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

[eyeresist]

Wasted energy due to self-induced screw-ups:
Part of the problem is the first trailer created such a negative reaction that the publicists had to concentrate on winning back the core fans, and in the end didn't have a chance to appeal much to anyone who wasn't going to see the movie anyway (except maybe Rihanna fans).

Weak creative work:
The trailers after the first one were ... okay. I don't think any non-fan kid turned to their parents and said "I wanna see that."
The posters were ... pretty. But have a look at the posters the Korean publicists produced!
So much more exciting, just looking at them almost gives me a heart attack:

Saucer crash - Heroes in danger

Strange new world - Fight to survive

(^ The above link titles are my own invention, trying to describe the themes of the images.)

 

[Smellmet]

300m. Maybe 350 if its lucky and china goes nuts for it? That's what we realistically looking at now? Wow. The lowest grossing out of the 3 films when its the 50th anniversary is quite an achievement. Be like Skyfall only doing about 500m. The marketing just didn't get it right particularly that 1st trailer (that the entire population of the planet saw in front of TFA)

I'm gutted. I really did realistically expect 450million plus. I knew deep down it wouldn't do 600+ but these figures have really took me by surprise - or have they? There was always this nagging feeling in the back of my mind that the marketing was insufficient. What a wasted opportunity, with what I think is a great Trek film.

 

[KGator]

Suicide Squad was always guaranteed to earn more money than Beyond. It's a major comic book film with Batman in it.

It wasn't "always guaranteed" but once those trailers hit . . . it took off. Talk about what great marketing can do for a film . . . take a look at Suicide Squad. And the success of Deadpool had a direct impact of how they marketed the film. STB's marketing was . . . . ehhh . . . it didn't inspire me. And as I've stated before the first trailer turned me off while the later trailers brought back interest. Unfortunately, you never get a second chance to make a first impression and I think a lot of people saw that first trailer and decided right then and there they weren't interested.

I think this movie will end up in the 250 - 300 million range world wide. I wouldn't call that a flop, but it isn't a success either and I'm sure with those numbers Paramount will be highly disappointed. However, for a Star Trek movie it isn't that bad, just not what Paramount wants.

I did a quick tally of future release countries. And assuming $90m for China (I think it should do between $90-120m) my estimates are around $185-200m total overseas which would make $340-350m just about the floor for this film. And I even estimated a slight decline in Latin America where I'm hoping the box office will actually GROW! What really gets me is the drop in Asia (I hope that doesn't carry over to China, Japan and South Korea) and in the UK. I mean the UK is looking a 50% drop or more. That is mind boggling. That's even harder to comprehend than the nearly $100 million dollar box office drop in the US between 2009 and 2016. That's crazy!!!

 

[KGator]

I'm gutted. I really did realistically expect 450million plus. I knew deep down it wouldn't do 600+ but these figures have really took me by surprise - or have they? There was always this nagging feeling in the back of my mind that the marketing was insufficient. What a wasted opportunity, with what I think is a great Trek film.

Yeah, I was thinking it would do about the same as STID with domestic dropping some ($190-200m-ish) being made up for by an increase overseas. I in no way expected it to tank in places like the UK, Australia, Russia and Germany. Ugghhh.

 

[Khan 2.0]

I mean the UK is looking a 50% drop or more. That is mind boggling. That's even harder to comprehend than the nearly $100 million dollar box office drop in the US between 2009 and 2016. That's crazy!!!

ST09 was ST09. STID had Sherlock (as khan?). STB had...a crazy bike jump trailer and Idris Elba under a load of make up? (that mustve been why they showed him in those spoiler trailers a few days before release)

 

[timtonruben359]

Yeah, I was thinking it would do about the same as STID with domestic dropping some ($190-200m-ish) being made up for by an increase overseas. I in no way expected it to tank in places like the UK, Australia, Russia and Germany. Ugghhh.

The international box office has been a disappointment and I think Paramount was banking on international returns like they saw with STID.

I really feel the more I look at the bigger picture I think ultimately it's Paramount that really fumbled the ball with Kelvin Trek. We do have to factor in the fact that it appears as the audiences are getting tired of constant sequels and reboots and this summer was a slow one at the box office, but I think the majority of the blame has to go to Paramount.

Others have said this but back in 09 Paramount was very uncertain about how ST09 would be received and in someways it seems like they didn't expect it to be a hit which is part of the reason it took them way too long to release STID. When STID came out the domestic box office returns suggested that Trek had lost some of its audience then but it was the international numbers that really saved ID. Paramount waited too long between movies and has done very little at trying to keep the franchise alive between movies.

Beyond had a troubled production and Paramount did very little to try and put fans concerns at ease and then there was the disastrous first trailer for the movie - you can say whatever you want about that trailer but it was badly received particularly within the fandom. Like I said before Paramount should have tried to salvage the situation but instead it didn't allow any release of new footage until 2 months before the movie's opening which only allowed the negative buzz around the film to grow Others have said this before too but Paramount's strategy appeared to suggest they were not happy or uncertain about the quality of the film. There were no tie-ins to the 50th anniversary - another mistake - and only when positive critical reviews came out did Paramount seem to be more confident about the movie but by then it was too late.

 

[ralph]

Yeah, I was thinking it would do about the same as STID with domestic dropping some ($190-200m-ish) being made up for by an increase overseas. I in no way expected it to tank in places like the UK, Australia, Russia and Germany. Ugghhh.

I believe in $ 150/160 million domestic, at most. Box office overseas, I don´t know, but I predict a value less than $ 200 million. Maybe $ 150/170 million (I'm optimistic). So, Worldwide: $ 300/350 million. Unhappily.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Who exactly are the "core fans" who allegedly were so "negatively affected" by the first trailer that the studio had to "win them back" with subsequent marketing?

 

[Khan 2.0]

some BO estimates here (500-600m range )
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/st3-box-office.254869/

 

[Smellmet]

some BO estimates here (500-600m range )
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/st3-box-office.254869/

How wrong we all were.

 

[jamestyler]

Who exactly are the "core fans" who allegedly were so "negatively affected" by the first trailer that the studio had to "win them back" with subsequent marketing?

They're the only ones that matter, so I'm told. By 'core fans'. Everyone who liked it or watched anyway don't count.

 

[ralph]

Suicide Squad probably won't be released In China. I think is good for Star Trek.

 

[drt]

Beyond had a troubled production and Paramount did very little to try and put fans concerns at ease and then there was the disastrous first trailer for the movie - you can say whatever you want about that trailer but it was badly received particularly within the fandom. Like I said before Paramount should have tried to salvage the situation but instead it didn't allow any release of new footage until 2 months before the movie's opening which only allowed the negative buzz around the film to grow Others have said this before too but Paramount's strategy appeared to suggest they were not happy or uncertain about the quality of the film. There were no tie-ins to the 50th anniversary - another mistake - and only when positive critical reviews came out did Paramount seem to be more confident about the movie but by then it was too late.

I think we need to look at it from Paramount's point-of-view, they saw the reaction to the first trailer (where use of the movie's climatic song was HATED) and thought, "Whelp, we're fucked", then decided not to throw good money after bad.

 

[Jedi_Master]

This "negative reaction" to the first trailer is becoming a self-sustaining myth. There was comments on the Internet (you -tube, facebook, places like this site) that were negative, but the "negatives" were not a majority, there were plenty of fans who loved the first trailer, and there has never been ANY objective proof that the first trailer caused a "backlash." NONE.

 

[drt]

While the likes to dislikes ratio on sites like YouTube were on the whole positive, the ratio was alarming - and the resulting spin in the popculture media was decidedly negative. I discounted it at the time, but now begrudgingly have to admit it may have been a factor. After all, there's that old saying about only getting one chance to make a first impression.

 

[Jedi_Master]

"The Pop culture media" that I saw reporting on the "negative" reaction never reached above the level of click-bait spam sites.

 

[NCC-1967]

Firstly, let me just say that I am a fan of the Kelvin timeline, so this won't be a biased "JJ raped my childhood" rant. But I think we all have to admit that Star Trek is no longer popular. At least not popular enough to rake the huge bucks other franchises have. Heck, even such dross as BvS (or, as I like to call it, Bull V Shit) managed to gross more than 800 mill worldwide, and Suicide Squad is poised to smash records

 

[psCargile]

Put some Pokemons in those theatres and you won't be able to get Millennials out of them. Just figure out a way to con them into buying tickets.

But movies in general aren't doing well. I'm 47, and you need to do something really special to peak my interest enough to want to go sit in a theatre and watch. I've ready seen much of the same plots, and of late sci-fi and superhero plots are centered around keeping the McGuffin from being used to kill scores of people. I enjoyed Beyond, and saw it in the theatre, but there is nothing new there. If older Gen Xers are like me, we're finding new stuff harder to find interesting. And it seems that Gen X directors are more interested in going for nostalgia and tapping the 80s. Uh. . .been there, done that, what else do you have? Can't speak for Millennials, but it seems like they have a lot more to do socially that sit in theatres. Entertainment is On Demand, and scheduled movie times aren't. I enjoy watching what I want, when I want as well. And if the core movie goers aren't interested in what is being made, movie makers need to figure out what they like. Right now quality television is kicking ass. And viewers don't have a problem marathoning. The dynamic has changed. The expensive movies can't recoup, they're going to have to go back to cheap, 90 minute movies.

 

[fireproof78]

"The Pop culture media" that I saw reporting on the "negative" reaction never reached above the level of click-bait spam sites.

Exactly. A bunch of click-bait with little to no substantive reporting or facts to back it up.

This feels like STID all over again where the "fans hated it" was reported all over the place and cast a general malaise over the enjoyment of the film. It's ridiculous that box office numbers create this hang up over the film. Paramount fumbled the marketing, I'll grant that. But, I'm not going to sit there and wish they had done better. I'm going to tell people it was a good film and go see it.

 

[jamestyler]

It was a good film. A bloody good film.

The 'fans hated it' is an easy story to pick up as the loudest voices are the ones who hate everything. The need to bring things down because it's not 1966 any more is overwhelming. Not enough to cause this downturn - but it's a small contributor.

What intrigues me is the advertising. It's been good for fans in the short run up - but if it had the tie ins Ghostbusters had it would have been a lot better. London's major transport hub being transformed and posters everywhere urging you to call the freephone number did a lot for even those hating that film before the camera's rolled.

Beyond's felt very.... internet focused.