Fast & Furious 6 hits big, The Hangover Part III doesn't

News Simon Brew 28 May 2013 - 06:33

Fast & Furious 6 grabs a huge opening weekend, whilst The Hangover Part III falls way short of the last one...

If you were in any doubt as to why Universal wanted to speed forward with Fast & Furious 7, then let said doubt be firmly eradicated. The studio is getting its seventh instalment in just over a year, at the cost of its director, and the reason is that it's become Universal's biggest active franchise. By some distance.

The past four-day Memorial weekend in the US saw the latest film in the series, Fast & Furious 6, bring in a staggering $120m. Add in the near $200m in business it's already done outside of the US, and the film has over $300m in the bank already. Fast Five's eventual worldwide take was $626m. Fast & Furious 6 will clearly beat that.

The biggest box office surprise of the weekend, though, was arguably how much wind had fallen out of The Hangover franchise. The Hangover Part III has done hardly shabby numbers, but its $63m weekend gross is less than half what the previous film did in the same time frame. The film is likely to wind up with the lowest take of the series to date, potentially by some distance. It will still clear a profit, though. It just might have made a bit more had it had any jokes in it.

Elsewhere? Iron Man 3 is now the fifth biggest film of all time, having banked $1.14bn worldwide. Star Trek Into Darkness has crossed $250m worldwide, whilst Epic has got off to a good start, with $42m in the bank in the US after its opening weekend. Next into the summer blockbuster battleground? In the US, that'd be M Night Shyamalan's After Earth...

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

I'm amazed at how 'little' Star Trek makes. Is it an issue with how the Start Trek brand is perceived by the public? A fun massive space blockbuster while hardly the best movie ever should have hit bigger. When other geek properties are getting mainstream audiences, Star Trek just can't seem to break out of it's nerd/geek mould.

It's not a bad amount of money but when Iron man is making almost five times as much then there is clearly an issue.

And returning to franchise to it's more slower thoughtful pace would result in even less money, To me it's the reputation of these past movies and series (and possibly the reputation of star trek fans, ) that is unfairly hurting the current movies. Will paramount make a third?

Trek is a hit. It will make money. There will be a third movie for the 50th anniversary in 2016.

This is a missed opportunity for Star Trek, though, after a fabulous reboot in 2009. Four long years passed with nothing so enthusiasm cooled, the action is spectacular but a tad on the generic side, the story unfortunately is clearly derivative.

Iron Man is a smarter movie, with a very clever and witty script and a great star playing a signature role.

I'm glad Trek is doing well but not so well that the obvious problems with STID don't get glossed over. A new director who actually cares more about Star Trek than the umpteen other things he's trying to do, especially Star Wars, and who is less into cinematic recycling, will help.

On the other big thing, Fast and Furious has come a long way from its rather tawdry beginnings as a tale of LA car enthusiasts etc. which I can barely remember now. It's really quite clever how they've created a continuity and mythos and sense of community with that cast where there seemed to be nothing more than exploitation at the beginning.

I loved the first Hangover film, but can't work up any enthusiasm for the other two. Some films don't need a sequel.

agree it'll make money, just seems on the low side in comparison to it's peers. When you think of the money Transformers an Pirates of the Caribbean make I find it strange that a better movie with what I thought was a bigger brand can't even come close to the haul of these films

still haven't watched an FF movie. I'll need to rectify that

Iron Man 3 is the fifth biggest movie of all time?? The last one was rubbish so I gave it a miss.

while yes it makes less than those films let's remember... star trek 10: nemesis made 67 million worldwide 10 years ago... this one is gonna do 450 million at least... lol... and this is a franchise that was survived 50 years and 4 sets of producers... roddenberry... harve bennet and gang for the original movies starting with wrath of khan... rick berman and the tng gang... now jj... money that's been made by the steady and successful movies and series and books etc makes it a huge monster... just keeping the franchise alive is amazing considering there's no one particular person steering the boat... and it does have a stigma but the more these flicks are made and the more people see on cable and video the more will be open to seeing them... the overseas market for this one is going to come close to doubling the last one... but anything around as long as trek, is going to have some sort of backlash no matter how good... either a prejudice that's built over the years or fear of entering something with such a backstory... jj abrahams made this movie so you needed no real background... i thought it was better than the last one... everyone i know who has seen it loved it a lot... it has great word of mouth

Hey, the Americans and British may have the movie in cinemas for weeks now, but the rest of Europe (or at least where I live) have to wait another week! So we're incoming.

Hangover II wasn't a sequel, it was a remake.

Thrilled to bits about how Hangover 3 is doing. At least there won't be the temptation to make a fourth.

I think people were burned after flocking to see the second movie and haven't taken the chance on the third. I'm one of them.

I actually really liked Hangover II. People complain it was "too dark" but that's what made it good. Yeah I know the story was the same but it was funny.

The Avengers was rubbish??

The new Trek is a disappointment to a lot of people, so it won't get as much of the repeat business that would make it the mega-hit that the studio and many observers expected it to be.

It also looks fairly generic.

But it also suffers from being Star Trek, which like Doctor Who is perceived as being rather geeky.

So it didn't have the huge opening it should have, in fact its opening was smaller than the first even without discounting for higher ticket prices and the 3D and IMAX premiums of today.

Of course, the mega-popularity of Transformers and Pirates proves that popularity isn't all. I got bored with those after the first or second in the series.

However, Star Trek could be do what Bond did, i.e., take something that is a huge cultural presence and turn it into a Skyfall-type mega-blockbuster. That's what I hoped for this movie.

Haha, Like

Yeah... it kinda was...
I'll leave now...

And here I just watched Avengers again over the weekend ...


Kidding aside, I agree that Iron Man 2 was decidedly off the mark. It had a great story going with Mickey Rourke as the rightfully aggrieved Russian antagonist but got distracted by all the set-up work it was doing for the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe thingy.

It also suffered from the same disease as the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels. The powers-that-be didn't get what made the first film so popular and instead played up the more annoying aspects of the lead's character.

Yes, all too true.

That makes sense, but a lot of people were disappointed with Iron Man 2 also and that didn't seem to bother them this time around. Is it because of Avengers perhaps?

Trek is being hurt by its release date. The first one, really had no real competition for a couple weeks, where this one, was released with a huge hit already in the theaters, then another huge hit a week later.

I thought they should have held this movie off until August or September myself, when the schedule is less crowded, but thats not the way studios think these days

I enjoyed the second one as much as I did the first, and even though its take is diminishing at a faster rate then the original did, its more due to the scheduling then anything else.

"Iron Man is a smarter movie, with a very clever and witty script and a great star playing a signature role."

Plus it gets help in the fact that its part of a larger tie in with another movie, so the franchise remains in the news as well. Being part of the Avengers definitely helped this movie

Yep, though The Avengers doesn't work without Tony Stark.

That seems to be the most likely scenario. I was disappointed with IM2 bit it was all forgotten after Avengers and IM3 was eagerly anticipated.

I'm worried by the things I'm hearing about Thor 2 though. I hope they don't drop the ball with the next movie.

Sponsored Links