Star Trek Into Darkness: 5 Reasons Why Its Opening Weekend Disappointed
1. A Smaller 3-D Audience
As I stated in my opening, one of the more concerning things about the performance of Star Trek Into Darkness is the fact that it brought in less money opening weekend than its predecessor - despite being released in 3D. The first film, believe it or not, was only available in good old fashioned 2D. It was a simpler, pre-Avatar time.
As Box Office Mojo has noted, 3-D ticket sales have taken a hit this summer. Into Darkness is no different. Only 45% of the tickets sold opening weekend were for 3-D showings (16% IMAX 3-D, 29% non-IMAX 3-D). The fact that less people are opting for the third dimension shouldn't be news when you take into consideration the state of the economy and the always rising movie ticket prices, which cost extra in 3-D. My local theater charges an additional $3.25 for a 3-D ticket and in my opinion, that money is better spent elsewhere.
However, with fewer people seeing movies in 3-D, it means fewer surcharges for the studios. The extra money Paramount could have gained was lost by people going for the cheaper option to see the same movie. I'm not going to sit here and blame the diminished 3-D returns as the main reason why Star Trek Into Darkness underperformed, but it certainly has a small part in the grand scheme of things.
Star Trek Into Darkness is by no means a bomb. As of this writing, it has made a very respectable $103.7 million through its first seven days. Combined with the $80.5 million its made overseas so far, the film will certainly recoup its $190 million production budget and should finish with a strong final tally by the time it ends its run. The massively competitive summer schedule won't do it any favors, but it will still be one of the top earners of the summer, just not as big as Paramount hoped.
It goes to show you that nothing is guaranteed when predicting the box office. Some people felt Into Darkness had the potential to become a member of the $1 billion club, but now it won't get anywhere near those numbers. When Warner Bros. says things like they're waiting to see how Man of Steel performs before committing to Justice League or anything else, this is why.
There will still be a Star Trek 3. There are contractual obligations to fulfill and the money will warrant another investment. However, the "low" numbers do raise some small concerns about the long-term stability of the franchise. If the interest isn't entirely there and if the third movie doesn't improve upon the box office performance, Paramount will have to weigh the pros and cons of continuing the series in the future. Sure the movies are successful, but in a world where sequels are usually bigger, Star Trek has proven to be an outlier so far.
What do you think caused the diminished returns for Star Trek Into Darkness? Should Paramount be concerned about the profitability of the franchise? Sound off in the comments!