Jump to content

theultimatebiu

WKND BO: #StarTrek $70.6M/$84.1M, IronMan3 $35.2M/$337.1M, Gatsby $23.4M/$90.2M

By theultimatebiu, in Numbers and Data

Recommended Posts

baumer Cinematic Universe

baumer

Posted
Posted

Sequels in the 70s/80s/90s used to always decrease. To see ST drop is not surprising. I don't think there's one reason why it dropped. I don't think the marketing was poor, I don't think the lack of Spock in the trailers hurt it, I don't think it was the director....I just think it's ST and that's why it fell. It's not Potter, not Twilight and not LOTR, it's ST. It's not that popular. And I don't think it ever was.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Impact Global Phenomenon

Impact

Posted
Posted

Sequels in the 70s/80s/90s used to always decrease. To see ST drop is not surprising. I don't think there's one reason why it dropped. I don't think the marketing was poor, I don't think the lack of Spock in the trailers hurt it, I don't think it was the director....I just think it's ST and that's why it fell. It's not Potter, not Twilight and not LOTR, it's ST. It's not that popular. And I don't think it ever was.

Potter did drop for the 2nd.

But Trek is popular-just not in the way these other things are.I have some reasons earlier in this thread but not going to get into every reason again.Also as I said earlier-MIB2/T3 effect here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moviedweeb Box Office Gold

Moviedweeb

Posted
Posted (edited)

Sequels in the 70s/80s/90s used to always decrease. To see ST drop is not surprising. I don't think there's one reason why it dropped. I don't think the marketing was poor, I don't think the lack of Spock in the trailers hurt it, I don't think it was the director....I just think it's ST and that's why it fell. It's not Potter, not Twilight and not LOTR, it's ST. It's not that popular. And I don't think it ever was.

I still think that months of Episode 7 news and the implications that JJ was done with Star Trek turned off some of the GA or made them less likely to rush out on opening weekend and, instead, rely more on WOM.I don't think anyone DOESN'T know JJ s doing Star Wars and it made everyone question the future of Star Trek. I don't think this nugget of news or the unique circumstance can be ignored when looking at the box office numbers,. Edited by Clavius
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites






Caboose Box Office Gold

Caboose

Posted
Posted

This from the person who haunted the IM3 OW threads trying to generate some faux panic over the numbers until it became obvious what a hit the film was. Why aren't you posting that po-faced "O woe is we!" crap here? Surely if a $174M OW sent you into a frenzy of crocodile tears, a sub-$70M one should have you crying a damn river. 

 

Posted Image

Posted Image
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DarthPhil Straight-to-DVD

DarthPhil

Posted
Posted

Sequels in the 70s/80s/90s used to always decrease. To see ST drop is not surprising. I don't think there's one reason why it dropped. I don't think the marketing was poor, I don't think the lack of Spock in the trailers hurt it, I don't think it was the director....I just think it's ST and that's why it fell. It's not Potter, not Twilight and not LOTR, it's ST. It's not that popular. And I don't think it ever was.

 

I've gotten the impression over the last few years that space adventure sci-fi is on its way out, especially if it appears somewhat cerebreal or intelligent - regardless of if this is true or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Impact Global Phenomenon

Impact

Posted
Posted

True but some were saying it would do well. Anyway-this is not as bad as some are saying it is.Audience is older, not one that rushes to see film.And the 3rd week of May seems to not do as well any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


baumer Cinematic Universe

baumer

Posted
Posted

T3 was being predicted by many to do well. And it was a sequel to a beloved film. (Also the director's name was not quite a factor)

Of course Cameron was a factor. Everyone knew Cameron wasn't there. And I don't know about you but I predicted that film to drop from T2 ONLY because it lost Camerone.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
baumer Cinematic Universe

baumer

Posted
Posted

It would have dropped even with him. They waited too long to make it, plus T2 is a classic example of the second movie being the peak of a franchise.

They waited that long simply because Cameron had no interest in doing it.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


kayumanggi Cinematic Universe

kayumanggi

Posted
Posted

This from the person who haunted the IM3 OW threads trying to generate some faux panic over the numbers until it became obvious what a hit the film was. Why aren't you posting that po-faced "O woe is we!" crap here? Surely if a $174M OW sent you into a frenzy of crocodile tears, a sub-$70M one should have you crying a damn river. 

 

Posted Image

 

I tried to generate panic? lol How idiotic. All I did was post numbers. Post domestic numbers. Post overseas numbers. Praise it's weekends and say how terrible the weekdays are. You are so invested in this crap movie of yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Deep Wang Global Phenomenon

Deep Wang

Posted
Posted

It would have dropped even with him. They waited too long to make it, plus T2 is a classic example of the second movie being the peak of a franchise.

 

You honestly think a Cameron directed T3 would have dropped?

 

That shit would have blown the fuck up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites












Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.

  I accept