free counter with statistics Box-Office Round-Up May 10, 2009 | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

425.startrek.pine.cho.lc.032409.jpg
Those Burger King Star Trek Movie Glasses Are a Hit!

The Weekend Box-Office Round-Up / Dustin Rowles

Box Office Round-Ups | May 10, 2009 | Comments (49)

The Star Trek prequel, as expected, opened this weekend at number one. In fact, it handily beat studio expectations, which predicted a $50 million-$65 million opening. With the $4 million it made in Thursday night showing, Star Trek grossed $76 million overall. After only one weekend, J.J. Abrams’ prequel outgrossed the lifetime grosses of six other Star Trek movies and will become the highest grossing Star Trek movie ever (beating The Voyage Home’s $109 million) by next Friday. It’s the second biggest opening weekend of the year. The 15th best May opening of all time.

So, why does it feel strangely disappointing to me? Probably because the massively inferior Wolverine opened with $11 million more the weekend before. In fact, that’s probably why Star Trek didn’t fare as well, having to share the action-movie market with Hugh Jackman — in fact, Seth said that he saw Star Trek at a 14-screen theater; 10 of them were devoted to Wolverine and Star Trek and they even had Star Trek showings one minute apart. Anyway, it’s slightly disappointing that it didn’t get $90 million or so, if only because the damn thing won even me over, and I hate sci-fi. And, in theory, Chris Pine (in practice, dude was pretty goddamn great).

Wolverine, as I predicted, didn’t break $30 million in its second weekend, landing at No. 2 with $27 million, a staggering 68 percent drop-off, which should at least give Fox studios second thoughts about unleashing 47 additional spin-offs. Star Trek, on the other hand, should hold better in its second weekend, competing only against Angels & Demons, which skews older adult.

My other quibble: Over on RottenTomatoes, Star Trek, with a 95 percent approval rating, fared better than the best blockbusters of the last two years, The Dark Knight (94 percent), Iron Man (93 percent), and The Bourne Ultimatum (93 percent). Great movie, but better than The Dark Knight and Iron Man?

We can also expect confirmation on a sequel to the prequel any hour now. [They started on the screenplay in March. —DC]

Not much else going on over the weekend. Next Day Air (we’ll have a half-assed review up tomorrow — it deserves no better) opened weakly at No. 6, grossing a meager $4 million. Ghosts of Girlfriends Past held strong in its second week, dropping only 33 percent, although that was still only good for $10 million. And Obsessed won’t go away, putting up another $6 million, to bring its total to $56 million, and ensure that Beyonce will replace Zoe Saldana in the next Star Trek film.

5. 17 Again ($4.4 million; $54 million)

4. Obsessed ($6 million; $56 million)

3. Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (10 million; $30 million)

2. X-Men Origins: Wolverine ($27 million; $129 million)

1. Star Trek ($76 million)


← Star Trek Review | Pajiba Lullabies →



Comments

"...My other quibble: Over on RottenTomatoes, Star Trek, with a 95 percent approval rating, fared better than the best blockbusters of the last two years, The Dark Knight (94 percent), Iron Man (93 percent), and The Bourne Ultimatum (93 percent). Great movie, but better than The Dark Knight and Iron Man? ..."

------------------------------------------------
Excellent observation, but I'm not surprised just look at what happened here. Reminds of the first days after Phantom Menace, there was some massive hysteria going down and then everyone (well most) came to their god-damned senses. You also cannot ignore the fact that Paramount was throwing massive amounts money around, make of that what you will.
How much did this thing cost to make? 170mil? plus what 50 to 75 mil in marketing? They'll need to reach 300 to make it a winner.

Personally, I don't think it has the legs for that.


Posted by: BarbadoSlim at May 10, 2009 2:26 PM

Aw, man. I so wanted "Next Day Air" to be good. It looked pretty weak on trailers, but I love Mos Def and Donald Faison. I had some hope.

Posted by: figgy at May 10, 2009 2:39 PM

poor chocolate bear :(

Posted by: gp at May 10, 2009 3:05 PM

Don't even joke about Beyonce replacing Zoe Saldana. ZS managed to be incredibly sexy and completely inscrutable, which makes her a perfect Uhura....

As for the RT rating - 2 or 3% really is statistically irrelevant, don't you think? I wouldn't worry about it. Anyway, people - including reviewers - come out of Star Trek happy. I saw it last night, and while I loooooved Dark Knight - and think it is an amazing film in ways Star Trek was not - I didn't come out of Dark Knight ebullient. I bounced out of Star Trek, though.

Posted by: Edith at May 10, 2009 3:23 PM

i think they're something to be said for what seems to be an optimistic blockbuster. I haven't seen it yet, and have been avoiding spoilers, but it very much seems to break the trend of somewhat depressing action blockbusters we've been having. Maybe that will give it the kind of stamina it needs to do well. I loved Dark Knight, and in general, I love movies that eschew the happy endings, where the bad guys don't scream I'm the bad guy, but I don't know if I love them as summer blockbusters. Summer is a time for hope, escapism, and explosions: star trek sounds like it has quite a lot of each.

Posted by: "luker" the barbarian at May 10, 2009 4:18 PM

a staggering 68 percent drop-off, which should at least give Fox studios second thoughts about unleashing 47 additional spin-offs.

Second thoughts? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh.

Posted by: branded at May 10, 2009 4:42 PM

Herewith my review of Star Trek:

http://whaven33884.blogspot.com/2009/05/into-critics-dungeon.html

I am very, very disappointed in Pajiba right now; but not to worry - I don't forget mistakes that cost me money.

Posted by: The Wanderer at May 10, 2009 4:56 PM

The Wanderer, I give you minus ten points for shameless self-promotion and a wedgie for your review not focusing on the plot or how fun the movie was but just bitching about the kind of nit-picking Trekkie details everyone was afraid would sink this film. Frankly, I'm happy you didn't like the movie, because if you had, odds are we wouldn't be talking about it right now.

Posted by: Macafee at May 10, 2009 5:32 PM

those figures sound about right for what the film was... a good action film. fun, enjoyable changed stuff to the canon in good ways. i even found myself enjoying space douche even though chris pine was more zapp brannigan than william shatner. (oooh the film could/should totally have been called... zapp brannigan: the search for kif.

it was good far better than wolverine, not perfect, not amazing sci fi. uhura was good and sexy all the supporting roles worked well with what little they were given the action was good there was just no wonder or allegory or involvement that normally goes with any great fantasy... i like to think it could have been the otherside of the firefly universe that is the alliance is the federation.

anywho ill stop rambling about crap.

Posted by: jim of the lower case at May 10, 2009 5:51 PM

I think its like the olympics, a 100 this year is not the same thing as a 100 last year. Compared to the rest of the crap so far this year Star Trek is a 95 at minimum. TDK and IM faced much stiffer competition.

Posted by: EricD at May 10, 2009 6:08 PM

My Star Trek review:

Bones McCoy is taller than Kirk in this version which is of course ridiculous.

John Cho is Korean, Sulu is JAPANESE!

Romulans don't have face tats, J.J. you fucking charlatan.

I'll be posting this on my new blog- Labia, That's in Africa, Right?

Posted by: c at May 10, 2009 6:10 PM

Macafee,

I actually did like The Watchmen, and Iron Man. Different tastes, I suppose.

As for self-promotion, I really don't require it, as I'm on the Appreciation Patch.

Posted by: The Wanderer at May 10, 2009 6:18 PM

Dear Wanderer,

Well I too saw ST last night and couldn't agree any less with your characterization of the film. Like you I watched ST first run as a child and my comment immediately after the film ended was, "Why couldn't have JJ Abrams directed the last 3 Star Wars films?"

No only did this latest film breathe new life into a decidedly tired franchise it comes the closer to the original optimistic and idealistic vision that Rodenberry espoused than any of its predecessors. (Without being cheesy, no whale rescues this time out.)

In short it has a wide enough appeal to insure that die-hard Trekkies (and so you know I've always hated the preferred Trekkers nomenclature for being stilted and self-servingly pretentious) get what they want, more sequels, and enough of the heart endemic to the original series to insure that we'll end up caring about the characters moving forward.

While I find Jean Luc Picard an excellent captain who upholds all of the dignity of the office he's sure as hell not FUN. The whole point of Rodenberry's militaristic space opera was to add humanity back into the regimented world that was so blindly napalming villages under the illusion that we must destroy to save. Let's watch the military evolve.

Kirk is an anti-hero, skirt chasing, whiskey swilling big-hearted galoot who values his friends more than rules and winning more than playing by the rules, yours, mine or his own.

We, at least me, love Kirk because his swagger and bad-assery allow us the escape from drudgery and the constant droning of responsibility that life enforces on us daily. He kicks ass, takes names and sticks his gum under the table. The Kirk I saw last night gave me hope, not only for the revitalization of the franchise, but real hope that maybe we can overcome our own shortcomings and triumph in a 'no-win' situation.

Our childhood wasn't raped by a re-imagined Enterprise crew, our dreams were realized as a beloved conduit for hope was resuscitated.

Thanks for adding to the dialog and I enjoyed your blog.

p.s. I hate raisins maybe that was the problem with your theater expreience

Posted by: Barec2 at May 10, 2009 6:30 PM

Better that Iron Man? Yes*. better than The Dark Knight? No. Star Trek is FUN. It doesn't take it self all that seriously and delivers a hell of an enjoyable experience. I loved it and I'm loving all the Trek nerds out in force against it. The original Star Trek still exists, it's not like they were going to make new ones with the original cast so I don't get why some of you are foaming at the mouth. At least you didn't get the ass rape Indiana Jones fans did.

*I guess I don't get the fawning love for Iron Man. I liked the movie, it was definitely good, but it was nothing earth shattering. RDJ was great and all but there are better superhero movies. I own it on Blu Ray and have watched it once. On the other hand I've watched The Dark Knight 4 times.

Posted by: TylerDFC at May 10, 2009 6:47 PM

I wonder what Matthew Mac's pay scale is, seems as if all his rom-coms hit around the same 30 to 45 mil cap. If you account for his and the co-star's salary, plus production costs I figure the studio expects at least a 20 mil profit? Dude is practically working for weed.


OH my god they can keep making these things FOREVER....

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at May 10, 2009 6:50 PM

Meh.

I'm still gonna watch Next Day Air.

Different tastes, indeed.

Posted by: Riley at May 10, 2009 6:56 PM

Frankly, I'm happy you didn't like the movie, because if you had, odds are we wouldn't be talking about it right now.

Seriously. It sounds to me like all the crap trekkies are bitching about is the stuff that makes the movie fun for the rest of us. So, yeah. What Macafee said.

Posted by: figgy at May 10, 2009 7:31 PM

Dammit, I might have to see this after all. I keep seeing "fun." I've liked a lot of movies I've been to but it's been a long while since I really had fun at one.

Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at May 10, 2009 7:58 PM

This debate is like the PG version of the fight raging over on the actual movie review thread. I like it. I feel less like Slim will castrate me verbally if I admit that I am 22, apparently making me part of Generation Douchebag, and that I thought this movie rocked.

In my opinion, Abrams had three options:

1. Adhere strictly to the canon (and in the process, alienate or hopelessly confuse 75 to 85 percent of the audience, people who would otherwise really enjoy the movie)

2. Flout the canon, perhaps obnoxiously so (see many book adaptions, and almost every reboot, remake, comic book film adaption, etc.)

3. Respect the canon, make several fun references to it, but ultimately take the story in a completely new direction

I'm glad that Abrams elected took the third option, even if it did have to come from the whole time travel angle. The real test, of course, will be to see what they do (whoever they are) with this new big, beautiful, blank canvas that's out there now.

Posted by: TheBoy at May 10, 2009 8:09 PM

*elected to take

Posted by: TheBoy at May 10, 2009 8:10 PM

Knock yourself out homey I keep my shit in one thread.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at May 10, 2009 8:12 PM

I didn't want to get into the Massive Poo-Flinging taking place on the review thread, so let me say that I just came home from the theater. The showing was near sold-out and the audience seemed to have a great time.
Me? I loved it. The actors were all very good, the effects were first rate, the story was serviceable and most importantly to me... I had FUN!
Yes, I will watch the next installment.

Posted by: Spender at May 10, 2009 8:21 PM

Reminds of the first days after Phantom Menace, there was some massive hysteria going down and then everyone

Not among critics. That's what's being referred to, you see.

Knock yourself out homey I keep my shit in one thread.

Well obviously not. Tell the lullaby people it's a bad movie too.

Posted by: Jay at May 10, 2009 9:09 PM

When the hell did you get the stones to tell ME what to do?

That's a Box-Office post, you stupid piece of shit.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at May 10, 2009 9:19 PM

I must be one of the few people who's not impressed by Abrams or his current writers.

Posted by: Hurp Durp at May 10, 2009 9:20 PM

I don't think you got what I was saying. Oh well!

Posted by: Jay at May 10, 2009 9:28 PM

It was definitely fun. And I can't remember the last time I described a movie that way.

Confession: we never EVER eat at Burger King. But I went there last week and got two of their damn value meals to get two of the glasses. To thrill my old man. He was tickled. So it was worth it. I'm a whore.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at May 10, 2009 10:40 PM

According to Rottentomatoes.com, "The Dark Knight" received an average grade of 8.5/10, whereas "Star Trek" got a 8.1/10. My interpretation: while more critics gave "Star Trek" a passing grade, "The Dark Knight" was still rated as a better movie. I don't have an explanation for why "Iron Man" has a lower rating AND a lower grade (7.6/10) ... I liked it way more than "Star Trek" or "The Dark Knight" (even though I've never read the comic books).

Posted by: Betty at May 10, 2009 10:51 PM

omg! spender, were you one of the old people in my theater?! lol

Posted by: gp at May 10, 2009 10:56 PM

Just saw Star Trek. Can't offer coherent opinion on plot, acting, or it's relationship to the canon because apparently no one involved in filming or editing that movie gets motion sickness or migraines.

The MINUTE there was a still shot so my stomach could relax a lens flare come out of nowhere like a car with it's brights on turning a corner and my brain went "ouch". And then the camera started moving again. With more lens flares.

I'm gonna take some advil and stare at things that don't move or flash for a while. Back later.

Posted by: Genny (also Rusty) at May 10, 2009 11:03 PM

Did I miss these lens flares? What were they?

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at May 10, 2009 11:10 PM

Did I miss these lens flares? What were they?

Flashes across the bottom of the screen, or like blue lines like glare on the camera that would appear at the top or bottom of the screen. It's hard to describe, when my head feels like something other than lentil soup I'll try and find a video.

Posted by: Genny (also Rusty) at May 10, 2009 11:20 PM

omg! spender, were you one of the old people in my theater?! lol
Posted by: gp at May 10, 2009 10:56 PM

Did you catch a whiff of Vick's Vap-O-Rub and hear the sound of wheezing and creaking bones?
Yup, that was me.

Posted by: Spender at May 10, 2009 11:33 PM

There's lots of lens flares but I remain confused about this talk of "shaky cam".

Posted by: Jay at May 10, 2009 11:37 PM

Jay, a lot of the action shots had pretty shaky camera work, but more it's just the lack of true steady shots that gets to me. Everything being some kind of pull or slide or whatever starts to make me feel like I'm spinning. I guess it's more cinematically "interesting" but it's annoying as hell for those of us with exceptionally sensitive inner ears.

I didn't even attempt Cloverfield. I probably would've had to leave the theater.

Posted by: Genny (also Rusty) at May 11, 2009 12:05 AM

I didn't get anywhere near "Cloverfield". "Bourne Ultimatum" was certainly enough for me.

Posted by: Jay at May 11, 2009 12:22 AM

Did you catch a whiff of Vick's Vap-O-Rub and hear the sound of wheezing and creaking bones?

PHWOAR.

Posted by: figgy at May 11, 2009 12:46 AM

I prefer to use Metacritic over Rottentomatoes for overall critic scores. Over on there, Trek is also besting Dark Knight and Iron Man with an 84 over their 82 and 79 respectively. That I didn't expect, especially with the reverence that was endlessly paid to Dark Knight.

In other news, I'm really starting to think I should become a box office analyst. Every week those bitches have gotten it wrong and every week they've released some head scratching statement as to why they got it wrong. But every week, I've predicted my own numbers and gotten far more accurate figures than them, up to and including this week's Trek take.

Posted by: Popcultureboy at May 11, 2009 4:14 AM

I liked "Star Trek" better than TDK for a very specific reason. The way Bale acts and speaks when he is Batman is completely ridiculous. His raspy voice and lips flying all over the place when he talks is embarrassing. Otherwise they're neck-and-neck.
Barec2,
My wife is a Trek fan from her childhood and said the exact same thing about Roddenberry's original ideals of optimism and hope being revived. She was excited but scared to see it and now claims that it is her favorite movie. She has been talking about it nonstop since we saw it on Saturday. Also, I think she's going to leave me for the new Spock.
Here's something I can't wait for (BSlim being the perfect example of one side of it): The intense in-fighting between the hardcore fans of the original stories and the newer, presumably younger, fans who will revere the upcoming movies with just as much passion. People who enjoy both and everyone else will sit back and watch the carnage.
***sits back, lights a cigar, picks up Maker's on the rocks, smiles broadly***

Posted by: Kballs at May 11, 2009 9:00 AM

To support Genny's opinion, the cinematography is about the only real bone I have to pick with the film. No midrange shots to speak off in the thing. Very disorienting. Everything else was pleasing to me. But watching "Star Trek I couldn't help but think it wouldn't hurt some of these film makers to look back at some of the old masters of composition like Kurosawa, Ford or Welles to get some idea of how to make the frame interesting to the viewer without relying too heavily on quick edits and hand held camera work.

Posted by: Mr. West at May 11, 2009 9:08 AM

KBalls I am there with you but I have my Maker's neat!

Posted by: Mr. West at May 11, 2009 9:09 AM

I don't think age has much to do at all it wheher or not a Trek fan is gong to like the movie. Case in point, my husband is 32 and my brother-in-law is 35 - both are fans of the original series and felt like the movie was not their Star Trek and furthermore, was pointless. I'm 26 and I'm not going to pay money to see the movie for those same reasons. Star Trek was the Wild West in space, this movie seems like a pointless Hollywood wank-fest. Yeah, it might have some awesome splosions and fantastic cimematography but it will never be Star Trek for me. As far as I am concerned, the Star Trek that I grew up with is over.

Posted by: stardust savant at May 11, 2009 9:28 AM

Savant, I think that your post brings up an interesting question: should a creation be left to die or should it be reinterpreted for new generations? Do the previous incarnations of Star Trek still have a message to send to today's younger audience? I really don't have any opinion on that but would like to know what fans who don't like the tinkering think about the value of the Original Series and it's offshoots to our time. Also I would like to ask what thoughts anyone else might have about this film as a peculiar intersection of art with commerce in the form of "product."

Posted by: Mr. West at May 11, 2009 9:56 AM

Commercial films are, by definition, intersections if art with commerce, are they not? For that matter, so is Broadway theater and the entire music industry. So was Shakespeare - his producers were interested primarily in filling seats, not creating art for the ages (yet that is exactly what happened). Any of us who make a living making art in one form or another live in that intersection on a daily basis. I guess my point is that commercialism is not the antithesis to art any more than "indie" is a guarantee of artistic merit.

Posted by: Tammy at May 11, 2009 10:10 AM

The older I get, the less need I feel to cling to the past. I'm even questioning my faith. The only thing really worth holding on to has been Mrs. , . Otherwise, bring on the new and the different.

Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at May 11, 2009 10:23 AM

Hm. I loved it. Pseudo-Mr. AvB loved it. Our super-Trekker/ie friend loved it. His only slightly less super-Trekker brother loved it. We each had our issues with certain things (the lens flares didn't bother me, per se, but there were far too many of them; super-Trekker didn't like the Spock/Uhura thing (too much emotion for Spock) and wasn't over fond of Chekov; his brother didn't like Scotty, thought he was too over the top), but overall, loved it.

Also, I hate to say this, because I don't want to make the girls sad in the pants, but did anyone else get a total Corey Feldman as Edgar Frog vibe from Eric Bana? There's one scene in particular with him and (I wanna say) Pike where he was doing the voice and I guess the camera angle caught his face just right and he was completely Feldman.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at May 11, 2009 10:25 AM

Well, it'd take a lot to maintain attraction to Bana through all that so I don't think you'd be ruining any effect.

Of course I've been wrong about what's attractive before.

Eric Bana being Nero's just an abstract concept to me that doesn't stick. I see premiere pictures and stuff and think "what's Eric Bana doing there?"

Posted by: Jay at May 11, 2009 10:34 AM

AvB, Bana's never been my cup of tea anyway. My sister, however, has now added the new Captain Kirk to her list of men she's going to marry. (That list currently includes Gerard Butler, Hugh Jackman, and Taylor Kitsch, or as she puts it; "King Leonidas, Wolverine, and Gambit".) I occasionally point out that since she's 13, I'm a much more age appropriate choice for any of those gentlemen, but she's still fairly insistent on her decision to practice Polyandry with movie stars.

Posted by: Genny (also Rusty) at May 11, 2009 11:39 AM

Just for the record, when The Voyage Home came out 23 years ago, I probably paid half - maybe less - of the ticket price that I paid to see this new movie. Inflation really does make box office rankings of this sort completely irrelevant.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at May 11, 2009 5:20 PM