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

[fireproof78]

Trek didn't do better because Star Trek was never about being awesome, cool, action, it was about the connection of characters and in many ways the actors with eachother. That's what made Star Trek into Star Trek. Star Trek will never work as stand alone movies, it needs a good solid tv show to explore the characters.

Current NuTrek needs to die

Current NuTrek doesn't "need to die." The characters in these films have connections and development that is on part with, if not more dynamic, than TOS ever offered.

Star Trek has had its fair share of action, so the attitude that action somehow isn't "Star Trek" is ridiculous. Kirk had plenty of action hero moments in TOS. In "Friday's Child" he sought revenge on a Klingon for the sake of revenge. How enlightened

Not at the three screenings I attended.

Unpopular opinion, but the popcorn-munching masses aren't exactly where I set my bar.

But, the comment was that the masses are what are hurting Trek's performance at the box office. So, I'll echo the idea that few people at the showing I was at reacted negatively to the "plagiarism" in ST ID. It worked well enough in the story and in the moment that the negativity that I saw was largely after the fact.

 

[Shalashaska]

Current NuTrek doesn't "need to die." The characters in these films have connections and development that is on part with, if not more dynamic, than TOS ever offered.

Star Trek has had its fair share of action, so the attitude that action somehow isn't "Star Trek" is ridiculous. Kirk had plenty of action hero moments in TOS. In "Friday's Child" he sought revenge on a Klingon for the sake of revenge. How enlightened

People say this a lot, and I get it, but you have to admit that it had a bit more substance to it. The Wrath of Khan was just a simple action film with a revenge plot, but it felt a little more... sophisticated than this.

But, the comment was that the masses are what are hurting Trek's performance at the box office. So, I'll echo the idea that few people at the showing I was at reacted negatively to the "plagiarism" in ST ID. It worked well enough in the story and in the moment that the negativity that I saw was largely after the fact.

Ah, okay, I see what you mean. Apologies.

 

[Kemaiku]

But they all groaned together when Spock yelled "Khaaaan!".

Nope, I saw it with a fair sized crowd, they all took it as intended, one or two commenting about Khan being in trouble now. Apparently, only some fans had issue with it, not all of them and certainly not the larger audience. Or at least any audience I've seen it with.

Honestly, until I heard some people complain on this site, I didn't know it was a problem for anyone. But that's how it usually works, most of the detractors I encounter for these movies are a subset of people here.

 

[BillJ]

Unpopular opinion, but the popcorn-munching masses aren't exactly where I set my bar.

Nice. Because people disagree with you, they are popcorn munching masses. No one groaned the three times I saw Into Darkness in the theater.

 

[Shalashaska]

Nice. Because people disagree with you, they are popcorn munching masses. No one groaned the three times I saw Into Darkness in the theater.

Probably because people usually don't visibly groan whenever something they don't like happens.

And, yes, most people who saw the movie were popcorn munching masses. Not because they disagree with me, but because Trekkies alone don't make $467 million for the studio.

That's the problem with fandom anyway.

"It says Spider-Man, here's my money!"
"It has Khan, here's my money!"
"It has Boba Fett, here's my money!"

 

[Kemaiku]

Probably because people usually don't visibly groan whenever something they don't like happens.

Yes, they do.

During the TNG movies, I heard plenty of movie goers make open remarks about things they didn't like. Insurrection, we were all groaning at the jokes, some people literally facepalming.

 

[Visitor1982]

75, 70 and now 60 million US dollars for an US opening weekend... They drove more fans away with NuTrek than some on this board dare to admit.

They're doing something wrong and I hope Paramount will investigate first, before green lighting another movie with even lesser results.

 

[Shalashaska]

75, 70 and now 60 million US dollars for an US opening weekend... They drove more fans away with NuTrek than some on this board dare to admit.

They're doing something wrong and I hope Paramount will investigate first, before green lighting another movie with even lesser results.

Trek always works best with cut costs. I'm actually hoping this next film has a lower budget than the others, as usually, they have to write a somewhat meaty story as they can no longer rely on action to pick up the slack.

Movies aren't about the story anymore, they're about the experience, the immersion into another world. Action set pieces and immersion come first while playing connect-the-dots with the story. It's a carnival ride now. They're no longer entertaining to me as they once were.

Thanks, James Cameron!

 

[BillJ]

75, 70 and now 60 million US dollars for an US opening weekend... They drove more fans away with NuTrek than some on this board dare to admit.

You do realize most sequels trend this way?

 

[Visitor1982]

I'm hoping for a smaller budget, new creative team, new actors, perhaps even a complete reboot. Focus on characters and story. Star Trek will always be a niche market. Paramount has to accept that. By catering to the masses, you do not only not get that audience, you alienate the core audience as well and so you end up with nothing.

Let Star Trek be Star Trek or sell it to a studio who does know what to do with it.

 

[Vger23]

Nice. Because people disagree with you, they are popcorn munching masses. No one groaned the three times I saw Into Darkness in the theater.

There's nothing more distasteful than that elitist arrogance that somehow "Star Trek" fans are more intelligent and enlightened than people who go see a typical summer action movie, and the inference that somehow the "typical summer action movie" is made to appeal to a drooling, ADD teenage soon-to-be dropout. Again, a prime example of why younger people (in general) probably want nothing to do with this franchise.

 

[Shalashaska]

I'm hoping for a smaller budget, new creative team, new actors, perhaps even a complete reboot. Focus on characters and story. Star Trek will always be a niche market. Paramount has to accept that. By catering to the masses, you do not only not get that audience, you alienate the core audience as well and so you end up with nothing.

Let Star Trek be Star Trek or sell it to a studio who does know what to do with it.

The actors are the best thing about these movies. Smaller budget and new creative team seem to be a given with the exception of Abrams coming on as producer.

There's nothing more distasteful than that elitist arrogance that somehow "Star Trek" fans are more intelligent and enlightened than people who go see a typical summer action movie, and the inference that somehow the "typical summer action movie" is made to appeal to a drooling, ADD teenage soon-to-be dropout. Again, a prime example of why younger people (in general) probably want nothing to do with this franchise.

Nice. Putting words in my mouth.

 

[Visitor1982]

You do realize most sequels trend this way?

Star Trek is different. Beyond is Star Trek XIII... Over the years some have done well, others have not. It's not like every new Star Trek movie did worse than The Motion Picture.

 

[Vger23]

Probably because people usually don't visibly groan whenever something they don't like happens.

And, yes, most people who saw the movie were popcorn munching masses. Not because they disagree with me, but because Trekkies alone don't make $467 million for the studio.

That's the problem with fandom anyway.

"It says Spider-Man, here's my money!"
"It has Khan, here's my money!"
"It has Boba Fett, here's my money!"

If it brings other people joy and escapist entertainment, why is that a "problem?"

 

[Therin of Andor]

There were Trek toys in Target even, and that's something I hadn't seen before.

But they didn't sell.

And further, they should've not canceled the Trek '09 universe novels to bring the older Trek fans perhaps more on board.

The tie-in novels are bought by less than 2% of the audience.

I wish they had continued with the Trek young adult novels.

There were four, and they didn't sell.

At least they kept the comics going, but I don't know how widespread or popular those comics are. And I wish they would do more to increase the importance of those comics by adding little bits from them into the films, like they did once with the "Mudd Incident" in Into Darkness.

They did quite a bit of cross pollination. Backstory issue on Keenser, making it clear he would be in STiD and STB. Backstory issue and surname (Hendorff) for "Cupcake", and used in STiD. McCoy's onscreen mention of the pregnant Gorn (the computer game tie-in). Backstory issues on Science Officer 0718. Carol Marcus as a regular character in the comic. Return of Gaila (her brother is the comic's regular Orion security officer).

 

[Shalashaska]

If it brings other people joy and escapist entertainment, why is that a "problem?"

Because it encourages stagnancy.

"Here's a shit story that makes little to no sense, but look over here! There's Khan! And Spock screams "KHAAAAAAN" like in that other movie you all love! This is what you want, right?"

Just not for me. Sorry if that makes you think I'm against change and young people when I'm probably the youngest person on this forum.

 

[Visitor1982]

I don't mind seeing a Star Trek action movie, but there should be more diversity in style and substance. All three NuTrek films are heavily focussed on action. The next one shouldn't be.

 

[Vger23]

The actors are the best thing about these movies. Smaller budget and new creative team seem to be a given with the exception of Abrams coming on as producer.



Nice. Putting words in my mouth.

"but the popcorn-munching masses aren't exactly where I set my bar."

That's what you said.

"Popcorn munching masses" is derogatory. Don't backpedal

"...aren't exactly where I set my bar" is defined as saying that you are above them (quite literally, using the "bar" analogy).

So...what did I miss? You put a group of people down, and you raised yourself above them. Seems to be exactly what I was talking about. That's ok if that's your opinion of both others and self. I just happen to think it's arrogant and derogatory. That's on me.

 

[Vger23]

Because it encourages stagnancy.

"Here's a shit story that makes little to no sense, but look over here! There's Khan! And Spock screams "KHAAAAAAN" like in that other movie you all love! This is what you want, right?"

Just not for me. Sorry if that makes you think I'm against change and young people when I'm probably the youngest person on this forum.

If the purpose of entertainment is to entertain, I'm still not sure what your argument is. Movies are designed to make people happy and entertained / excited. If that is accomplished for "the masses," I'd say the goal has been achieved, despite you personally feeling left out and under-stimulated intellectually.

 

[Shalashaska]

"but the popcorn-munching masses aren't exactly where I set my bar."

That's what you said.

"Popcorn munching masses" is derogatory. Don't backpedal

"...aren't exactly where I set my bar" is defined as saying that you are above them (quite literally, using the "bar" analogy).

So...what did I miss? You put a group of people down, and you raised yourself above them. Seems to be exactly what I was talking about. That's ok if that's your opinion of both others and self. I just happen to think it's arrogant and derogatory. That's on me.

I didn't say they're below me. As I explained in my later posts, I just disagree with them. Anyone can name their villain Khan. It takes a little more talent and effort to write a good story though.

I set my bar above cheap references.