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

[BillJ]

As if they're listening to Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons instead of all the positive praise and end up trying to speak to that minority and forget about the rest. In a way the pro=Trek praise seems really isolating.

Ever since that convention where 100 people voted Into Darkness the worst Trek movie ever, Paramount has seemed schizophrenic about the property.

Ditched the Orci script because it was "too Trek", brought in an action-adventure ace director, released an action-adventure trailer, fans cry, then point the trailers at fans and ignore general audiences.

They are all over the place.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I think it's a symptom of a greater disease.

Paramount is in trouble. I don't know what the contract is like, but I think, if at all financially feasible, it's time for CBS to cut bait.

Heck, it might even be time for Bad Robot to try standing on its own.

 

[Dream]

My theater stopped showing Star Trek to make room to show that cat shit...

SO glad I managed to catch a matinee of Trek on Thursday before it was gone, just 14 days for Trek at my theater which has to be a record for nonflop. I doubt Trek was doing THAT badly!

 

[Cyrus]

Those complaining about marketing may have a point. I am a hardcore fan that had seen every previous Trek movie in the opening weekend. But I didn't see Beyond until yesterday (was last chance to see it in IMAX). So I did contribute my $17 to help the boxoffice. But man have the ticket prices increased. I remember paying $5 for TMP, and that was after a $1 raise the theater did for that movie.

 

[KGator]

But, shouldn't Star Trek fans have been smarter about that trailer? Knowing that it was designed for general audiences?

I loved the first trailer, and like most trailers, knew that those ninety seconds wouldn't be the whole of a two hour movie. On reflection, the third trailer was very sedate (I liked it, but not as much as the first one) and there was no way it was going to draw in younger audiences.

But did it even hit a chord with the Fast and Furious fan? Whoever they were trying to target didn't seem to show up. I would think if you are going to try and go after a similar fanbase try to pull some of the Guardians of the Galaxy subset or Star Wars groupies (space based Scifi) . . . not promote something in such a way that it more closely resembles a Fast and the Furious or Mad Max type action flick.

 

[johnjm22]

Ever since that convention where 100 people voted Into Darkness the worst Trek movie ever, Paramount has seemed schizophrenic about the property.

If Paramount even knows about that incident (which I doubt), I don't think it's had any impact on their decision making. They decided from the beginning that these films were going to be big budget action movies, and that's what all 3 of them have been.

 

[donners22]

There's no need to send your people out there to say "This is more Trek than ever before!" Just say it's a bloody good film and loads of fun and games and shift tickets - any Trekness we'll see?

That's the same concern I have with the reviews.

Was just reading one in a popular magazine which was gushing about how different it was to the last two and that it was like a big budget episode. The thing is that the last two were popular and well received by people outside the hardcore fanbase. Reviews like this feel like, "You know how you liked those last two films? Well this one is totally different! It's like an expensive episode of a 50-year-old TV series! Oh, and you're dumb for liking those last two."

Great way to alienate the people who had come on board in the last few years.

 

[johnjm22]

The problem with the marketing is two things IMO:
(1) The marketing is targeted at people who aren't going to watch the movie anyways. This type of marketing simultaneously makes the movie look less appealing to people that only having a passing interest Trek, and may have been interested in seeing the movie.

(2) By trailer standards, the first trailer was subpar. Regardless of whether it's general audiences seeing it or not. First impressions matter a lot. And for months the only thing out there for this movie was a trailer that made it look completely generic and small relative to everything else coming out.

 

[Franklin]

I may not agree with the notion that the summer marketplace is full of films equally lacking in substance, but I do feel that we are reaching the end the appeal of sequels and franchises. People are getting weary, and they might still go, but aren't all that excited.

I'd say a certain sameness spreads across it all. Even in the last three Trek movies.
ST09 = driven crazed and amoral baddie looking for vengeance; just wants to watch the world burn.
STID = amoral baddie becoming crazed and looking for vengeance; wants to burn worlds and conquer them.
STB = driven crazed and amoral baddie looking for vengeance; just wants to watch the world burn.

In my opinion, something in Trek went monotonic when it went to the big screen, even with the new movies. The openness of the Trek format and the strength of its main characters lends itself to many different types of good story-telling, even within an action and adventure genre. The best Trek stories, TOS or otherwise, often involved imaginative or complex antagonists who drove the conflict, but couldn't really be called villains and certainly weren't evil or amoral. Think "The Doomsday Machine", "The City on the Edge of Forever", "Balance of Terror", "The Enterprise Incident", "Journey to Babel", "Devil in the Dark", "The Ultimate Computer".
Could stories like those (not any one of them, specifically), with unusual conflicts and antagonists who create ambivalence, be taken to the big screen as a "Star Trek" movie? I'd think so. I think lately Trek hasn't been using as many colors as it has at its disposal in its Crayon box. And, if box office preferences are changing, and people are growing weary of "constant noise, speed, and and explosions," then I'd think of all the franchises out there right now, "Star Trek" is one most adaptable to those changing preferences.

 

[wayoung]

I'd argue this movie wasn't that different from the others at all, merely executed better. Everything in it has been done in other Trek movies - often more than once! The sameness is why I didn't go see it until yesterday, and even so I only went because I got a free ticket with my TwoK disc exchange. Otherwise I was going to see it in the drive in (which I missed) or on Netflix. After seeing it it was fine, had my favourite moments of all NuTreks, but I couldn't tell people to see it in theatre's.

The marketing failed miserably. A lot of my friends didn't even know there was a new Trek movie out until I mentioned it to them, and these are sci - fi fans.

There just doesn't seem to be any excitement for it.

 

[BillJ]

But did it even hit a chord with the Fast and Furious fan? Whoever they were trying to target didn't seem to show up. I would think if you are going to try and go after a similar fanbase try to pull some of the Guardians of the Galaxy subset or Star Wars groupies (space based Scifi) . . . not promote something in such a way that it more closely resembles a Fast and the Furious or Mad Max type action flick.

I don't know? That first trailer came out seven months ago, then Paramount went silent and completely switched gears.

Tough to know when they abandoned that line of marketing almost as quickly as they started it.

 

[KGator]

As expected, Suicide Squad is blowing up. Expect another steep drop this weekend and hopefully STB will stabilize next weekend.

 

[BillJ]

If Paramount even knows about that incident (which I doubt), I don't think it's had any impact on their decision making. They decided from the beginning that these films were going to be big budget action movies, and that's what all 3 of them have been.

I'm sure they know as it was reported across multiple entertainment sites, including Entertainment Weekly.

 

[BillJ]

As expected, Suicide Squad is blowing up. Expect another steep drop this weekend and hopefully STB will stabilize next weekend.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/suicide_squad_2016/

26% percent review score, but 74% liked it and it has a 3.9/5 score based on 68,000+ user scores.

Beyond is 84%/84% with a 4/5 stars but only 52,000 user scores after two weeks in release.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_beyond/

 

[urbandefault]

Maybe it's time for Paramount to take a step back, stop trying to cater to a focus group market, and just make a Star Trek Movie.

 

[Phily B]

Big blockbusters seem to be heading into a sorry state, we're heading towards a few years of comic book movies and generic Star Wars movies in the Marvel mold. No other movies seem to be making great deals of money. Wouldn't mind smaller stories with this cast to be honest with a smaller budget, I really enjoyed Beyond but there are many things you could've cut and the movie wouldn't have been much worse - I could've done without the bike part.

 

[Khan 2.0]

That's the same concern I have with the reviews.

Was just reading one in a popular magazine which was gushing about how different it was to the last two and that it was like a big budget episode. The thing is that the last two were popular and well received by people outside the hardcore fanbase. Reviews like this feel like, "You know how you liked those last two films? Well this one is totally different! It's like an expensive episode of a 50-year-old TV series! Oh, and you're dumb for liking those last two."

Great way to alienate the people who had come on board in the last few years.

yes exactly like a traditional two part episode with the destruction of the enterprise, death of Spock, a new Enterprise, and a sprawling no expense spared Syd Mead-esque space station

just like a big budget two part episode!!

 

[BillJ]

They definitely did a better job marketing Star Trek (2009) and Into Darkness.

 

[BillJ]

Maybe it's time for Paramount to take a step back, stop trying to cater to a focus group market, and just make a Star Trek Movie.

Star Trek is a pretty flexible format, maybe some kind of universe spanning medical drama. Virus on the loose, could still work in several set pieces to satisfy the action crowd.

 

[Smellmet]

I'd say a certain sameness spreads across it all. Even in the last three Trek movies.
ST09 = driven crazed and amoral baddie looking for vengeance; just wants to watch the world burn.
STID = amoral baddie becoming crazed and looking for vengeance; wants to burn worlds and conquer them.
STB = driven crazed and amoral baddie looking for vengeance; just wants to watch the world burn.

In my opinion, something in Trek went monotonic when it went to the big screen, even with the new movies. The openness of the Trek format and the strength of its main characters lends itself to many different types of good story-telling, even within an action and adventure genre. The best Trek stories, TOS or otherwise, often involved imaginative or complex antagonists who drove the conflict, but couldn't really be called villains and certainly weren't evil or amoral. Think "The Doomsday Machine", "The City on the Edge of Forever", "Balance of Terror", "The Enterprise Incident", "Journey to Babel", "Devil in the Dark", "The Ultimate Computer".
Could stories like those (not any one of them, specifically), with unusual conflicts and antagonists who create ambivalence, be taken to the big screen as a "Star Trek" movie? I'd think so. I think lately Trek hasn't been using as many colors as it has on its disposal in its Crayon box. And, if box office preferences are changing, and people are growing weary of "constant noise, speed, and and explosions," then I'd think of all the franchises out there right now, "Star Trek" is one most adaptable to those changing preferences.

I think you've made a great point there. As much as I've enjoyed the kelvin movies you can't deny they've become slightly formulaic.