Why didn't Beyond do better at the Box Office?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
- Status
I wonder if them not following up on threads from Into Darkness could have damaged turnout? A warmongering Starfleet (Marcus couldn't have been the only Federation leader in on it), Klingons on the brink of war, genetic supermen sitting on ice, Kirk being revived with Augment blood? All those things were left on the table and none were touched upon in Beyond.
A Federation/Klingon war movie/vague remake of VI (featuring the likes of Chang, Kruge, Worf, Decker with maybe abit of Khan with Joachim etc. Maybe even Spiner/Soong somewhere) for the anniversary mighve been just the thing for some hefty 500m+ ww box office
Last edited:
I'm not thinking about the 50th, honestly. Just the fact that movie goers seem to like serialized storytelling, they had a film that had a bunch of loose ends and pretty much discarded them all, and started over.
The way Paramount has ran away from Into Darkness, their highest grossing (and one of the highest rated) Star Trek movie ever, reminds me of how Al Gore tried to separate himself from Bill Clinton in 2000. In neither instance, was it successful.
Except it is? But not? I don't know anymore.
I was just thinking about that today myself today. I had a plot idea while stumbling around the grocery store. (And, no, I really have no idea what the hell prompted me to think about it.): Marcus's faction--or what's left of it--finagles for power in the Earth government, outside the control of Starfleet until it has enough global influence. They wake Khan up again and convince him to help them with what he's best at: being a world leader.
They hope he'll just be a figure-head, but he's too much for them to handle. And the cry of xenophobic fear and hate and "Earth first" is more powerful than they expect. He champions a cause that the aliens need to go in order for Earth to be the great paradise everyone wants it to be. He designs a massive barrier or shield to completely encompass the planet, the moon, and all the orbiting stations/colonies. It's suppose to be completely impenetrable. Then Earth secedes from the Fed. And the Enterprise stands alone.
Obviously, aside from being kind of like Bab5, it's a little on the nose and heavy-handed. On the other hand it also seems almost too obvious.
They hope he'll just be a figure-head, but he's too much for them to handle. And the cry of xenophobic fear and hate and "Earth first" is more powerful than they expect. He champions a cause that the aliens need to go in order for Earth to be the great paradise everyone wants it to be. He designs a massive barrier or shield to completely encompass the planet, the moon, and all the orbiting stations/colonies. It's suppose to be completely impenetrable. Then Earth secedes from the Fed. And the Enterprise stands alone.
Obviously, aside from being kind of like Bab5, it's a little on the nose and heavy-handed. On the other hand it also seems almost too obvious.
How many people forming the general audience do you really think remember details of STD? That they liked it (or not) sure, but probably not specific plot threads.
Hasn't Into Darkness lost its sheen? Just Google "Star Trek Into Darkness good or bad." The top hits are all related to flaws, arguments that the movie wasn't that great, etc. (I could be wrong about all this, but I've really gotten the impression that, after the honeymoon was over, Into Darkness lost a lot of the good will was initially given.)
Also, is Beyond's lesser box office really to do with its place in the series? I mean, it's gotten good reviews from critics, most viewers seem to like it, even those of us who're never happy with the reboot in the first place. And is breaking box office records even that good a measure of a film in the first place? A lot of profitable and well-liked movies don't.
(And, IMHO, Beyond was actually a lot better done than it's predecessors. The plot makes a lot more sense, it's actually a genuine Star Trek movie, instead of a Star Wars movie in Star Trek clothing. This is the movie they should've made back in '09.)
You know, I think Star Trek is going to just have to go back to television and prove itself from scratch again. I feel like the nostalgia-banked train has run its course. It's wonderful that these three films were as successful as they were, given that Star Trek was absolutely dead in the water just a few years before. But I'm seeing diminishing returns here.
Just my dumb opinion here, so this is a forewarning: there's nothing new being made, really. The themes on display in this recent film trilogy--family, friendship, governmental corruption--literally all of these things have been covered before on the television shows with way more complexity and gravitas, not to mention elsewhere in media. Many aspects of the new films have been fun and entertaining for sure, but they are comparatively simple presentations that have that Trek narrative genius vying for attention against what mass audiences seem to want in a modern blockbuster. Nowadays, everyone wants nostalgia and action--quick adrenaline and dopamine triggering moments that aren't memorable but are effective. The end result is a film that feels good at first viewing but lacks staying power, which is fine because the studio already has 50000 other similarly toned blockbusters waiting for release within weeks, if not days. It's low attention span pandering at its worst, and I do realize that this is more of a complaint at the movie industry at large as it exists today.
On TV, and especially on a platform like CBS All Access, Trek doesn't have to battle against modern movie conventions for its right to exist and be Trek. And so I have high hopes for that. Maybe Star Trek really just needs to be a slow-burning, prestige television show with middling ratings for a while, slowly building the franchise back one well reviewed episode at a time.
Just my dumb opinion here, so this is a forewarning: there's nothing new being made, really. The themes on display in this recent film trilogy--family, friendship, governmental corruption--literally all of these things have been covered before on the television shows with way more complexity and gravitas, not to mention elsewhere in media. Many aspects of the new films have been fun and entertaining for sure, but they are comparatively simple presentations that have that Trek narrative genius vying for attention against what mass audiences seem to want in a modern blockbuster. Nowadays, everyone wants nostalgia and action--quick adrenaline and dopamine triggering moments that aren't memorable but are effective. The end result is a film that feels good at first viewing but lacks staying power, which is fine because the studio already has 50000 other similarly toned blockbusters waiting for release within weeks, if not days. It's low attention span pandering at its worst, and I do realize that this is more of a complaint at the movie industry at large as it exists today.
On TV, and especially on a platform like CBS All Access, Trek doesn't have to battle against modern movie conventions for its right to exist and be Trek. And so I have high hopes for that. Maybe Star Trek really just needs to be a slow-burning, prestige television show with middling ratings for a while, slowly building the franchise back one well reviewed episode at a time.
but Ghostbusters is not getting a China release at all.
Hopefully Beyond will have greater awareness in china since it was a chinese co-production.
I personally think that the delay between ST 09 and ST ID was what cause the loss of the sheen. ST 09 brought great enegy to the franchise but it wasn't followed through on.
ST ID is a better film that it is given credit for, but the bad word-of-mouth was just incredibly toxic and depressing. I think it could have been handled a lot better, both in timing and marketing.
This bad word of mouth started with 100 people at a convention, and the media ran with it. Looking at sites, including this one, Into Darkness comes across as fairly well liked. It sold well on home media. I think the biggest problem was Paramount didn't get out in front of it and defend their film. They just allowed it to go on, unchallenged. I don't think the right strategy was having your creators out there saying they made mistakes.
Paramount gave the power to internet loudmouths and it has crippled their franchise.
Eh, I doubt it. It annoyed a portion of the hardcore fans from the beginning, and they're the sort who will write and publish long diatribes as to the things which are wrong with it.
If it was reviewed badly at release, people who disliked it would leap upon that as support for their position. Since it wasn't, excuses are made - "They only judged it as a mindless blockbuster", "They liked it initially, but now they don't since they've had a chance to think about it", etc. Funnily enough, I just saw someone someone try to make the same argument for people liking Beyond today.
While ID bothered me in some respects as a fan, I think it was really well-executed for the most part, and appealing in several ways (ambition, emotional impact, memorable moments, cast) in which Beyond just falls short. I like Beyond more as a fan, but can absolutely understand ID having more appeal.
Harlan Ellison's magnificent review of TMP sounds all too apt here:
That is one of the primary themes coming from the reviews.
I feels even though the new trek films are good, a lot of people who i talk to who are not trek fans love n enjoy the new films. However, because star trek sometimes gets a bad reputation of people such as nerds alert, get a life and people living in their parents basement groups, that many people who do enjoy trek are embarassed to say so. Coming on the topic, one reason why the box office isnt high because some people (like younglings in middle and high school) dont want to be caught in the theater watching a star trek movie. that would make them not cool.
Another reason why the box office hurts is waiting 3-4 years to pop out a new film. Most major franchises now release new films every 1-2 years. The attention span for the common movie audience nowadays isnt as much as it was back in the day. So many new sequels come out quicker nowadays to keep the audience attention. The only new franchise i can think of lately that is very good and has kept interest are the new planet of the apes reboot films.
If paramount released these new kelvin timeline films 2 years apart it would help some with the box office. Or am i wrong n just talking to myself?
Another reason why the box office hurts is waiting 3-4 years to pop out a new film. Most major franchises now release new films every 1-2 years. The attention span for the common movie audience nowadays isnt as much as it was back in the day. So many new sequels come out quicker nowadays to keep the audience attention. The only new franchise i can think of lately that is very good and has kept interest are the new planet of the apes reboot films.
If paramount released these new kelvin timeline films 2 years apart it would help some with the box office. Or am i wrong n just talking to myself?
If they made movies every two years and they were similar to what we've gotten - I believe that they would be doing a lot better. I think that the main issue here is getting bad robot to commit. After hearing how tough was to get approvals from them to show kelvin verse ships on the Star Trek calendars, it wouldn't surprise me that it's more complicated than most people believe.
Marcus wasn't just a Starfleet admiral, he was part of Section 31. Section 31 commissioned the Vengeance but other than that, there was no major military build up. The Klingons and Federation were always on the brink of war, even back in Archer's day. Khan and his crew were put into storage somewhere as befits them. Kirk was revived because he was barely dead and they didn't just inject Kirk with the blood, they created a serum while keeping Kirk's body in cryo freeze to preserve his brain functions. What amazed me was how many fans got up in arms about that bit when those kinds of deus ex machinas existed before. Scotty being killed and brought back by Nomad. Spock's katra and regeneration by Genesis. Data's head in San Francisco. The Prophets eliminating the Dominion fleet. Seven of Nine reviving Neelix from death with Borg nanoprobes.
Every conplaint of Kirk coming back wasn't that it actually happened (we knew he would), it was the very very clunky scene in sickbay that revealed how he would.
Wrath of Khan was a subtle, blink and you miss it but ah-ha, that works really well setup.
Into Darkness had the Enterprise under attack and Kirk and Khan having an intense scene in sickbay, where out if nowhere and paying attention to none of this, is Bones saying "hey, let's do an experiment right now". It didn't fit and it was awkward.
Things like that, and the overall darker tone that was abandoned is why I liked Beyond so much more. I don't want to see the darkness of Starfleet in another Trek movie ever again, I'm glad they didn't touch that again. Section 31 was one of the worst legacies DS9 gave us.
Wrath of Khan was a subtle, blink and you miss it but ah-ha, that works really well setup.
Into Darkness had the Enterprise under attack and Kirk and Khan having an intense scene in sickbay, where out if nowhere and paying attention to none of this, is Bones saying "hey, let's do an experiment right now". It didn't fit and it was awkward.
Things like that, and the overall darker tone that was abandoned is why I liked Beyond so much more. I don't want to see the darkness of Starfleet in another Trek movie ever again, I'm glad they didn't touch that again. Section 31 was one of the worst legacies DS9 gave us.
I thought they very much touched it given Krall's backstory. And how the movie ends doesn't really redeem Starfleet in that regards
kicking him out the airlock instead of fixing their mistake
I don't get this sense that Beyond was more of a Star Trek story than Into Darkness, I'm not sure what people are referred to with that.
- Status
Similar threads
