If Star Trek Beyond fails

[Grendelsbayne]

I do not think it will bomb too, we never know but 90% chance that it wont bomb. Also seeing how Jurassic park and furious 7 made so much money people make be looking for better alternatives to the 5 comics films coming out in the spring summer period alone and star trek beyond will be just what people need.

I wonder if superhero movies will suffer from the same glut as Trek did in the 90s? That's the advantage of just having one movie every few years - it's more of an event. It's the pause that refreshes!

Superhero movies are a lot more diverse than 90s trek was. If people get too tired of one thing, the genre will just shift slightly in a different direction. At worst, maybe one of the major studios will cut down or eliminate production in the genre, but the genre as a whole won't be disappearing anytime soon. Probably not ever.

I don't see how STB can truly flop. At worst it might "disappoint" alla STID, but it'll make its money back. Unlike the Spiderman reboot, I think there is a lot of good will toward these actors as these characters, and the general sense of fun the NuTrek movies have had so far. I imagine that the tagline "From the director of Fast & Furious" will put an extra $30 mil in the box office on its own.

If there is a perceived need to "re-tool", I don't think they'll do more than get a new director, maybe do some stunt-casting, and make a big deal about how the new one won't have whatever the marketing people say was wrong with the old one (no talking frogs! less of the colour orange!). Actually, that's what they're doing with the current one...

I'm pretty sure that a flop would reduce the chances of Trek returning to TV, not increase them. Possibly a canny producer might see an opportunity to get a Clone Wars-style show to market.

Any movie can flop under the right (or rather, wrong) circumstances. But I agree this one seems exceedingly unlikely. I also agree the end of the nuTrek films won't in any way 'help' get ST back on television. That probably isn't going to happen until someone with a real vision for a series manages to gain some influence at the studio, regardless of what state the franchise is in. (Or until someone comes up with a way to do a great looking Star Trek show for ridiculously cheap)

 

[Campe]

To look at this purely as a numbers game...

• 100 fans in a room at the Vegas convention last year called Into Darkness a failure.
• There are 2456 number of people on Facebook who belong to four fairly vocal nuTrek hate groups. (Granted, I bet a lot of these people are the same but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they're different people)
• There are currently 38 signatures on the "Stop Star Trek 3" petition on Change.com (although reading them, some of them are obviously in jest)

To break down the Amazon Customer reviews (currently 12,028, averaging at 4.4/5), we see:

• 1 star - 4% or 481 votes
• 2 stars - 3% or 361 votes
• 3 stars - 8% or 962 votes
• 4 stars - 22% or 2,646 votes
• 5 stars - 63% or 7578 votes

To break down IMDB's reviews (currently 356,544, giving a weighted average of 7.8/10), we see:

• 1 - 0.9% or 3210 votes
• 2 - 0.4% or 1450 votes
• 3 - 0.6% or 2171 votes
• 4 - 1.1% or 3924 votes
• 5 - 2.6% or 9203 votes
• 6 - 7.2% or 25802 votes
• 7 - 19.6% or 69978 votes
• 8 - 31.5% or 112302 votes
• 9 - 20.6% or 73600 votes
• 10 - 15.4% or 54904 votes

Granted, yes, this is just a small sample of the numbers in regards to Trek. The key point is that there's an overwhelming support for Into Darkness, as opposed to what's seen from those who claim it was such a failure typically based upon a clickbait article where it was listed as a financial failure for Paramount. Granted, it is not overwhelming 10/10, 4 stars, A+ support. It is a fairly modest, "It's a good film." And that's a description I can get behind. I have problems with it. But I enjoyed myself.

To look at the assertion that it caused financial trouble problems for Paramount, let me quote myself from a conversation with one of these individuals who continues to claim Into Darkness was a flop:

Let's be blunt. 2012 was a terrible year for Paramount. In 2011, Paramount brought in 1.96 billion in revenue from their film slate. 2012 only brought in 914.4 million. That's a downward trend of 53.3%. 2013 saw that turn around as that slate (including STID and WWZ) brought in 996.7 million, an upwards movement of 5.7%. And 2014 saw 1.1 billion, an increase of 8.9%. 2015's slate looks to be improving as well. So while 2013's slate wasn't the best for Paramount, to spin the blame the studio's "financial shit" solely on two films is an incorrect assertion.

(Information from Box Office Mojo).

To conclude, taking the quantitative analysis out of this...

I am first and foremost a Star Trek fan. My favorite films are Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country. My favorite series are the original and DS9. I enjoy the nuTrek films quite a bit but my heart lies with Shatner, Nimoy and the rest. I hate the assertion you can't like both and that if you do, well, you're not just as big of a Trek fan. It's time for that to end.

I respect that the vocal minority doesn't like nuTrek. That's fine. But don't take your hate out on me and my friends who do. We are no different than you. If you want to debate the actual merits of the films, we would all be happy to do so. If all you want to do is snipe and badmouth them without giving real, accurate rationale, then go away. We don't want to hear it.

I'll now depart my soapbox. Thank you for your attention. I do have to start, ya know, working for the day.

 

[Disco]

To look at this purely as a numbers game...

• 100 fans in a room at the Vegas convention last year called Into Darkness a failure.
• There are 2456 number of people on Facebook who belong to four fairly vocal nuTrek hate groups. (Granted, I bet a lot of these people are the same but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they're different people)
• There are currently 38 signatures on the "Stop Star Trek 3" petition on Change.com (although reading them, some of them are obviously in jest)

To break down the Amazon Customer reviews (currently 12,028, averaging at 4.4/5), we see:

• 1 star - 4% or 481 votes
• 2 stars - 3% or 361 votes
• 3 stars - 8% or 962 votes
• 4 stars - 22% or 2,646 votes
• 5 stars - 63% or 7578 votes

To break down IMDB's reviews (currently 356,544, giving a weighted average of 7.8/10), we see:

• 1 - 0.9% or 3210 votes
• 2 - 0.4% or 1450 votes
• 3 - 0.6% or 2171 votes
• 4 - 1.1% or 3924 votes
• 5 - 2.6% or 9203 votes
• 6 - 7.2% or 25802 votes
• 7 - 19.6% or 69978 votes
• 8 - 31.5% or 112302 votes
• 9 - 20.6% or 73600 votes
• 10 - 15.4% or 54904 votes

Granted, yes, this is just a small sample of the numbers in regards to Trek. The key point is that there's an overwhelming support for Into Darkness, as opposed to what's seen from those who claim it was such a failure typically based upon a clickbait article where it was listed as a financial failure for Paramount. Granted, it is not overwhelming 10/10, 4 stars, A+ support. It is a fairly modest, "It's a good film." And that's a description I can get behind. I have problems with it. But I enjoyed myself.

To look at the assertion that it caused financial trouble problems for Paramount, let me quote myself from a conversation with one of these individuals who continues to claim Into Darkness was a flop:

Let's be blunt. 2012 was a terrible year for Paramount. In 2011, Paramount brought in 1.96 billion in revenue from their film slate. 2012 only brought in 914.4 million. That's a downward trend of 53.3%. 2013 saw that turn around as that slate (including STID and WWZ) brought in 996.7 million, an upwards movement of 5.7%. And 2014 saw 1.1 billion, an increase of 8.9%. 2015's slate looks to be improving as well. So while 2013's slate wasn't the best for Paramount, to spin the blame the studio's "financial shit" solely on two films is an incorrect assertion.

(Information from Box Office Mojo).

To conclude, taking the quantitative analysis out of this...

I am first and foremost a Star Trek fan. My favorite films are Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country. My favorite series are the original and DS9. I enjoy the nuTrek films quite a bit but my heart lies with Shatner, Nimoy and the rest. I hate the assertion you can't like both and that if you do, well, you're not just as big of a Trek fan. It's time for that to end.

I respect that the vocal minority doesn't like nuTrek. That's fine. But don't take your hate out on me and my friends who do. We are no different than you. If you want to debate the actual merits of the films, we would all be happy to do so. If all you want to do is snipe and badmouth them without giving real, accurate rationale, then go away. We don't want to hear it.

I'll now depart my soapbox. Thank you for your attention. I do have to start, ya know, working for the day.

Thank you for writing objectively and for quoting the numbers. The numbers don't lie!

 

[JWPlatt]

I do not think it will bomb too...

I had something else to say but I'm too deep in grammar shock to recall what it was.

 

[Disco]

I do not think it will bomb too...

I had something else to say but I'm too deep in grammar shock to recall what it was.

 

[Nerys Myk]

To look at this purely as a numbers game...

• 100 fans in a room at the Vegas convention last year called Into Darkness a failure.
• There are 2456 number of people on Facebook who belong to four fairly vocal nuTrek hate groups. (Granted, I bet a lot of these people are the same but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they're different people)
• There are currently 38 signatures on the "Stop Star Trek 3" petition on Change.com (although reading them, some of them are obviously in jest)

To break down the Amazon Customer reviews (currently 12,028, averaging at 4.4/5), we see:

• 1 star - 4% or 481 votes
• 2 stars - 3% or 361 votes
• 3 stars - 8% or 962 votes
• 4 stars - 22% or 2,646 votes
• 5 stars - 63% or 7578 votes

To break down IMDB's reviews (currently 356,544, giving a weighted average of 7.8/10), we see:

• 1 - 0.9% or 3210 votes
• 2 - 0.4% or 1450 votes
• 3 - 0.6% or 2171 votes
• 4 - 1.1% or 3924 votes
• 5 - 2.6% or 9203 votes
• 6 - 7.2% or 25802 votes
• 7 - 19.6% or 69978 votes
• 8 - 31.5% or 112302 votes
• 9 - 20.6% or 73600 votes
• 10 - 15.4% or 54904 votes

Granted, yes, this is just a small sample of the numbers in regards to Trek. The key point is that there's an overwhelming support for Into Darkness, as opposed to what's seen from those who claim it was such a failure typically based upon a clickbait article where it was listed as a financial failure for Paramount. Granted, it is not overwhelming 10/10, 4 stars, A+ support. It is a fairly modest, "It's a good film." And that's a description I can get behind. I have problems with it. But I enjoyed myself.

To look at the assertion that it caused financial trouble problems for Paramount, let me quote myself from a conversation with one of these individuals who continues to claim Into Darkness was a flop:

Let's be blunt. 2012 was a terrible year for Paramount. In 2011, Paramount brought in 1.96 billion in revenue from their film slate. 2012 only brought in 914.4 million. That's a downward trend of 53.3%. 2013 saw that turn around as that slate (including STID and WWZ) brought in 996.7 million, an upwards movement of 5.7%. And 2014 saw 1.1 billion, an increase of 8.9%. 2015's slate looks to be improving as well. So while 2013's slate wasn't the best for Paramount, to spin the blame the studio's "financial shit" solely on two films is an incorrect assertion.

(Information from Box Office Mojo).

To conclude, taking the quantitative analysis out of this...

I am first and foremost a Star Trek fan. My favorite films are Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country. My favorite series are the original and DS9. I enjoy the nuTrek films quite a bit but my heart lies with Shatner, Nimoy and the rest. I hate the assertion you can't like both and that if you do, well, you're not just as big of a Trek fan. It's time for that to end.

I respect that the vocal minority doesn't like nuTrek. That's fine. But don't take your hate out on me and my friends who do. We are no different than you. If you want to debate the actual merits of the films, we would all be happy to do so. If all you want to do is snipe and badmouth them without giving real, accurate rationale, then go away. We don't want to hear it.

I'll now depart my soapbox. Thank you for your attention. I do have to start, ya know, working for the day.

I was told there would be no math.

 

[Campe]

The odd thing is? I hate math. But I love analysis!

 

[BillJ]

Thank you for writing objectively and for quoting the numbers. The numbers don't lie!

Though they can be manipulated to a degree. But I don't think that is what is going on here as we are seeing multiple sources (Rotten Tomatoes, Netflix, Amazon) convey the same information. Star Trek Into Darkness wasn't a monster hit but it does seem to be fairly well liked by audiences.

 

[Campe]

Thank you for writing objectively and for quoting the numbers. The numbers don't lie!

Though they can be manipulated to a degree. But I don't think that is what is going on here as we are seeing multiple sources (Rotten Tomatoes, Netflix, Amazon) convey the same information. Star Trek Into Darkness wasn't a monster hit but it does seem to be fairly well liked by audiences.

Absolutely! I could make these numbers say whatever I want. In fact, I tried to give more credence to their argument that there is an overwhelming majority of Trek fans who hate nuTrek. I couldn't. And granted, it was just a quick analysis based on some of the larger sites that I could get a breakdown out of. I didn't use RT or Netflix for instance. You'll also notice I didn't look at Facebook's pro-JJ pages. I'd say there may be 1/4 of the audience who didn't like it (but I have no math to back that number up, admittedly, just the weighted sample from IMDB).

But again, it's why they're called the vocal minority.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The odd thing is? I hate math. But I love analysis!

Welcome to Starfleet!

I am first and foremost a Star Trek fan. My favorite films are Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country. My favorite series are the original and DS9. I enjoy the nuTrek films quite a bit but my heart lies with Shatner, Nimoy and the rest. I hate the assertion you can't like both and that if you do, well, you're not just as big of a Trek fan. It's time for that to end.

There's a very small number of people who make any attempt to make that assertion and it's based purely on haterism.

For what it's worth, up until 2009 my two favorite Trek movies were TMP and Wrath of Khan. STXI knocked Wrath of Khan down to third place; when STID came out, I found I couldn't put them in order anymore, I just have a "top five" of Trek films that I will take any excuse to watch.

It's all just Star Trek to me, and more than that, the VERY BEST of Star Trek that reaches deep into my brain and stimulates my inner nerd.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if STB hits me anywhere near as hard as STXI or STID, but if they're going the direction I think they're going it'll at least tie with "Search for Spock" or "Generations" in my mind. That's me being cautiously optimistic; I'm HOPING we'll get another kickass movie like the last two and then I'll spend most of 2016 in a state of intense Star Trek nirvana.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

I don't think that STB is going to bomb.

 

[photon70]

I should start by saying I know nothing but am making semi-educated guesses based on historical box office patterns.

It'll all come down to what the opening weekend in North America ends up taking.

ST09 and STiD had multipliers of 3.2 so if STB opens to $90m, it'll end up around $288m in North America. If it opens to $80m, it'll end up around $256m.

Of course we don't know the budget yet and won't know the box office figures until well after it's release.

We can take an educated guess on the budget.

I think $130m at the low end, up to $170m at the high end.

If we split the difference, it'll be around $150m, before tax rebates of 49% from Canada & British Columbia.

Given recent reports, the budget sounds like it's back in healthy blockbuster territory, although not the bloated $190m for STiD.

With a decent script and a hot director, it should make $250m in North America.

Given the international market contributed 33% of ST09's box office, 52% of STiD's box office, we can extrapolate and say STB might have 55% to 60% of it's box office share from international receipts. The international box office contribution could be even higher but let's not get carried away yet.

So with roughly $250m in N.A., the total box office could be anywhere from about $555m to $625m.

Personally, I am predicting it'll end up even higher in N.A., say around $275m and take around $650m world-wide.

A 'massive' hit?

No but it'll be a step in the right direction and sets up the 4th new movie nicely.

Again, it'll all come down to the opening weekend in North America.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Nice -- that's actually identical to my own personal guesses.

 

[Franklin]

STB will only be a failure if I don't like it. So, stay tuned.

 

[martok2112]

I am first and foremost a Star Trek fan. My favorite films are Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country. My favorite series are the original and DS9. I enjoy the nuTrek films quite a bit but my heart lies with Shatner, Nimoy and the rest. I hate the assertion you can't like both and that if you do, well, you're not just as big of a Trek fan. It's time for that to end.

There's a very small number of people who make any attempt to make that assertion and it's based purely on haterism.

Yeah.... had the same thing happen to me with Battlestar Galactica. I enjoyed both shows, and some of the hardcore TOSser's (who had waited some 30 years for a continuation movie with the original cast, and then felt completely dejected--to put it mildly--when the continuation got shitcanned after 9/11, and done over via Ron Moore's version) tried to tell me: "NO! You cannot support both! You have to pick a side! And you have to support the right side!"

Really? You, the overzealous fanboys dwelling in your mothers' basements think you have the right to tell me what I can and cannot like?!

Again, granted, that's a vocally minor (very minor) few, but their delusions scream insanity.

Star Trek's fanbase is even more divisive and spiteful when it comes to the haterade.

So....my thinking became: "Oh! So in order for me to be a fan, I have to be just like you? Well, fandom can kiss my fucking ass if you are the cream of the crop then." Broken away from that bondage, I am free to enjoy whatever I wish, and fuck the rest.

So, thanks to the deluded vocally hateful few for ruining what used to be a fun thing.

 

[JWPlatt]

[Rest of post]... So, thanks to the deluded vocally hateful few for ruining what used to be a fun thing.

A little heavy on the irony there, don't you think?

 

[M'Sharak]

...

...

Yeah.... had the same thing happen to me with Battlestar Galactica. I enjoyed both shows, and some of the hardcore TOSser's (who had waited some 30 years for a continuation movie with the original cast, and then felt completely dejected--to put it mildly--when the continuation got shitcanned after 9/11, and done over via Ron Moore's version) tried to tell me: "NO! You cannot support both! You have to pick a side! And you have to support the right side!"

Really? You, the overzealous fanboys dwelling in your mothers' basements think you have the right to tell me what I can and cannot like?!

Again, granted, that's a vocally minor (very minor) few, but their delusions scream insanity.

Star Trek's fanbase is even more divisive and spiteful when it comes to the haterade.

So....my thinking became: "Oh! So in order for me to be a fan, I have to be just like you? Well, fandom can kiss my fucking ass if you are the cream of the crop then." Broken away from that bondage, I am free to enjoy whatever I wish, and fuck the rest.

So, thanks to the deluded vocally hateful few for ruining what used to be a fun thing.

You concede whatever moral high ground you might once have held when you resort to name-calling and nasty insinuations, martok2112, and I'm pretty sure I've asked you before to refrain from doing that. Let's confine discussion, as much as possible, to talking about the movies, the actors, the production crew, the scripts, etc., and leave out talking about fans and fandom altogether if it's only going to be to badmouth them.

Give it a try.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yeah.... had the same thing happen to me with Battlestar Galactica. I enjoyed both shows, and some of the hardcore TOSser's (who had waited some 30 years for a continuation movie with the original cast, and then felt completely dejected--to put it mildly--when the continuation got shitcanned after 9/11, and done over via Ron Moore's version) tried to tell me: "NO! You cannot support both! You have to pick a side! And you have to support the right side!"

Which is why I stopped posting on the BSG boards. Also, BSG discussion isn't that interesting to me and not worth the stress.

Again, granted, that's a vocally minor (very minor) few

Then it shouldn't be that hard for you to ignore them, then, especially in their absence.

 

[Sindatur]

I would assume that Star Trek Beyond is a lower budget (not low budget) film than Star Trek Into Darkness was. They would likely not throw more money at a sequel when the previous entry underperformed. Plus, filming in Canada gives some tax breaks and incentives that were not available to the production in Los Angeles.

So while there may be expectations in the same realm of Trek 2009 and Into Darkness, I think they may be a little tempered based on the returns of the latest entry.

What was initially stated way back, is the change in filming location was going to save $20-$30M(?), and that expected savings was what was being shaved off the Budget, so, it will cost less, but, they should have the same amount of money available for everything else.

As to what if the movie bombs? I think that depends upon your definition of bombs. If it loses too much/underperforms too far then, yea, that'll likely be it for some years. Though, I think there may be a certain level of underperformance that will still lead to a 4th movie.

 

[eyeresist]

Does anyone know if they have been preserving sets etc between movies? If they start preserving all their properties, as they use to do before the Big Sell Off, that will give me hope for the future.