New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Kim Hollis: Star Trek Into Darkness opened to $83.7 million over four days, including $70.2 million from Friday-to-Sunday. What are your thoughts on this result?

Bruce Hall: Domestically a tad down, internationally a tad up. On the one hand, it feels like a slight disappointment, what with Paramount having tried to trash talk the film to $100 million over the past week. But they made it clear early on that one of the reasons Abrams had been tasked with the franchise is to increase its appeal overseas. He's done that, and while the results are not quite what everyone had hoped they're solid, and there's no reason for anyone to be ashamed.

Unless they work at Paramount, and have recently uttered the words "One Hundred Million Dollars." Then, maybe a little.

Brett Ballard-Beach: I do find this ironic, considering that JJ Abrams announced "this sequel is for the mass audiences." John and Tim captured the general aura of puzzlement well in their respective columns. This is not a terrible opening, but I was (not alone in) thinking $100 million over the four days was highly doable. It is jaw-dropping when considering the well-received success that the last one was and the goodwill it created, as well as the 3D being added. My thought is that maybe a lot of the first time audience who turned out for Star Trek in the weeks following its opening enjoyed it but not enough to become among those who would rush out on opening weekend. It could show a hold next weekend, or it could get lost in the Furious Epic Hangover mess of things. One other thing to add is: does the fact that Paramount moved it to Thursday at the "last minute" suggest they were nervous about three-day to three-day comparisons and if so, why? Anticipation was there, buzz was there, and there has been no backlash that I have noted. It makes me think THe Hangover III is going to under perform next weekend.

Matthew Huntley: Back in 2009, I was in the minority when I thought the first movie wasn't all that special and its story was more reiterative than fresh. I recently re-watched it and my thoughts haven't changed, but I'm wondering, now that four years have passed, whether lovers of the original, who've since gotten a chance to see it many times over, were also starting to realize Star Trek wasn't all that it was cracked up to be. If so, perhaps they didn't feel the need to rush out and see the sequel. In my opinion, Into Darkness suffers from the same problems as its predecessor because it mostly retreads familiar territory instead of giving us something risky and original. Not that the majority of reviews are any indication of this, but maybe a lot of the audience members had a hunch.

Nevertheless, $84 million over four days is, in fact, nothing to be ashamed of, and I think the positive buzz/word-of-mouth will cruise this past $200 million for sure and guarantee another sequel. Is that as high as expectations indicated? No, but with any hope, the "lackluster" number will inspire Abrams and his team to deliver something that will really blow our minds, and if that can be conveyed in the third installment's trailer, a $100 million+ opening weekend will be in the cards.

Continued:       1       2       3       4