Based on what? The B.O. results from 2 weekends? If things were that simple, we would all be movie execs.
Why didn't Beyond do better at the Box Office?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
- Status
You will eat humble pie in the end... Of that I'm sure.
Who knows why. It's a good film. I'm sure the studio did a really poor job marketing the film. I would suggest thad they released it earlier or later would have helped. I suspect abroad isn't faring well because many foreign economies are struggling. Not to mention all the terrorist attacks in Europe. Would you go to a packed soft target like a theater there right now? I wouldn't. I'm apprehensive enough going here In the states. If it's not a terrorist to worry about it's someone with psych issues which are not being addressed that could go nuts.
I mentioned this as a way to make STB an event. Let people reminisce to create the nostalgia effect. Most Star Trek fans don't really need fond memories of the past to want to see a Star Trek movie. But people who are only casual Trek fans can be motivated to see something by playing on their emotions.
Some people have commented that their friends didn't even know Star Trek was in the theaters. I'll be honest, it snuck up on me (about 3 weeks out when I realized the release date was approaching). I believe they had an already foolproof way of building up a fond awareness of the movie by focusing on the goodwill of the franchise's anniversary. Instead they just seemed to ignore that fact completely. Hell, I would not be in the least surprised if there were former Star Trek fans who are no longer avidly following Star Trek news or the current cinema schedule and still haven't realized this movie is out. Maybe they were on vacation, their kids were getting married, etc. This is such a unique era where TV plays a much smaller part of a person's life than it did just a decade ago. I just don't think the marketing was as effective as it could have been.
The 2009 movie did attract some general moviegoers who were not familiar with the series (more women, a bit younger) but I think it also did a better job of attracting the casual "Trek" fan. People who may have watched some of the shows for a few years and then stopped or caught it in syndication but never became obsessed with the universe, etc. I think that casual Trek fan attendance might have been stronger if it was marketed in a more sentimental manner.
This.
So there much fudging of the numbers in Hollywood accounting, we really have no idea of what was actually spent on the production or the marketing. Just people guessing. About the only numbers we have any kind of real accuracy on is the number of tickets sold.
If it gets a sequel, we'll know it did well enough in the eyes of Paramount and its partners. If it doesn't? Then we know they took a bath on it.
In all reality - even those two outcomes could have a wide variety of motivations behind them.
It could do AMAZING and then for reasons unknown not get a sequel, or it could be "disappointing" but still garner another shot with the same old nuCrew.
I think we can all assume safely there will be a 14th Star Trek film.
That doesn't mean Star Trek Beyond was considered a success though. You think The Final Frontier was a hit or Nemesis? Hopefully we won't have to wait another 7 years or so.
If they're smart, they release the next one at the end of 2018 on a smaller budget.
That doesn't mean Star Trek Beyond was considered a success though. You think The Final Frontier was a hit or Nemesis? Hopefully we won't have to wait another 7 years or so.
If they're smart, they release the next one at the end of 2018 on a smaller budget.
You keep making statements like that, but you never give any reason other than "It's what they did before."
Well, we didn't get a sequel to Nemesis. Paramount pretty much gutted the franchise, and started over.
As far as The Final Frontier goes, there was a glimmer of hope in what was a bad movie...
Add to that, Paramount wanted one more movie done for the 25th anniversary.
It really hasn't been that widely released overseas yet. For example, it hasn't been release in France yet (later this month). And it wouldn't explain say the UK or Australia, two countries where it has been released and saw sharp decreases from the last installment only to have Jason Bourne open the next weekend after it to record weekends for that franchise (and 30-40% higher box office grosses than STB).
The strength of the dollar is a legitimate factor in a lower box office gross, definitely. But actual ticket sales are down and its tough to see a movie like JB follow STB with essentially the same target audience and mop up while Star Trek just quietly fades away. And these are in countries with some of the largest Star Trek fanbases in them too (Australia, UK, Germany)!!!
I will say that the theater audience has been dwindling for years, this is an ongoing trend. Movie theaters might soon go the way of newspapers in terms of cultural relevance. But I don't think that could be considered a defining factor. I think it's more likely just a lack of interest in the Star Trek universe in the countries that it has been released in. I think that's the bottom line. The brand hasn't grown its popularity over the past 7 years to justify anything but a growing apathy toward the subject matter.
I guess numbers isn't your strong suit...
Nor are market conditions yours...
I seriously doubt Paramount spent that much (even factoring in marketing - which honestly, compared to ST:ID and the fact that this is the 50th anniversary year of Star Trek premiering on TV wasn't much - IE there weren't a lot of high profile TV spots.)
In fact I read that because it was filmed in Canada, and because of the association with the Chinese and other production partners for this film, Paramount received between $85 - $100 million in tax breaks and other production cost reductions for this film specifically.
Do I think that they expected/hoped it would do better at the box office? Of course. Do I think they consider it a disaster of say, 'Star Trek: Nemesis' proportions? Hardly. The film is not doing 'spectacularly', but it's doing respectable business - and it's FAR from the low level returns both ST:INS and the near nuclear bomb ST:NEM had.
Hell, it's believed Paramount green lit 'Nu Star Trek 4' prior to STB's release (even though it means they need to renegotiate appearance contracts for all the principal actors as the original deal was for three films; and need to make a new deal for Chris Hemsworth); because they'll get similar production costs and tax breaks for that film as well. They also already have a lot of after market media deals in place for STB as well (IE the usual pay per view, HBO and of premium cable channel deals, etc.)
What numbers? Budgets for large films are closer to fiction than reality, and they disguise reams of data that make the profitability of films a mystery to anyone but studio accountants - B.O. numbers are similarly esoteric and opaque, and the international market's importance to film skews the entire percentage anyway, as does the increasing primacy of streaming and digital downloads.
So your assumptions are based on a simplistic view of opaque and incomplete information.
So far, I haven't heard any plausible reason why Star Trek Beyond is disappointing at the box office, but others like Jason Bourne are not. These movies are in the same universe.
So far I believe the studio has way too high expectations on Star Trek. If Beyond was made on a 100 to 125 million budget, the movie would now be considered a success. For that to happen, we probably would have had a little bit less action and CGI and more character moments, the stuff everyone who loves Beyond is raving about.
So far I believe the studio has way too high expectations on Star Trek. If Beyond was made on a 100 to 125 million budget, the movie would now be considered a success. For that to happen, we probably would have had a little bit less action and CGI and more character moments, the stuff everyone who loves Beyond is raving about.
Movies have been greenlit before that have never seen the light of day. Rick Berman had to have some kind of go-ahead post-Nemesis, to hire a writer and begin work on Star Trek: The Beginning.
The problem being, you don't know that a movie made for $125 million would've drawn the same crowds. Because knocking $75 million off of the budget would make it a completely different film.
So you are building your premise on your subjective viewpoint of the uniformed assumptions of others who are prematurely interpreting incomplete data?
That's a winning formula!
You do realize that Studios don't receive that entire $160 million don't you? They will get about half of the $106m you mention and about 35% of the $55m. In addition to the $185m production budget there is probably another $150-200 million of additional costs for P&A that have to be taken into account. Now there will be revenue on the other side of the theatrical release but they will need to recoup around $335-385 million before they actually start making money.
So right now there is a LONG way to go before Paramount sees any form of "profit".
- Status
Similar threads
