Does anyone know how Beyond is tracking for its opening weekend?

[KGator]

I'm predicting $30-32 million. STID made $37 million its second weekend. So it would be a good hold.

As I mentioned this morning on page 19, that isn't even close to what STB will generate this weekend.

Okay, things are not looking good. Not only was the weekday box office inexplicably low but based on the early Friday numbers . . . . we could be looking at as much as a 60% drop this weekend ($23-24m range). I was certain STB would get near a 3 multiplier but given this terrible number and Suicide Squads' opening next week, by the time STB stabilizes it will be too late. Originally I thought STB would finish in the range of Mission Impossible - Rouge Nation ($190-200m). Now I'm afraid we could be looking at something more in the X-Men Apocalypse range ($150-160m). I just don't get it.

. . . . . . . .

 

[KGator]

Holy shit! A 69% drop is BRUTAL. Let's really hope and pray that the rest of the weekend does better.

If you ask me, what tanked Beyond wasn't Beyond, but Into Darkness. A movie needs general audiences to be succcessfull. But for stuff to be successfull it need pre-release buzz. And the people who create buzz are the hardcore fans.

Into Darkness was well liked by general audiences. But it was hated by fans, to a degree we saw NOTHING in terms of excitement from the fans for Beyond. Most Trekkies loved it, but all of them were surprised that it was good. General audiences saw "just another sequel", that not even their uber-nerd Trekkie-fans showed any excitement for.

I would have put my money on a weak(-ish) opening, but strong legs. But apparently the competition this year was brutal in numbers as well, and people general seemed to show no interest in sequels anymore.

A 69% drop. I still cannot believe it. Damn.

A 69% drop is devastating and while when all things are said and done Beyond will probably squeak a profit, these does leave the future of the JJ Trek in question. It's clear Trek appears to have lost a more general audience. I would venture to say Star Trek 4 is now in question ... even though it has the green light doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Guys, it will officially be a 60% drop for the weekend. Somewhere in the $23-25m range. A 69% drop would put us around $18m for the weekend. That would be devastating.

Of course a 60% drop is pretty brutal too and if you had read my interpretation of the overseas markets that I posted this morning . . . . It would look even bleaker.

 

[KGator]

STID reception is suffering from the cool crowd reception. its cool to hate STID because everyone seems to. its like the star wars prequels where its cool to hate it because everyone seems to hate it,

I gave STID a strong 7.5/10. the film fell apart at the end but 2/3 of the film was great.

I agree, the film seemed to jump the rails there in the last third of the film. Up until then I thought it was doing really well. The funny thing is that a lot of that last third (like all the action, the destruction of San Francisco, etc) was put in to appeal to more foreign viewers who seem to really enjoy destruction porn.

 

[Dales]

Guys, it will officially be a 60% drop for the weekend. Somewhere in the $23-25m range. A 69% drop would put us around $18m for the weekend. That would be devastating.

Of course a 60% drop is pretty brutal too and if you had read my interpretation of the overseas markets that I posted this morning . . . . It would look even bleaker.

60% drop is not that bad , its the same drop for most comic films and block buster anyway.

 

[KGator]

Star Trek will never be a big Star Wars franchise.

It will always be more of a niche market and everyone should except that.

When you're dumbing down Star Trek to get a bigger audience, you do not only not get that bigger audience, you also lose the diehard fans. You lose everything.

Star Trek movies should be made on a smaller budget with less action and special effects and focus more on story and characters. That way you probably won't get a 500 + million movie, but with a 75 - 100 million budget, a 250/300 million revenue is fantastic.

Keep in mind that your salaries now for the cast are 10-15 times more than they were for the 09 reboot. Marketing costs will remain the same no matter the reduced production budget ($120-150m for combined domestic and overseas). The kinds of special effects that attract the foreign audience won't be possible on that low of a budget.

Star Trek tried to go the low budget, enhanced episode route and that's what put the movie franchise on hiatus. That plan didn't survive in an era where a much more forgiving movie audience existed so I doubt it works in the current market. If that's the route to go, make movies to stream like they do on Netflix.

And in that era the second largest revenue stream was DVDs where Star Trek usually did very well. That market is all but dead now. The second biggest revenue stream now is television rights.

 

[KGator]

60% drop is not that bad , its the same drop for most comic films and block buster anyway.

But a lot of the films you are thinking of are opening north of $85m on opening weekend. And the reason the drops are so great is they have huge Thursday preview numbers included in the weekend totals. Those movies are losing an extra day and between $15-35m in preview numbers. It's like having a 4-day weekend being compared to a 3-day.

A 60% drop on a sub $60 million opener or a non-superhero movies is not common and should be a concern. That extra 10% drop is going to reduce the final numbers around $10-15m.

 

[johnjm22]

Star Trek tried to go the low budget, enhanced episode route and that's what put the movie franchise on hiatus. That plan didn't survive in an era where a much more forgiving movie audience existed so I doubt it works in the current market.

TWOK, TSFS, TVH, TUC, GEN, FC all did good on relatively low budgets. INS and NEM didn't fail because they were low budget, they failed because the stories sucked. (I think INS was still profitable BTW).

 

[Visitor1982]

Keep in mind that your salaries now for the cast are 10-15 times more than they were for the 09 reboot. Marketing costs will remain the same no matter the reduced production budget ($120-150m for combined domestic and overseas). The kinds of special effects that attract the foreign audience won't be possible on that low of a budget.

Star Trek tried to go the low budget, enhanced episode route and that's what put the movie franchise on hiatus. That plan didn't survive in an era where a much more forgiving movie audience existed so I doubt it works in the current market. If that's the route to go, make movies to stream like they do on Netflix.

And in that era the second largest revenue stream was DVDs where Star Trek usually did very well. That market is all but dead now. The second biggest revenue stream now is television rights.

Then get rid of these actors.

I wouldn't mind a fresh start for the 14th movie.

Back to prime universe with a smaller budget, different cast, different production team and focus on characters and story.

 

[KGator]

TWOK, TSFS, TVH, TUC, GEN, FC all did good on relatively low budgets. INS and NEM didn't fail because they were low budget, they failed because the stories sucked. (I think INS was still profitable BTW).

Not all of these were low budget movies, some were quite high relative to the market in fact. I'm mainly referring to the TNG movies that were made on the cheap with a lot of people who were more familiar with the TV genre than motion picture industry.

And I'm not saying every low budget film will be bad or can't succeed. My point is that people aren't going to run out and pay to see things that they feel are made for TV movies shown on the big screen. The big money makers in the sci-fi genre are the event movies where audiences get caught up in the hype and excitement. Not something they feel is more appropriately watched on DVD, premium channels or regular television.

You are talking about a scheme similar to the horror or comedy genre that can survive and even thrive In the box office range of $50-90m. THOSE movies also have budgets in the $10-30m range. That template wouldn't work with a franchise like Star Trek.

 

[Relayer1]

Then get rid of these actors.

I wouldn't mind a fresh start for the 14th movie.

Back to prime universe with a smaller budget, different cast, different production team and focus on characters and story.

I'd love this, but I'm afraid prime universe Trek is dead at the cinema, and will stay that way.

Forget these badly cast action movies. Back to TV

 

[timtonruben359]

I'd love this, but I'm afraid prime universe Trek is dead at the cinema, and will stay that way.

Forget these badly cast action movies. Back to TV

Paramount makes no money off the new TV series as Star Trek's TV rights are now owned by CBS.

Right now Paramount is probably trying to figure out what went wrong and plan accordingly BUT Beyond remains it's most successful movie of 2016 so far. So Star Trek 4 will likely happen but the story might change, the budget might change etc.

 

[Relayer1]

Paramount makes no money off the new TV series as Star Trek's TV rights are now owned by CBS.

Right now Paramount is probably trying to figure out what went wrong and plan accordingly BUT Beyond remains it's most successful movie of 2016 so far. So Star Trek 4 will likely happen but the story might change, the budget might change etc.

The suggestion to forget the movies and the anticipation of the return to TV was for my gratification, not Paramount's !

 

[Tomalak]

Paramount makes no money off the new TV series as Star Trek's TV rights are now owned by CBS.

Right now Paramount is probably trying to figure out what went wrong and plan accordingly BUT Beyond remains it's most successful movie of 2016 so far. So Star Trek 4 will likely happen but the story might change, the budget might change etc.

Exactly. There will be more films because Paramount will still make more money than they will with Star Trek sitting on the shelf.

They also have the advantage of marketing in the form of someone else's TV show, which, if successful, could help drive audiences.

Hard to imagine there won't be another Trek film, but it might not be Abrams' Star Trek 4.

 

[Relayer1]

Hard to imagine there won't be another Trek film, but it might not be Abrams' Star Trek 4.

That might be a start.

Another ship, another crew, maybe a guest spot from Urban or Quinto, none of the others ever seen again...

 

[timtonruben359]

That might be a start.

Another ship, another crew, maybe a guest spot from Urban or Quinto, none of the others ever seen again...

My guess is they'll do 4 as planned with the actors who have signed on albeit at a lower budget.
The reason being they would otherwise have to wait for Pine's, Quinto's and Hemsworth's contracts to expire before they could make another film. Legally if they make another Trek film while these actor's contracts are still valid, they'd have to pay them regardless if they use the characters or not.

 

[Trekfan12]

Exactly. There will be more films because Paramount will still make more money than they will with Star Trek sitting on the shelf.

They also have the advantage of marketing in the form of someone else's TV show, which, if successful, could help drive audiences.

Hard to imagine there won't be another Trek film, but it might not be Abrams' Star Trek 4.

I think Simon Pegg did a good job with this script. He listened to what elements fans wanted to see in the new movies and he and his writing partner incorporated them into the scripts. I think he should be part of the writing team for ST 4 (if there is a 4th movie)

 

[Tomalak]

I think Simon Pegg did a good job with this script. He listened to what elements fans wanted to see in the new movies and he and his writing partner incorporated them into the scripts. I think he should be part of the writing team for ST 4 (if there is a 4th movie)

I'd be happy for the same team to make the next one too, but we're fans. It's hard to be objective - perhaps Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman know how to appeal to a general audience better? You couldn't blame Paramount for coming to that conclusion.

 

[indranee]

I think what happened to me is pretty much what happened to most "fans". Somehow, STID left a bad taste in their mouth (the "Khan" scream the icing on THAT cake) and our expectations nosedived. What else can I say but that I'm sorry? I waited out the first two days, and when egged on by friends who'd watched it, went to see it on the first Sunday. And that was already too late because Sunday afternoon returns aren't counted in the "initials", am I right?

 

[BillJ]

Without Earth being the focal point, I wonder if audiences care?

The biggest film of each era centers around Earth, The Voyage Home, First Contact, Into Darkness.

 

[Relayer1]

I'd be happy for the same team to make the next one too, but we're fans. It's hard to be objective - perhaps Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman know how to appeal to a general audience better?

I had hoped Pegg would have delivered somethig more 'Trekky', but to be honest I could barely tell the difference.

If there is a fourth movie, entirely new creative team please !