And Marcus was killed by Khan. Also his weapon of sorts.
Why didn't Beyond do better at the Box Office?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
- Status
And Marcus was killed by Khan. Also his weapon of sorts.
It's a bizzare one. I had someone (far removed from fandom) tell me they hated the movie before they went in because of that feeling, and that it was the same old Trek film. Later on they told me they weren't actually paying attention and thus missed an hour of it - but the preconception of "Oh, that boring Trek thing?" seems to have been a weird contributor.
Which annoys me as this preconception is idolised and pandered to by people who like to cling onto the Next Generation stoic nature of the Trekverse and not the more exciting, silly and often very fun original version of it.
"This is for the fans!" and that type of marketting, interviews etc doesn't inspire a new audience to come and latch on. Speaking to the abrasive few to win over the majority is ridiculous - the franchise needs to capture an audience for the next 50 years, not worry about who's going to be complaining anyway.
I liked the bike part - in fact, taking it down a few notches would accentuate the problem. What what people rather see? The flashy awesome Star Wars and Thor 3, or the chess game in Space Trek 4? Star Trek's got the budget to realise ideas it had to avoid before - let it look awesome, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Marvel films aren't special at all. I say that as a big fan of them - theyre a lot of fun overall. But Ant Man is a great example of a mediocre film thats decidedly average benefiting solely from the Marvel marketing machine.
The scale of Trek doesn't really matter at all. The scale of marketing does - if anything could be learned from Paramounts perspective it's not to slash budgets or to hit the panic button, but just look at how Disney-Marvel and even Fox-Marvel make these films exciting before they happen.
I don't know if it's just me, but movies seem less formulaic than ever before these days.
Look at the single best trilogy of all time. No, not Star Wars, the other one! Back to the Future had pretty much the same formula and elements in all three films. By the third you knew the manure was coming, and it was glorious. You knew the photo would not only go back to normal, but show a better future. Once the base template is set, you can enjoy the callbacks, building on the formula and it becomes a satisfying experience.
Now films are always struggling to be different from the last one. Instead of following a narrative or building on the foundations of whats come before, each one has to be bigger and bolder and - not just with Star Trek, but with a lot of franchises - every complaint is suddenly given a platform where the crew and producers etc start to apologise for being alive and promising the next one will be different.
Well Friday's numbers are in and Beyond dropped to 5th place with $2.6 million that's a drop of 61% from last Friday.
Here are the totals:
1. Suicide Squad $65 million
2. Bourne $6.5 million (a drop of 71% from last Friday)
3. Bad Moms 4.5 million
4. Secret Life of Pets $3.3 million
5. Star Trek Beyond $2.6 million
Bourne appears to be on track to drop in a similar fashion to what Beyond did in its second weekend. Beyond will likely limp to $150 million US domestic box office.
Here are the totals:
1. Suicide Squad $65 million
2. Bourne $6.5 million (a drop of 71% from last Friday)
3. Bad Moms 4.5 million
4. Secret Life of Pets $3.3 million
5. Star Trek Beyond $2.6 million
Bourne appears to be on track to drop in a similar fashion to what Beyond did in its second weekend. Beyond will likely limp to $150 million US domestic box office.
Then Beyond will probably not make 300 million world wide.
Far from it, it shows Marvel's remarkable ability to take B list characters and use them in a way to create hugely enjoyable movies, something DC is proving unable to do with Suicide Squad.
I'd put Ant Man up there amongst my favourite Marvel movies along with Guardians (another B lister), Avengers, Winter Soldier and from the looks of the trailer, possibly fellow B lister Doctor Strange.
I'd rather watch any of those again than ST Beyond.
Well if that's the case, than these reboot films are pretty much done. No ST4, and we probably won't be seeing another Star Trek film for a long long time.
If we aren't going to see a live action ST4, is there any possibility of an animated ST4?
Yeah, I don't see how it makes $300 million. Like Sony did with Ghostbusters, announcing a sequel in advance was really a promotional maneuver meant to drum up business. In both instances those attempts failed, and unfortunately in the case of STB it will be a money loser for Paramount... not sure how they justify ST4 unless they drastically cut the budget.
As a BTTF fanatic I think BTTF succeeded because they weren't afraid to deviate from the formula. Back to the Future 2 (my favorite movie of all time) was bigger and bolder, it was darker and featured time travel to multiple periods. For the first time it featured running into doubles, more complicated paradoxes, and trusted that the audience could understand it. They took risks with that one.
Where the BTTF trilogy stumbled, Back to the Future 3 tried to return to the same formula of being stuck in one time period, it didn't attempt much and that is why it's mostly panned or forgotten, remembered as the worst of the trilogy. That shows that just relying on the formula is not enough imo.
With star trek, you can catch the general audience while doing so much more than Kirk riding a motorcycle around.
SS complaints aside, pointing out that a B List player gained success through remarkable advertising is pretty much what I'm saying. On the whole Ant Man was an unknown. They pushed hard to make sure people were interested and put bums in seats. Bums ended up in seats. Not because of the quality of the film, but because... marketing.
In terms of story it was nothing special, nothing revolutionary and nothing new in the greater Marvel universe. It was enjoyable, but the reason people found that out wasn't because it was good. It was because Marvel got you excited to see the B Player and got people to part with their money.
Even things like the tiny billboards and Ant Man sized ads gained a lot of attention.
I shall hear no bad words on BTTF3! It's my favourite western! I've always found 2 is very off in it's pacing. I think it's gets more of a pass because at the time we all thought it was cool seeing the wacky future. As a kid thats all I remember everyone talking about and I think it just captured a bigger strand of imagination whereas the third was just a nice story.
Thats likely personal taste though - as I got older 2 seemed less appealing and I enjoyed 3 more. Strangely I went through the exact same thing more recently with Iron Man films, and now IM3 is a favourite for the Tony without the Toys angle.
I think the second promo was the better one in those terms. The bike was an easy to latch onto complaint, but I think there was too much emphasis on it. An action trailer isn't a bad thing - but at that stage there were already preconceptions and complaints because the director was "That Fast and Furious Guy."
Strangely, the second trailer - while hitting a better tone - didn't really do much better as it didn't really give away much information on the film. I loved it and I read enough hints to know the general idea of what was happening. For someone who didn't follow the news, it didn't really say anything other than "next Trek film, things asplode."
Looking back at the advertising after seeing the film - I don't really see the hook that's supposed to catch our attention.
No, the marketing persuaded some people to check it out. It did well because it was a great movie.
Having legs isn't down to advertising, its due to good reviews and good word of mouth. For being a good movie.
Reviews really have ZERO impact on the success of a film... word of mouth does, and unlike what you're implying, Suicide Squad's word of mouth is actually quite good, especially with the "Under 35 crowd". Should do pretty well over the next few weeks:
http://deadline.com/2016/08/suicide...-opening-will-smith-margot-robbie-1201799046/
The relevant bits:
In regards to the critical and audience reception for Suicide Squad, it’s still up in the air how much mileage this DC feature property has. In relation to its $166M opening, BvS had a two multiple when it finaled domestic with $330.36M (just $2.8M short of overtaking Guardians of the Galaxy stateside). One non-Warner Bros. distribution suit waves off the negative reviews for Suicide Squad, predicting “In its first week, it’s going to make $230M to $250M!”
This is further bolstered by the fact that CinemaScore crowds under 35 gave Suicide Squad an A- (76%), while 46% females gave it an A-. The pic also earned an A with the under 18 demo (28%). Smith and Robbie fans both gave it the film an A-, each group turning up at 30% each.
It will probably end up around the final number of X-Men: Apocalypse and $5-10m ahead of Bourne domestically. More than $100m less than ST09.
Back to the Future is a great franchise to cite. Not because of the reasons you mention but here is a great example of a series that introduced a fascinating and new concept and executed it in a fun and entertaining way. Then the essentially tried to rehash the same concept in the sequels with some slight twists and their audience turned away.
Neither the 2nd or 3rd films resonated with critics or fans the way the first one did and be the series finale it had lost 60% of its audience (after losing 45% with the second film).
It might be the opposite lesson in formulaic filmmaking that Paramount needs to learn. As great as the original Wrath of Khan was, The Voyage Home was the most successful movie in the series before the reboot and it was nothing in tone and concept as the previous films.
Yeah, I don't see that. $10-15 more from existing territories, 40-80 million from Latin America, France, Spain, South Korea and Japan and probably $80-120 million from China. Plus another $25-35m from domestic. I see the minimum worldwide being in the $340-350m range and ABSOLUTE worst case scenario being no lower than $325m. And if it performs as well or even improves in those non-China regions it could still push to $400m or beyond.
Animated movies seem to be the strongest films at the box office but only those targeting children. I suspect that someday CGI will reach the point where actors are not even necessary (especially extras) but that is probably a decade or so away.
It appears Bourne is going to have a slightly worse second weekend drop than Beyond but Bourne was made on a $120 million budget so it's slightly less of a deal.
This is not the end of the ST movie franchise but the future of the Kelvin movies is very much in question. It's likely whatever happens next will be much lower budget.
so you think this is the end of ST Movie?I recently read that Simon Pegg thinks that ST works better on TV than on the big screen
This is not the end of the ST movie franchise but the future of the Kelvin movies is very much in question. It's likely whatever happens next will be much lower budget.
Oh please. Out of the multitudes of Marvel films, there have been maybe 5 GOOD movies, Iron Man, Avengers, Winter Soldier, Civil War and Guardians. The other movies have been fun, but they are nothing to write home about to me. This has nothing to do with the quality of the films. The moment that a movie has the Marvel Studios name bolted on to it, there instantly is a minimum level of success it will achieve. Hell, thats how it is with superhero films in general today, looking at the lack of quality features from DC. Those movie's make Marvel's look like high art.
Maybe I sound a bit bitter, but I am just so done with the superhero movies. It seems that Marvel or DC can just make and absolute dump of a film and it makes a minimum of 120 Mil at the opening box office. It really does irk me that we have been FINALLY getting big budget quality Star Trek films, and we seemingly have this conversation about the box office every time one comes out. I honestly think it's because there is this middle ground to Trek that cannot be reached. You can't make it too much like the original, because there goes the general audience that you are trying to reach. But then you can't make it too different because the core Trek audience bitches and moans more then any fanbase in history.
I don't know what the solution is. I really have enjoyed the Kelvin-verse, and would like the see it continue. You can pare down the budget, and have a more self contained story, but I want to see more of these characters.
Daredevil was awesome and made a ton of money. It will never happen but it makes me wonder what a R rated ST film would look like and how it would do.
- Status
Similar threads
