Oh, I agree. They've just not exhibited much to give me any confidence that they could pull a less frantic movie. It would have to be considerably better written, made and acted than what we've had so far.
Why didn't Beyond do better at the Box Office?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
- Status
Star Trek Beyond was originally scheduled for July 8, 2016.
I think that would have been a MUCH better date than what we got with July 22. More days in the summer and it would have had 21 days to itself before being hit by Jason Bourne, and 28 days before before being hit by Suicide Squad.
I think that would have been a MUCH better date than what we got with July 22. More days in the summer and it would have had 21 days to itself before being hit by Jason Bourne, and 28 days before before being hit by Suicide Squad.
No kidding. The reactions to Rihanna's "Why I Love Star Trek" video was fucking embarrassing. Clearly these dorks never learned this simple rule: When a hot chick says she loves Star Trek, do not question it. Just roll with it.
Last edited:
That's pretty bad. A 60% drop your second weekend generally means your film is fairly frontloaded, and will likely see a similar drop in week three, but should eventually stabilize in later. However, given next week sees the release of Suicide Squad which will be appealing to the same demographic, it could result in a box office death spiral for Beyond. This film will struggle to make $160 million domestically, and it isn't exactly killing it in foreign markets either.
There are more than a few reasons for the state of Star Trek Beyond's box office:
1) A truly bad release schedule. Late July releases are often a dumpster fire for studios looking to cash in at the last minute on films (often of dubious quality), and while Mission Impossible was a huge hit last year for Paramount with a similar release schedule, MI had more of a track record with mainstream audiences and Tom Cruise is still a big international star. Then add surprise hits like Life of Pets with the pending release of Jason Bourne and Suicide Squad, and you have a crowded field to compete against.
2) Star Trek as a brand, historically, does not equate the mega box office Paramount is seeking. Consider the Kelvin Timeline at it apex with Into Darkness, still managed less money worldwide than Marvel's little known property, Ant Man; not exactly a house hold name, and was a film many predicted would be the beginning of the end of the super hero film fad.
3) Paramount needs to temper their box office expectations, along with cutting budgets. Paramount needs to come to terms with the fact that Trek is NEVER going to be the $700 million worldwide money making tentpole they are looking for. Transformers can fill that void, Trek will never be that franchise. But with the right script, and a solid, entertaining film, Star Trek can easily bring in $380-460 million worldwide with each outing. Unfortunately, with a $180 million budget the potential for profits are greatly diminished. The old Hollywood standard is that for a film to be profitable after all the expenses of production, promotion, and distribution, a film needs to make roughly 2 to 2 1/2 times its budget for the studio to break even. In other words, for Paramount to see a profit from Beyond (with its budget of $180 million), the movie needs to gross, at a minimum, $360 million worldwide (and realistically that number is probably much higher), and with US box office fizzling that puts the perceived success of the film in jeopardy.
The reality is the so-called boycott of Beyond had nothing to do with what is going on with Beyond's box office. It was a poor release schedule, mixed with some lazy promotion of the film, and Paramount's overly ambitious expectations that will ultimately sink the film franchise. If they can go back, reorganize, and find a director who can bring an entertaining Trek film in on a max budget of $120 million, then the future of the film part of the franchise will be secure. But as long as Paramount throws huge budgets at Trek, the perception will be Trek is under performing. The fact is its not... Trek is basically doing similar box office to past Trek films when you adjust for inflation. The only difference is Paramount is spending way more money than before and are expecting far bigger returns than any Trek film has in franchise history.
Consider for a moment the Trek film that is generally considered the best of the franchise, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. In today's dollars TWoK would have grossed $232 million at the box office in the US alone, at a cost of only $28 million (announced budget was $11.2 million). $180-250 million domestic takes, with another $200 million overseas are realistic numbers that the Star Trek movie franchise can achieve, anything beyond that (no pun intended) is simply wishful thinking on Paramount's part.
EDIT: For the person who brought up the original July 8th release date. Not sure that would have been that much better as that was opening weekend for Secret Life of Pets which was a buzzsaw. June 24th would probably have been better, and you would have had the July 4th weekend the following week. However, I suspect the studio thought Independence Day was going to be huge, so they avoided it, but ID fell flat and bombed. Honestly looking back, July 1st would have probably been the optimal release date for Beyond.
Yancy
Last edited:
Fair enough about the lack of profitability for the toys and young adult novels. But the 2% number of people who buy books doesn't mean here for me because if this was not profitable, if it didn't reach Trek fans, they wouldn't continue publishing the books. I think the tie-in novels could have the potential to appeal to Trek fans who might not be fans of the movies per se but interested in the universe, or vice versa. Also the tie-in novels could keep interest going among the fans of the new films, keeping an ember glowing during the long periods between movies.
As for cross pollination it seems to go one way. I do like that the comics elaborate on some characters and situations in the films, but we haven't seen much of that going the other way, where things from the comics or characters-even background characters-from the comics show up in the movies.
And we're supposed to care? Trek fandom isn't a political party and it's not our job to create a big tent.
It's not, but if you want any more produced, generating interest ain't a bad idea !
Which is the standpoint of the movie studios, not the average fan. Fans are under no obligation to be unwavering evangelists.
This is SO not true. Some of the movies you cite have had huge, public tax write-offs. Like any investment, some are good and some are bad. Lots of movies have lost millions even after going through all their revenue streams. In fact, video sales, streaming and television rights are directly proportional to a films general popularity at the box office. Television fees are based directly on box office. The higher your box office results the higher fees you can get for subscription and commercial distribution rights.
The movie industry is not some kind of zero risk investment market where everyone just gets all there money back from some benevolent entity if they make a movie that bombs. If that kind of market really existed . . . .who would invest anywhere else?
I think it basically comes down to the fact the newness and excitement of the reboot idea has already worn off for mainstream audiences, and that by this point it's become "just another Star Trek movie". And Beyond certainly had the look of just another typical Trek adventure, with the only major event, the destruction of the Enterprise, already given away repeatedly in the trailers. What was left just didn't look all that captivating or original.
And I wouldn't be surprised if the disappointment over STID hadn't taken some of the luster off the reboot idea as well for many people.
And I wouldn't be surprised if the disappointment over STID hadn't taken some of the luster off the reboot idea as well for many people.
Shit, I need to get into this movie business if everything I make will eventually turn a profit.
Pretty much bang on.
Finding Dory, Deadpool, The Jungle Book, The Secret Life of Pets, Zootopia. Other than Jason Bourne, which so far is doing better than expected, it looks like the year is mostly animation and comic book heroes.
Last edited:
I had to go to the next city over to see it in 3D, as it was the only one for 37 miles showing it that way. My local town had the 2D only at an hour later each time.
I checked because I wanted to see it again tomorrow, our local has already dropped all but the 17:30 and 20:30 showings. They've never done that to my knowledge.
Finding Dory and another kids movie have nearly all the screens booked all the way to Suicide Squad's release next week. They literally only had 1 week of daytime showings of Beyond.
If other cinemas did the same thing, I can see the problem. >
I checked because I wanted to see it again tomorrow, our local has already dropped all but the 17:30 and 20:30 showings. They've never done that to my knowledge.
Finding Dory and another kids movie have nearly all the screens booked all the way to Suicide Squad's release next week. They literally only had 1 week of daytime showings of Beyond.
If other cinemas did the same thing, I can see the problem. >
Our local still has it scheduled for eight times a day (until Thursday at least). They've entirely dropped the 3d version though.
(As competition, for this week though, it's got Bourne, Dory, and BFG with more showings. Ghostbusters, Ice Age, Secret Life of Pets and Central Intelligence have some slots too)
(As competition, for this week though, it's got Bourne, Dory, and BFG with more showings. Ghostbusters, Ice Age, Secret Life of Pets and Central Intelligence have some slots too)
No, it's not the Trek Fans leaving the franchise. Insurrection sold about 14 million tickets. Nemesis sold about 7 million. These movies were mostly propped up by the hard core Trek fans. So you are probably talking in the range of 8-12 million true ST fans nationally. It is the OTHER 25 million tickets that ST09 sold to casual fans that we are losing. If the Star Trek franchise lost half its core fans but kept the casual fans from the reboot things would be fine. On the other hand, Star Trek losing half the casual fans while keeping most of its core Trekkies still puts the franchise on the shelf.
The NOSTALGIA factor brought in a lot of casual fans to the reboot, that's what made it such a success. Based on current projections, STB will sell an estimated 17-19 million tickets. That's a reduction of 15+ million tickets from Star Trek 2009. Guess what group of fans we are losing? It isn't the Trek fan base. There weren't 15 million core Trek fans to begin with.
It's clear by the drop this weekend that Star Trek seems to have lost 'general audience' viewers.
I read a couple of things on some entertainment and box office tracking sites and the consensus is that while Beyond is a disappointment, it's not a franchise sinker but rather a franchise re-thinker. Paramount is clearly going to have reexamine all aspects of this movie and how to proceed going forward. The most likely scenario is Star Trek 4 which has already been green-lit will face a lower budget my guess is around $130 million (the thinking in Hollywood these days is that you cannot make a blockbuster for less than $100 million).
I don't think this is a total surprise to Paramount though because all indications going into Beyond was that the domestic box office would be lower, but they seem to have been counting on a higher international box office like STID and that doesn't seem to be happening for them. The international Trek records set but STID seems to be a fluke (I think some of the European success had to do with Benedict Cumberbatch who has a huge following).
A couple of sites seem to agree with a lot of the feedback here that Paramount blundered the promotion for this movie. In fact, Paramount seems to have treated Beyond like a dud and seemed surprised that the movie was the critical hit it has been. The last minute marketing campaign seemed to suggest Paramount wasn't confident in this movie. The reaction to the original teaser trailer was overwhelmingly negative and Paramount should have released a second trailer within weeks rather than waiting months, which allowed concern to grow within the fandom. Added to the fact that Paramount didn't take advantage of the 50th anniversary when promoting Beyond. The lack of promotion failed to make buzz around this movie and the little buzz that there was around it until the second trailer came out was mostly negative and added fueled by Beyond's troubled production start.
Added to this is Paramount has been ineffective and keeping the franchise alive between films (the 4 and 3 years gaps are too long in the modern crowded market). I know Star Trek is a different animal than Marvel movies or even Star Wars who have new movies every year but Paramount needed more to keep the buzz going.
Star Trek will never be a mainstream blockbuster, Star Wars wears the crown for sci-fi franchises, but the 09 movie did create a lot of more casual fans but they seem to have slipped away now. I also wonder if Beyond was the right movie for the 50th anniversary. There just didn't seem to be anything special about - it's a good movie but maybe not what was needed for this anniversary.
I read a couple of things on some entertainment and box office tracking sites and the consensus is that while Beyond is a disappointment, it's not a franchise sinker but rather a franchise re-thinker. Paramount is clearly going to have reexamine all aspects of this movie and how to proceed going forward. The most likely scenario is Star Trek 4 which has already been green-lit will face a lower budget my guess is around $130 million (the thinking in Hollywood these days is that you cannot make a blockbuster for less than $100 million).
I don't think this is a total surprise to Paramount though because all indications going into Beyond was that the domestic box office would be lower, but they seem to have been counting on a higher international box office like STID and that doesn't seem to be happening for them. The international Trek records set but STID seems to be a fluke (I think some of the European success had to do with Benedict Cumberbatch who has a huge following).
A couple of sites seem to agree with a lot of the feedback here that Paramount blundered the promotion for this movie. In fact, Paramount seems to have treated Beyond like a dud and seemed surprised that the movie was the critical hit it has been. The last minute marketing campaign seemed to suggest Paramount wasn't confident in this movie. The reaction to the original teaser trailer was overwhelmingly negative and Paramount should have released a second trailer within weeks rather than waiting months, which allowed concern to grow within the fandom. Added to the fact that Paramount didn't take advantage of the 50th anniversary when promoting Beyond. The lack of promotion failed to make buzz around this movie and the little buzz that there was around it until the second trailer came out was mostly negative and added fueled by Beyond's troubled production start.
Added to this is Paramount has been ineffective and keeping the franchise alive between films (the 4 and 3 years gaps are too long in the modern crowded market). I know Star Trek is a different animal than Marvel movies or even Star Wars who have new movies every year but Paramount needed more to keep the buzz going.
Star Trek will never be a mainstream blockbuster, Star Wars wears the crown for sci-fi franchises, but the 09 movie did create a lot of more casual fans but they seem to have slipped away now. I also wonder if Beyond was the right movie for the 50th anniversary. There just didn't seem to be anything special about - it's a good movie but maybe not what was needed for this anniversary.
Last edited:
I was there when Star Trek IV premiered. There was talk then, like now, if Star Trek would reach a mainstream audience. Star Trek IV became a mainstream blockbuster, and is considered as one of the better movies. Its success led to the spinoff series and more movies.
The money for many movies comes from overseas, and the overseas market does not get Star Trek. This is clear in the marketing sessions that Paramount did before Star Trek: Into Darkness. One of the suggestions that came from these sessions was for Spock to lose the ears.
Talking about botched execution - Star Trek Beyond was to be a rollout of sorts for the Barco Escape. As someone who saw the film this way, I can tell you it was a disappointment. The theater I went to literally shoved the additional screens into one of their smallest auditoriums, so that the two side screens were not deployed fully. I did not get the experience I was promised, and, if I wonder about the people who had not seen the film earlier, how much did the poor execution of this screening influenced their opinion of the film.
Timtonruben359, Star Trek Beyond was not the film for the 50th anniversary. I heard it described as not being significant enough for this anniversary. A film that was significant and showed respect for its franchise anniversary was the James Bond flick Skyfall, which grossed over $1 billion worldwide.
The money for many movies comes from overseas, and the overseas market does not get Star Trek. This is clear in the marketing sessions that Paramount did before Star Trek: Into Darkness. One of the suggestions that came from these sessions was for Spock to lose the ears.
Talking about botched execution - Star Trek Beyond was to be a rollout of sorts for the Barco Escape. As someone who saw the film this way, I can tell you it was a disappointment. The theater I went to literally shoved the additional screens into one of their smallest auditoriums, so that the two side screens were not deployed fully. I did not get the experience I was promised, and, if I wonder about the people who had not seen the film earlier, how much did the poor execution of this screening influenced their opinion of the film.
Timtonruben359, Star Trek Beyond was not the film for the 50th anniversary. I heard it described as not being significant enough for this anniversary. A film that was significant and showed respect for its franchise anniversary was the James Bond flick Skyfall, which grossed over $1 billion worldwide.
People keep saying "Star Trek will never be a mainstream blockbuster".
I don't agree with this. I thinks it's possible. Although it depends on your definition of blockbuster I suppose.
When TWOK was released, it had the largest opening weekend gross in history. It was the 6th highest grossing film of the year. That's not a mainstream blockbuster? TMP and TVH were both the 5th highest grossing films of the years they were released in. How are these not blockbusters?
I know people will argue against what I'm saying by alluding to the fact that times have changed, audiences have changed ect., but even ST2009 was the 7th highest grossing film domestically of that year. It didn't get pushed overseas the way STiD was, or else I think it would have put up really good box office numbers.
I don't agree with this. I thinks it's possible. Although it depends on your definition of blockbuster I suppose.
When TWOK was released, it had the largest opening weekend gross in history. It was the 6th highest grossing film of the year. That's not a mainstream blockbuster? TMP and TVH were both the 5th highest grossing films of the years they were released in. How are these not blockbusters?
I know people will argue against what I'm saying by alluding to the fact that times have changed, audiences have changed ect., but even ST2009 was the 7th highest grossing film domestically of that year. It didn't get pushed overseas the way STiD was, or else I think it would have put up really good box office numbers.
I'm using the modern Hollywood definition of blockbuster which is a big rip roaring action movie (popcorn movie) that draws in a lot of viewers with easy to follow plots that can be translated easily overseas.
- Status
Similar threads
