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

[donners22]

Just a quick comment about the movie--and I liked all three installments pretty much equally. But with Beyond, it's kind of odd for Jaylah to have more character building and establishing moments than your main antagonist played by the brilliant Edris buried under a ton of makeup that made him generic. That's where I believe the movie went wrong, as opposed to Cumberbatch, who was there for all his Cumberbitches and chewed the scenery as Khan. Edris was completely wasted in this movie, and only interesting in the brief glimpses as Captain of the Franklin. All other ingredients were perfect though.

I was just searching for Into Darkness posters to redecorate my office, and was struck by how many featured Cumberbatch.

Elba, on the other hand, does not feature in any either with or (for obvious reasons) without makeup. He was also unrecognisable, including by voice, in the trailers and TV spots.

While he may not have the recognition value or following of Cumberbatch, it does take away any marketability he may have had.

 

[Dales]

I heard the film has hot 300m worldwide.

 

[RAMA]

I heard the film has hot 300m worldwide.

Where? According to my accounting, it's at: $300,095,235

 

[M'Sharak]

Even though I disagree sometimes with you @RAMA it is true that on numerous times you've made your points and tried to back them up with sources and figures. And no I didn't think you actually meant ISIS attacking movie theaters.

This is OK. It's generally complimentary and it speaks to the substance of what he has said. What's unfortunate about it is that it's being used to set up this:

Unfortunately that can not be said for @Jedi_Master who repeatedly makes fun of other people's opinion but constantly evades and refuses to give his.

Which is not OK, as you're attacking the person and not the post. Please don't do that.

Address the substance of the post (even if only to make fun of an opinion) but don't go after the person who posted it.

Policing what other posters do (or don't do) isn't your job, anyway. If you feel there's a problem which needs addressing, then that's what the 'Report' button is for; as soon as you've used it, then sit back, take a deep breath, and relax - your part in the process is finished.

Besides, it's not as if you've ever had any trouble at all with making fun of other people's opinions, when you're the one making fun. You give some, you take some, but never allow yourself to make it personal or adversarial.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

BoxOfficeMojo has the film at $294 million. Of course, some countries have not reported their box office receipts for the past several days, so it is probably about or over $300 million.

 

[RAMA]

BoxOfficeMojo has the film at $294 million. Of course, some countries have not reported their box office receipts for the past several days, so it is probably about or over $300 million.

It didn't count the last two days in China, that's why it's over $300 million.

 

[Disco]

Hopefully $330m by Monday....

 

[SpaceLama]

Is that good? I cant remember what the goal was.

 

[TonyLeung82]

It didn't count the last two days in China, that's why it's over $300 million.

Do you already know the last 2-3 days from China, what the box office have been?

 

[KGator]

There was a single Super Bowl ad for STID.

Yes, that's the timeline comparison, the events for Beyond outnumber the events for STID. Kind of embarrassing for an article that's statement was a huge marketing difference between the two, only to be wrong.

Beyond started marketing a full 2 months of TV ads for the first time in Trek history. No other film of any era started more than 3-4 weeks ahead of time and all the films only show a high frequency of ads about a week before debut.

Beyond's trailers were roughly a month behind for a movie that came out TWO months later, so in fact, they were ahead of STID's schedule.

I think the argument here is quality versus quantity. Even if STB had more ads or put them up sooner they didn't reach their target audience and those that did were blandly received.

 

[KGator]

Hopefully $330m by Monday....

Doubtful. It looks like STB is performing similar to Ice Age 5 and Jason Bourne (despite being the only new Hollywood release while those two were released together) which means it will probably fall just shy of $70 million total in China. I will say that while it would be an increase from STID, it's still below my expectations for the film from the Middle Kingdom. I was hoping for around $375 million worldwide. Unless it absolutely blows up in Japan (doubtful) it will probably be closer to $340 million than that pipe dream. Uggghhh.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Is that good? I cant remember what the goal was.

That's a big discussion and we've already argued about that for the last 12 pages or more. Everyone's opinions differ but for me STB will eventually be successful if we see ST4 in the next 3-4 years.

 

[RAMA]

Well CFI's estimate appears to be high. I expected maybe $15million for the China weekend and the estimate for Friday was only $$3 million. So it might be $10 million tops.

The total gross (Thursday's China adjusted now) is $302,352,551 now, not counting USA Thursday. I don't expect to see another international number till the weekend.

 

[Neumann]

It seems to be showing the same attendance curve than in the US

 

[Khan 2.0]

total?
350-60m? - similar to XMen FC, this summers Tarzan,
370-80m? - similar to Batman Begins, Terminator 4, XM: Wolverine, Capt America, Edge of Tomorrow, Mad Max 4, ID2,....ST09*

(*obviously some of those are quite a few years old now so some around the 400-450m mark when adjusted)

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Star Trek Beyond's box office currently sits at x1.6 times its budget. That's pretty low. In comparison Jason Bourne's box office is x3.1 its budget. And Suicide Watch has brought in x3.9 its budget.

total?
350-60m? - similar to XMen FC, this summers Tarzan,
370-80m? - similar to Batman Begins, Terminator 4, XM: Wolverine, Capt America, Edge of Tomorrow, Mad Max 4, ID2,....ST09*

(*obviously some of those are quite a few years old now so some around the 400-450m mark when adjusted)

So adjusted for inflation/ticket prices some of these movies made $100 to $150 million more than STB. And most of these movies as of this time don't have sequels. What does that tell us?

 

[RAMA]

Beyond may sit at $317.5 million if all goes well by Monday. Cross fingers and appendages.

RAMA

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

No one has produced any evidence that Pegg or Lin didn't like the entirety of the Beyond marketing campaign - at best some have pointed to the fact they didn't "love" one trailer.

Turns out that not only did Simon Pegg hate the first trailer but he had problems with others after that. You see I had forgotten this little gem:

"If you are planning to go see Star Trek Beyond, Simon suggests you avoid all TV Spots and trailers from this point forward."
– Simon Pegg

So much for "Star Trek Beyond's marketing was fine" theory.

 

[Paul Weaver]

Too many spoilers -- they shouldn't have shown the Enterprise being destroyed.

It's a common problem with trailers nowadays though.

 

[STMSTS]

I think of all the factors, the release date was the key stumbling block. The studio obviously had lower expectations for Beyond, based on Into Darkness’ performance, the mid-July release date and the budget information (shooting in Canada, a lower dollar figure for the actual production of this film) which tells us the studio was looking to control costs and reduce their risk. I’m sure the studio was hoping for a Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation performance (solid opening, good legs = $195 million), but with Bourne and Suicide Squad in the weeks following, competing for the same audience, Beyond was going to have two weeks of significant drops. (I would point out that M:I benefited from two disasters in the same space opening after it, the Fantastic Four and the Man from UNCLE). Beyond did stabilize after those two opened, but the release date cost this film millions. It’s not hard to see why it happened, they moved back to avoid and give breathing room to ID4 (which was expected to be huge and ultimately tanked) and didn’t want to go up against Ghostbusters (which had a lot of buzz going for it). This was a tough summer because we basically had a tentpole every week. It might have been better to take Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows’ June 3 date. The following week openers were Warcraft, Now You See Me 2 and the Conjuring 2; you could make a case that Warcraft targets the same audience, but I don’t see that opening hurting a second week of Star Trek.

There’s a lot of criticism here about the marketing campaign, and I think there are a few ways to look at it. The studio really downplayed the anniversary aspect of the film, which quite frankly is its only buzzworthy selling point, and instead sold it as a slam bang, good time action adventure. The problem there is you create an impression that the film is inconsequential (which was pointed out in several reviews) and that’s a tough sell for a tentpole film in today's market. That being said, you could make the case that the studio did a tremendous job opening a generic, buzzless, inconsequential film to $60 million on its way to $165 million domestic. At the very least, they avoided a potential disaster (the film is a disappointment and failed to breakout, but it's not a bomb) and the results prove there still is a significant audience for Star Trek.

I do wonder if a November/Thanksgiving opening (maybe Arrival's Nov. 11 date) after a steady build starting with the September anniversary wasn't the better play, in an effort to replicate Skyfall to some degree. July was likely a safer play; there's risk in a November opening given with Dr. Strange and Rogue One and the smaller holiday release window. Also unsure if the contractural 6 month buffer with CBS over Discovery was a factor in Paramount's thinking.