013, 12:02 PM
didnt have much cash this weekend sorry star trek :(
Omarvls - 5/20/2013, 12:04 PM
They Might have to go the NEXT GENERATION with Picard
JordanKing - 5/20/2013, 12:05 PM
How embarrasing for them.
GodzillaKart - 5/20/2013, 12:06 PM
Hmmm. Too bad. I hear good things.
Ocelot - 5/20/2013, 12:06 PM
Star Trek is no Star Wars and never will be, the movie was always going to make these kind of numbers. They'll be a sequel and they'll tone down the buget, shouldn't have released the sequel after 4 long years.
shamo - 5/20/2013, 12:07 PM
a shame, it was waaaaaayy better then IM3.
IIIAdamantiumIII - 5/20/2013, 12:09 PM
I hear its just a remake of Wrath Of Khan
hartley07 - 5/20/2013, 12:09 PM
He made 2 good star trek movies and he says he didnt even like star trek. he LOVES star wars, so i think itll be fine.
wcwpoet - 5/20/2013, 12:10 PM
Sad to me when 83 million is considered a disappointment. That's a bit ridiculous to me.
BackwardGalaxy - 5/20/2013, 12:11 PM
It's funny to me that $70.1 million is considered disappointing for a Star Trek film. I get that the movies they're making now are a totally different animal from the ones that they used to make, but First Contact made $92 million total domestic and was considered a major success.

Again, inflation + the kind of movie this is vs. that one... blah, blah, blah... it's just interesting to me.
Mysterion - 5/20/2013, 12:11 PM
My God how times have changed….not long ago, 70+ million weekend gross was considered a major success.
Does anyone know what was the budget for the movie?
nld3 - 5/20/2013, 12:11 PM
Waiting 4 years hurt this movie!
Nick56 - 5/20/2013, 12:12 PM
so apparently $164mil worldwide after 1 weekend is disappointing? um ok...I guess it didn't do as well as the first in north america but thats likely because people are still seeing the shitty iron man 3 for some reason.

Also el mayimbe on twitter hinted that paramount are seeking a new director for the third movie who apparently is a geek favourite and directed a sci-fi movie within the last 2 years. So a third movie is happening.
coderaven - 5/20/2013, 12:12 PM
Really good movie, no idea how it did so poorly.

TonyChu - 5/20/2013, 12:13 PM
Damn that's [frick]ed up, the movie was great in my opinion.
coderaven - 5/20/2013, 12:14 PM
I don't get into these DC vs Marvel stuff like others do, but it really reflects poorly on the audiences when IM3 is doing so well and ST 2013 its trailing so badly.

but that is my opinion, since consumers speak with their wallets IM3 must be a better movie to most.
CaptainAmerica31 - 5/20/2013, 12:14 PM
Next gen would be cool BTW I never watched star trek the series. But this got me interested but I'll get familiar with it through these movies. I want a next gen movie.
TheMadman - 5/20/2013, 12:15 PM
This movie was better than Iron Man 3 and better than Abrams' first turn at Star Trek.
Hopefully they'll get a 2nd or 3rd week jump up
Mysterion - 5/20/2013, 12:16 PM
@ MARVELPSYCHO79: Yeah I agree, the 4 year gap didnt help the sequel....the next James Bond movie may also get hurt by the time gap, from whats been reported we may not see another James Bond movie till 2017
hartley07 - 5/20/2013, 12:16 PM
obviously, most of these movies are going to be tributes to old movies, because kirk is going to bump into most all the same people. old spock STILL EXISTS and so these are not reboots or prequels because to old spock, he has still lived through all the events in the old movies. get over it already.
Ocelot - 5/20/2013, 12:19 PM
@wcwpoet & @Nick56

Apparently everyting has to be make Iron Man 3 money to be a success otherwise it's dissapointing [frick]ing ridiculous


yep four years was just too long, it should have come out in 2011 or even last year, we didn't need Super 8 in 2011. However these are good numbers for a Star Trek movie imo, it's never been a massive global franchise like Star Wars and never will be
DRMidNite - 5/20/2013, 12:19 PM
So...70 million is disappointing? Jesus, wish I could be that disappointing!
kenjim152 - 5/20/2013, 12:20 PM
So now it is a big disapointment to make less than expected on openning weekends? Because I know about a movie that opened behind what was expected and everybody says it is a big succes even though it solo more overseas :S
Xandera - 5/20/2013, 12:20 PM
Star Trek ID was an awesome movie... I liked it just as much if not more than the first one. All the things I have seen mentioned from some users that were so called 'issues' with the movie, didn't even bother me one bit. While these numbers aren't bad at all, I think it deserved more than that.
rodddb - 5/20/2013, 12:23 PM
I saw this Saturday night and I must say I would go c it again b 4 I c IM3. I think the next one will b better since they ended it with them getting ready for a 5 year exploration.

Word of mouth should help push it along...
wcwpoet - 5/20/2013, 12:23 PM
@Ocelot exactly on those being good numbers for a Star Trek movie. There are tons of studios I think would take that haul and be more than happy with it.

I'm 100% certain we'll see the adventure continue even though JJ probably won't be back to direct. I loved the movie by the way.
113 - 5/20/2013, 12:26 PM
It's because everyone is saving their money for the REAL movie of the year MAN OF STEEL.

And because they are so pissed at Marvel for making them waste their money on that turd-nugget called Iron Man 3
subzero1077 - 5/20/2013, 12:26 PM
HavocPrime - 5/20/2013, 12:26 PM
Thought this one was better tbh, and how is 70 million dissapointing I would love to have that made in a few days.
DukeAcureds - 5/20/2013, 12:27 PM
It should've publicised Khan and not opted to play silly buggers with the audience. Did it work for The Dark Knight Rises? No. Did it work for Star Trek Into Darkness? No.
subzero1077 - 5/20/2013, 12:27 PM
@113: Agreed!
yinyangpalms - 5/20/2013, 12:30 PM
It's flopping in the US. Right now 70% of its audience is male so its not drawing in casual moviegoers. Meaning that once its base is done seeing it, the film will drop off sharply like Twilight and Potter after about 2 weeks.

Its a poor film and like a poor TV version of the original Trek 2.
This film is a testament to the severe handicaps of dumbing down VS. complex entertainment. Each character and every bit of SCI-FI is a tool to be used to create stories. When you have Trek in the form of a teen movie you get simplicity that cant be used to create great stories. So Abram's was stuck playing around in this Star Trek Dumberverse and so he got total stupidity.
The film isn't as bad as Iron Man 3 but its bad.

I saw Fast 6 last night and its a better film than both of these CGI Journeys into retardation. Fast 6 has 3 stupid moments: 2 involving impossible leaps from vehicles and an 11 mile runway but not nearly as bad as Full Retard IM3 and Star Trek Into Dumbness.

murdy511 - 5/20/2013, 12:32 PM
Here is the thing, it did make less than the first one in the Friday-Sunday period, but if it didn't open a full day earlier than the last one that 13 million it made on Thursday would have been spread over the weekend. It would have made more and this would be a non-issue.
erth2drew - 5/20/2013, 12:34 PM
they should have marketed it better...i didnt see one poster, billboard, commerical or anything....great flick though
Xandera - 5/20/2013, 12:37 PM
@MARVELPSYCHO79 - I agree 100%... and that was [frick]ing awesome when (SPOILER WARNING) they pushed the Enterprise out of warp!
CaptainObvious - 5/20/2013, 12:39 PM
That's a shame. I thought this was the best movie of the summer so far.
113 - 5/20/2013, 12:39 PM
@yingyangpalms (great name btw)

Good to hear it's at least better than the fecal-matter called Iron Man 3.
JGAR - 5/20/2013, 12:41 PM
I'm just sad how the disappointing Iron-Man 3 is gaining way more than the fantastic Star Trek Into Darkness.
1 2 3 4

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.