• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The Domestic Box Office run is ending, International is kicking in.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I didn't want to badmouth "Beyond", if it looked like that I apologize. As I said, my opinions toward Beyond are solely based on the trailer, the marketing campaign, clips and reviews, as I haven't seen the movie yet.

The problem isn't that I think it is bad - I heard quite the opposite. The problem is I just don't care about them.
Which is actually quite an impressive feat, considering I was advocating a big budget reboot/prequel/retelling of TOS with young actors pretty much since I saw "The undiscovered Country". I cannot really explain why, but as a lifelong fan of Trek - TOS being my absolute favourite among them, with TNG a close second - I just don't care about the Kelvin timeline after the first two movies. I don't hate them, mind you. I just don't feel compelled to watch them. They're just there.
 
Rahul said:
I didn't want to badmouth "Beyond", if it looked like that I apologize. As I said, my opinions toward Beyond are solely based on the trailer, the marketing campaign, clips and reviews, as I haven't seen the movie yet.

The problem isn't that I think it is bad - I heard quite the opposite. The problem is I just don't care about them.
Which is actually quite an impressive feat, considering I was advocating a big budget reboot/prequel/retelling of TOS with young actors pretty much since I saw "The undiscovered Country". I cannot really explain why, but as a lifelong fan of Trek - TOS being my absolute favourite among them, with TNG a close second - I just don't care about the Kelvin timeline after the first two movies. I don't hate them, mind you. I just don't feel compelled to watch them. They're just there.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. I almost sat this one out, but in the end saw Beyond (twice) and enjoyed it. I wish this would have been the follow-up to the first film. The problem with the Kelvin movies is that, for the most part, they are not whizzbang awesome movies that you've just gotta tell your friends about. ST 2009 had a bit of that, but 4 years later and post Into Darkness that feeling dried up. Paramount has a problem regarding this franchise, and I think those problems will become even more evident if Discovery is a hit.
 
Well guys and gals, today is the day. In 12 hours we will know how did Beyond do in China for its opening night and we can finally project the international cume of the movie. Most of Latin America is also opening tonight and will probably boost the total.

My projection: 361 ± 9 million. (hope to be wrong though)
 
Last edited:
I'm quite nervously awaiting about the news from China. I really want it to do well enough to justify a reasonably-budgeted sequel. Fingers crossed.
 
Rahul said:
I cannot really explain why, but as a lifelong fan of Trek - TOS being my absolute favourite among them, with TNG a close second - I just don't care about the Kelvin timeline after the first two movies. I don't hate them, mind you. I just don't feel compelled to watch them. They're just there.
Click to expand...

As much as fans will or won't admit, we also love the original cast more than seeing the characters portrayed by new actors.

That perhaps is the stronger sentiment when it comes to determining one's care factor for the Kelvin timeline movies.
 
photon70 said:
As much as fans will or won't admit, we also love the original cast more than seeing the characters portrayed by new actors.

That perhaps is the stronger sentiment when it comes to determining one's care factor for the Kelvin timeline movies.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I just don't care about the characters from the Kelvin timeline. If Pine's Kirk or Quinto's Spock would die, it wouldn't do anything for me. I'm not emotionally invested in these people. I find the Kelvin timeline movies rather shallow. Perhaps it would have helped if there had been a TV series first.

I think it says it all when the only truly emotional scenes in Beyond are the scenes where it was announced that prime Spock had died and the picture of the original TOS crew from Star Trek V.
 
Visitor1982 said:
Exactly. I just don't care about the characters from the Kelvin timeline. If Pine's Kirk or Quinto's Spock would die, it wouldn't do anything for me. I'm not emotionally invested in these people. I find the Kelvin timeline movies rather shallow. Perhaps it would have helped if there had been a TV series first.

I think it says it all when the only truly emotional scenes in Beyond are the scenes where it was announced that prime Spock had died and the picture of the original TOS crew from Star Trek V.
Click to expand...

You can't replicate 50 years of friendship and family in three movies, that's why. These actors will forever be in the shadow of their prime counterparts, there's no escaping that unless they have a really long run at playing them, which ain't gonna happen.
 
Rahul said:
What bothered me about Beyond was:
- The make-up is straight up awfully bad, and unworthy of a 2016 blockbuster, especially Krull and Jaylah. Enterprise had better looking and more unique aliens.
Click to expand...
Just gonna jump in here and say I too thought, especially from the first trailer (which was early footage) that Krall's makeup looked weak, akin to G'Kar in 90's Babylon 5. But in the movie itself it's a VERY different matter. Check this clip out, he looks amazing:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

As for comments on the planet etc, ther is no doubt that Beyond, once the effects were complete (watch the last couple of trailers), is the most visually spectacular two hours of Star Trek ever produced. Some of the imagery is amazing.
 
King Daniel Beyond said:
Just gonna jump in here and say I too thought, especially from the first trailer (which was early footage) that Krall's makeup looked weak, akin to G'Kar in 90's Babylon 5. But in the movie itself it's a VERY different matter. Check this clip out, he looks amazing:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

As for comments on the planet etc, ther is no doubt that Beyond, once the effects were complete (watch the last couple of trailers), is the most visually spectacular two hours of Star Trek ever produced. Some of the imagery is amazing.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I can't understand some comments from people saying it doesn't look like a 185million dollar movie. The FX in this film are outstanding. I would put this film as one of the most visually spectacular ever. That being said I thought though Jaylah's makeup looked 'cool' it wasn't particularly creative (white Darth Maul) and I thought Krall's overall design looked pretty generic also.
 
It's really a 155 million dollar movie (if average estimates for Orci related costs are correct), though it doesn't look any the less spectacular for it. If there is to be another film, it's to be hoped the cost/profit ratio takes the above into account.
 
Ovation said:
It's really a 155 million dollar movie (if average estimates for Orci related costs are correct), though it doesn't look any the less spectacular for it. If there is to be another film, it's to be hoped the cost/profit ratio takes the above into account.
Click to expand...

It looks more like a $200m movie. Looks far better than Into Darkness.

My fear is they'll blame the script, when they should be blaming STID.
 
Not sure $7.5 million on opening day is a good or bad thing?

BTW Beyond is returning to IMAX 3D in some markets this weekend only.
 
Paul Weaver said:
It looks more like a $200m movie. Looks far better than Into Darkness.

My fear is they'll blame the script, when they should be blaming STID.
Click to expand...
No. They really, really shouldn't. I know it's become a recurring theme among some Trek fans that Into Darkness left a bad taste in people's mouths but even if that were true for the majority of fans (something I'm unwilling to concede--but let's grant its truth for discussion's sake)--the general audience (the people actually needed for financial success) didn't care one whit about all the things that appear to drive some Trek fans batty. Not "white guy" Khan, "the scream", the mirrored death scene, the "magic blood", the "too quick to the Klingon home world", and others I'm sure I'm forgetting (mostly because they didn't bother this fan, watching since 1973)--NONE OF IT. Whatever the main reasons for a smaller box office this time, Into Darkness had no appreciable effect. Casual viewers don't care about that stuff. They saw a visually stunning, action sci-fi movie, had fun and moved on. I guarantee they didn't come out of the cinema saying "there's no way they should have been to Klingon space so quickly" or anything else like that in any great number.
 
Ovation said:
No. They really, really shouldn't. I know it's become a recurring theme among some Trek fans that Into Darkness left a bad taste in people's mouths but even if that were true for the majority of fans (something I'm unwilling to concede--but let's grant its truth for discussion's sake)--the general audience (the people actually needed for financial success) didn't care one whit about all the things that appear to drive some Trek fans batty. Not "white guy" Khan, "the scream", the mirrored death scene, the "magic blood", the "too quick to the Klingon home world", and others I'm sure I'm forgetting (mostly because they didn't bother this fan, watching since 1973)--NONE OF IT. Whatever the main reasons for a smaller box office this time, Into Darkness had no appreciable effect. Casual viewers don't care about that stuff. They saw a visually stunning, action sci-fi movie, had fun and moved on. I guarantee they didn't come out of the cinema saying "there's no way they should have been to Klingon space so quickly" or anything else like that in any great number.
Click to expand...


Totally agree. I'm sick to death of STID getting the blame. If it was soooo shite then why is it the highest grossing film in the franchise? People would have been turned off by it. Now, I can see why the likes of Insurrection could have possibly hurt Nemesis's BO take, but like you said, all general audiences would have seen is an action packed, top drawer blockbuster, which is what I think Into Darkness is.
 
Last edited:
Ovation said:
No. They really, really shouldn't. I know it's become a recurring theme among some Trek fans that Into Darkness left a bad taste in people's mouths but even if that were true for the majority of fans (something I'm unwilling to concede--but let's grant its truth for discussion's sake)--the general audience (the people actually needed for financial success) didn't care one whit about all the things that appear to drive some Trek fans batty. Not "white guy" Khan, "the scream", the mirrored death scene, the "magic blood", the "too quick to the Klingon home world", and others I'm sure I'm forgetting (mostly because they didn't bother this fan, watching since 1973)--NONE OF IT. Whatever the main reasons for a smaller box office this time, Into Darkness had no appreciable effect. Casual viewers don't care about that stuff. They saw a visually stunning, action sci-fi movie, had fun and moved on. I guarantee they didn't come out of the cinema saying "there's no way they should have been to Klingon space so quickly" or anything else like that in any great number.
Click to expand...
Preach it brother. We as Trek fans tend to believe in the self - reinforcing complaint chambers, and sometimes we project those little niggly nitpicks to the general populace. That it is a mistake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ZapBrannigan
Let Me Count the Ways... I Watched Star Trek
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
Cryogenator
Cryogenator
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top