Why didn't Beyond do better at the Box Office?

[Star Wolf]

I'd rather Paramount take their time with Star Trek than follow the Marvel method and pump them out like sausages.

In my mind the golden age of Trek was when the sausage factory was running with the Original crew in theatres, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager pumping out another 50 hours of content a year

There's also the more general point that aside from a couple of exceptions, Star Trek has never been blockbuster at the box office. It just isn't. The films usually do well, but it depends what Paramount expects.

It comes down to that fan base now consist of seniors and middle aged grandparents. We don't make blockbusters happen just a dependable income stream. To everybody else Star Trek is just another old ideal where the producers couldn't think of something fresh. Into Darkness may have been the nail in that coffin when a kid watching a Star Trek marathon on TV, as the second tier networks like to do for a movie opening, they may have seen that the movie just took Wrath of Khan and had Spock left his head and scream instead of Kirk.

 

[Ovation]

Into Darkness may have been the nail in that coffin when a kid watching a Star Trek marathon on TV, as the second tier networks like to do for a movie opening, they may have seen that the movie just took Wrath of Khan and had Spock left his head and scream instead of Kirk.

I can understand not liking the film, but if Into Darkness was a person, such a distorted depiction of it in order to denigrate it might warrant a libel suit.

 

[The Wormhole]

Such a lot of overthinking going on in this thread and a lot of complex theories going. The number one reason this movie isn't doing better at the box office is because it wasn't promoted. There was no official plot description made available to the public until about a month ago. And this movie wasn't even on the general public's radar until Anton Yelchin died. It is very sad the death on one of the stars is the first thing to bring publicity to the movie. Funnily enough, I was just talking to co-workers today about Star Trek and none of them were even aware Beyond is already out in theatres, they thought it was still a few weeks away. Paramount dropped the ball when it came to promoting this film, and they dropped it in a huge way.

Mind you, it's debateable just how popular a franchise Star Trek is anyway. Everyone is aware of it, but even at its height of popularity in TNG's day, it's just not going to draw crowds like Star Wars or Marvel does. Deal with it.

And I'm perplexed at all these "the three and four year gaps between movies hurt them." As much as I agree someone should have lit a fire under Orci's ass to get the script for STID done,* the fact of the matter is three and four year gaps between movies did not hurt Nolan's Batman movies, so they should not have hurt Star Trek movies at all.

*It is completely inexcusable that STID's script wasn't completed until November 2011 despite Orci's promise of it being done "at the end of the month" in May 2009, a promise he kept making repeatedly over the next two and a half years. That's some month.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Mind you, it's debateable just how popular a franchise Star Trek is anyway. Everyone is aware of it, but even at its height of popularity in TNG's day, it's just not going to draw crowds like Star Wars or Marvel does.

.

ST09/ID beat out 5 of the 13 MCUs (domestic) so not too shabby

 

[Tomalak]

Mind you, it's debateable just how popular a franchise Star Trek is anyway. Everyone is aware of it, but even at its height of popularity in TNG's day, it's just not going to draw crowds like Star Wars or Marvel does. Deal with it.

I'm scratching my head trying to reconcile this...

And I'm perplexed at all these "the three and four year gaps between movies hurt them." As much as I agree someone should have lit a fire under Orci's ass to get the script for STID done,* the fact of the matter is three and four year gaps between movies did not hurt Nolan's Batman movies, so they should not have hurt Star Trek movies at all.

...and this.

As you say, Star Trek isn't Star Wars or Marvel, and it isn't Batman either. Batman has been established at the box office since Tim Burton's film was a smash hit in 1989. They're also much better fillms than STID, so you could say the wait was worth it. The anticipation was built in a way it never was for Star Trek. You make a great, fun movie in 2009, you establish Star Trek for a new audience, but then you sit on it for four years. People move on. I'm sure it had some impact. STID failed to build on ST09, and it was only the expanded international market that allowed it to make more money than ST09. Adjusted for inflation, there's not much in it.

 

[DarthPipes]

Star Trek unfortunately is a niche franchise and has never been a great box office performer, in the United States or overseas. It also has an aging fanbase that's not getting any younger. That's a problem when you are trying to create an "it" franchise. I don't think the four years wait between Star Trek and Into Darkness helped. Batman could go four years in between films but not Star Trek. But still, it comes down to not being a historically strong box office performer and an aging fanbase that's not replenishing itself. Being off of television for so long doesn't help it but it was Paramount's greed that led to the franchise burning itself out.

The marketing campaign wasn't strong and the first trailer wasn't the bed but I thought the over-the top reaction to that and Into Darkness was not helpful either.

 

[The Wormhole]

As you say, Star Trek isn't Star Wars or Marvel, and it isn't Batman either. Batman has been established at the box office since Tim Burton's film was a smash hit in 1989.

Actually it really is a similar situation. The Batman movie franchise was basically killed in 1997 with the flop of Batman and Robin. Eight years later we get Batman Begins rebooting the franchise and restoring its popularity and viability at the box office. A sequel, The Dark Knight was released three years later and was arguably more popular at the box office. Then four years after that, The Dark Knight Rises comes out, and though not as popular as TDK was still one of the year's largest movies.

Or you can look at the Daniel Craig James Bon movies, where it is in fact the one with the shortest gap (Quantum of Solace, two years after Casino Royale) that did the worst. Or even better, Craig's two most successful movies, Casino Royale and Skyfall are the ones released four years after their predecessors. Granted, Skyfall was delayed on account of MGM's financial problems.

Hell, going farther back, Aliens was released seven years after Alien, and is one of those sequels regarded as being better than the original. Hell, Terminator 2 is also six or seven years after the first one and is widely considered one of the best performing sequels.

Whatever other problems Star Trek might have, gaps between movie isn't one of them, and cranking out continuous product like they did in the 90s or like Disney is now doing with Star Wars or the MCU isn't going to help when it's arguable if the popularity is even there to begin with.

 

[Franklin]

Skyfall made a domestic breakthrough for the Bond movies that no Trek film has yet to make. It made over $300 million in the US, which combined with over $800 million abroad, totaled a cool $1 billion. It's production budget was listed as $200 million.

Trek movies are traditionally weak abroad, and will never see money like that. The $238 million STID made abroad was considered great for Trek, but it's barely half what the first two Daniel Craig-led Bond movies made abroad, even though the Trek movies out-earned those two films in the US.

As I said in an earlier post, Marvel, DC, and Star Wars are in another league. Go to Target or any department store any time of year, and their merchandise dominate the toy aisles and even clothes. Trek stuff? Good luck finding it. You won't. It's always been that way. The belief must be there's no money in trying to start Trek fans off young. At the same time, even the pop culture stores geared to teens and early-twenties like Hot Topic are full of things from the big three, but try to find a Trek t-shirt. Again, must not be a market for it.

The last two Bond movies also have larger production budgets listed than any Trek movie. STB will do well enough for there to be a fourth, probably at a budget under $150 million, maybe closer to $135 million. We'll get a satisfying story and probably comparable box office results to the first three movies. Such is life.

That's just Trek for you. Why? Paramount probably knows best and must be content with it. As Jack Nicholson once said in a resigned tone in the movie of the same name, "What if this is as good as it gets?"

 

[Tomalak]

Bond has been blockbuster for decades, it's an enormously successful franchise that has lasted half a century regularly making lots of money - adjusted for inflation, Skyfall is only the third most successful Bond film. Casino Royale just about scrapes the top ten. Obviously both eclipsed the recent Star Trek films by some way, but Bond has always been more popular than Star Trek. No Star Trek film has ever had the impact of Thunderball in its day, and we're nowhere even close to a Skyfall or Spectre today.

The point is that by waiting so long, any chance to build up a new audience after the successful Star Trek 2009 was wasted, and STID didn't make any real progress. STB seems to have fallen short again, and we're back to Star Trek being a decent earner, but little more than that.

 

[The Wormhole]

we're back to Star Trek being a decent earner, but little more than that.

"A decent earner" is significant improvement over the state of the Trek franchise a decade ago.

 

[Jeyl]

Personally, I think Chris Pine is casting his own shadow over the series. I just can't see myself getting invested in his performances. Throwing a lot of attention and growth on his character just feels like a waste of energy since I'd much rather spend time getting to see how the other characters develop. That's my take at least. Heck, just look at the movies that feature him as the top billed actor. The Jack Ryan movie tanked as did the poorly named "The Finest Hours".

 

[BillJ]

Into Darkness may have been the nail in that coffin when a kid watching a Star Trek marathon on TV, as the second tier networks like to do for a movie opening, they may have seen that the movie just took Wrath of Khan and had Spock left his head and scream instead of Kirk.

Yeah. I'm not so sure of that. Not too many kids are hunting down thirty-plus year old movies on digital sub-channels.

I don't know why Beyond has struggled? But I think it is silly to try to lay the blame on the highest grossing Star Trek movie ever. Does Star Trek not interest people anymore? Possibly. Are people looking for things to challenge their worldview or are they looking for things that make them comfortable? I don't know?

The audiences are getting older and older. Paramount and CBS need to figure out how to make Star Trek something younger people want to spend money on. How do they do that? If I knew, I'd be working for the franchise.

 

[Amasov]

I think Paramount blew it after the first movie came out. It generated some great buzz and brought on a lot of people who weren't Star Trek fans before - I had half a dozen friends who had zero interest in the franchise, but were really excited to see the first movie. They should have struck while the iron was hot, but waited far too long to get Into Darkness out.

I don't know if it was a matter of scheduling the actors or trying to find the right script - but you all remember, they announced they were doing a sequel about two months before the reboot even came out. It seemed like we weren't going to have to wait that long. I'd argue that with the first movie, Paramount was on the brink of having a big(ger) franchise on their hands. But the hype surrounding the first movie died down. Four years in between movies was just inexcusable.

I think it was also inexcusable between Insurrection and Nemesis, although part of me thinks they were trying to figure out a way to figure out how to get the most out of the next movie - thus bringing aboard a new director/writer.

I can understand the seven year gap between Nemesis and '09, of course, since the franchise seemed to be on life support at that point and needed a rest. Of course, I'd also argue that a few years later, things were starting to look up from a storytelling perspective as the third and fourth seasons of Enterprise seemed to be good signs.

I think there's a bit of a quandary. It is the 50th anniversary of the franchise, but I feel like that could potentially alienate non-fans even more from seeing the movie. Depending on how they'd acknowledge the five decade history of Star Trek, those unfamiliar with it may feel like they were missing something.

Let me use myself as an example.

I'm a gamer. Currently, I play Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn Online. Before it, I played Final Fantasy XI Online. I won't get into the history of how I came to play these games, but aside from these two, I've barely played any of the other games in the Final Fantasy series.

Whenever a new patch comes along or expansion to XIV that ties the game into the existing Final Fantasy lore, unless it makes a specific reference to the one Final Fantasy game I've played, it just goes over my head. I don't notice it. If a new expansion were to come out that was nothing but Easter eggs to the existing Final Fantasy lore or if it was just overall a love letter to the fans of the series who've played the games for so long, I'd feel like I'd be at a disadvantage. Sure, I would still be playing it, but I would know I was missing out on something.

 

[Ovation]

Yeah. I'm not so sure of that. Not too many kids are hunting down thirty-plus year old movies on digital sub-channels.

I don't know why Beyond has struggled? But I think it is silly to try to lay the blame on the highest grossing Star Trek movie ever. Does Star Trek not interest people anymore? Possibly. Are people looking for things to challenge their worldview or are they looking for things that make them comfortable? I don't know?

The audiences are getting older and older. Paramount and CBS need to figure out how to make Star Trek something younger people want to spend money on. How do they do that? If I knew, I'd be working for the franchise.

The older viewer issue is not limited to Star Trek. Outside Disney/Pixar and a few other animated films, average movie going ages have been trending upward with ticket prices (as a percentage of disposal entertainment income, individual movies are a bigger bite of the apple than in my youth, even adjusting for inflation). If my own kids are anything to go by (and I can afford to send them to movies every week if I want), they're just as happy streaming movies on the computer or TV via Netflix (I have a home cinema rig that dwarfs that kind of experience, but they don't demand to use it nearly as much as I would expect).

 

[BillJ]

The older viewer issue is not limited to Star Trek. Outside Disney/Pixar and a few other animated films, average movie going ages have been trending upward with ticket prices (as a percentage of disposal entertainment income, individual movies are a bigger bite of the apple than in my youth, even adjusting for inflation). If my own kids are anything to go by (and I can afford to send them to movies every week if I want), they're just as happy streaming movies on the computer or TV via Netflix (I have a home cinema rig that dwarfs that kind of experience, but they don't demand to use it nearly as much as I would expect).

My kids are happy to watch something on a computer screen or iPod. I have a 50" 4K TV.

 

[Ovation]

My screen is 64" and will be 80" in a few months (projector). They still go for the iPod. Go figure.

 

[BillJ]

My screen is 64" and will be 80" in a few months (projector). They still go for the iPod. Go figure.

I wonder if an animated web series along the lines of The Final Frontier might do a better job hooking children and people that are growing up getting entertainment from the internet?

http://www.startrekff.com/

If Discovery is more of what we got in the 90's, it might have a short shelf life.

 

[Franklin]

My kids are happy to watch something on a computer screen or iPod. I have a 50" 4K TV.

My screen is 64" and will be 80" in a few months (projector). They still go for the iPod. Go figure.

42" screen.

 

[Ovation]

Do I detect...screen envy?

 

[BillJ]

42" screen.

If that's screen envy, 42" in no slouch. I had a 40", and I was down when it died because it had a fantastic picture.