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

[wayoung]

You know, to really keep up with the "Everything was fated" theme of the new movies, the third should really be the last, followed by an animated movie in 5 years and then a semi - reboot with the same cast but all new production design a few years later.

 

[BillJ]

Current audiences like dystopia and the heroes fighting for survival. Now you have Discovery playing the 23rd century, Paramount should take a chance and go in a completely different direction with the universe.

 

[RAMA]

A disappointment sure but it won't lose money for Paramount in any scenario. So having gotten that out of the way...

It's the #10 movie in the domestic box office.
# 20 in the worldwide box office
#9 highest grossing live-action TV tie-in movie ever
#3 grossing Trek movie in first-run release
#1 highest grossing ST movie in China
#3 highest opening Trek movie
#16 movie released in the last contiguous 365 days.

• It lasted longer in the US box office than STFC
• It'll make slightly less than ST09 in box with roughly the same budget (if we take out Chinese investment). If Paramount actually spent about $150-160 million on it then it's already surpassed double it's budget.
• STFC finished 17th and 21st at the domestic and ww box office
  
• STID finished 11th and 13th respectively

These are the numbers of movies released in 2016 for context:
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/year/2016

RAMA

There is nothing excellent about Beyond's box office take. It'll eventually see profitability, but it is a disappointment as far as the box office goes. There's no way to read the numbers any other way.

 

[locutus101]

A disappointment sure but it won't lose money for Paramount in any scenario. So having gotten that out of the way...

It's the #10 movie in the domestic box office.
# 20 in the worldwide box office
#9 highest grossing live-action TV tie-in movie ever
#3 grossing Trek movie in first-run release
#1 highest grossing ST movie in China
#3 highest opening Trek movie
#16 movie released in the last contiguous 365 days.

• It lasted longer in the US box office than STFC
• It'll make slightly less than ST09 in box with roughly the same budget (if we take out Chinese investment). If Paramount actually spent about $150-160 million on it then it's already surpassed double it's budget.
• STFC finished 17th and 21st at the domestic and ww box office
  
• STID finished 11th and 13th respectively

These are the numbers of movies released in 2016 for context:
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/year/2016

RAMA

Looks impressive.

 

[BillJ]

It's the #10 movie in the domestic box office.
# 20 in the worldwide box office
#9 highest grossing live-action TV tie-in movie ever
#3 grossing Trek movie in first-run release
#1 highest grossing ST movie in China
#3 highest opening Trek movie
#16 movie released in the last contiguous 365 days.

You realize none of this actually matters to Paramount? What matters to them is the number of dollars it brought in, compared to the number of dollars they've spent on it. I'm sure the above will all be nice 'no-prizes' for those who end up unemployed over it.

 

[RAMA]

You do realize of course it will make $100s of million in secondary revenue? Paramount very much counts those numbers.

RAMA

You realize none of this actually matters to Paramount? What matters to them is the number of dollars it brought in, compared to the number of dollars they've spent on it. I'm sure the above will all be nice 'no-prizes' for those who end up unemployed over it.

 

[Rahul]

I hate to admit it. I thought Paramount had a hit on their hands.

One of the rare cases I have to unequivocally agree with you. I wasn't interested in further nuTrek movies. But I thought they had found their audience.
I was predicting way back then that the domestic gross would be smaller than for Into Darkness. But I fully expected it to compensate that with international box office, especially after the growth in China, and in the end finish somewhere between Trek09 and STID.

They need to pull the Borg out of mothballs.

Aaaaaand we're on the opposite spectrum of opinions again.
The Borg don't work in a fast-paced thrill-ride of a movie.

 

[RAMA]

China numbers for the last 4 days revised upwards slightly, plus $84,000 more from the US. China box office for Beyond on Thurs was estimated to be almost double the Wednesday box office. Grand total is: $325,196,674

Beyond officially surpassed STID as the top grossing ST film ever in China. It's overall total is now 325,069,040.(est)

 

[BillJ]

The Borg don't work in a fast-paced thrill-ride of a movie.

Worked fine in First Contact. Zombies are big right now, and Trek could cash in on that.

 

[BillJ]

for the last 4 days revised upwards slightly, plus $84,000 more from the US. China box office for Beyond on Thurs was estimated to be almost double the Wednesday box office. Grand total is: $325,176,674

If we go with the 2X multiplier, it would need to make, at least, $370 million to break even. Without counting what was spent in advertising.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

It'll make slightly less than ST09 in box with roughly the same budget (if we take out Chinese investment). If Paramount actually spent about $150-160 million on it then it's already surpassed double it's budget.

I know you're trying real hard to put a positive spin on Beyond's underwhelming box office, but this is a 100% plain lie and you know it. Even your own source that you're quoting proves it:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Star-Trek-Beyond#tab=summary

Star Trek Beyond (2016)
Production Budget: $185,000,000
Worldwide Box Office $318,357,109

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Star-Trek#tab=summary

Star Trek (2009)
Production Budget: $140,000,000
Worldwide Box Office $385,680,446

And that's without even adjusting for inflation!

 

[BillJ]

I've heard someplaces having numbers north of $200 million for Beyond's budget. Some of that will be offset by tax breaks and deals with Chinese production firms. But people are seriously deluded if they believe Paramount is happy with the performance of the movie.

 

[Rahul]

Worked fine in First Contact. Zombies are big right now, and Trek could cash in on that.

First Contact wasn't a fast-paced, fast cut and edited action blockbuster with larger-than-life heroes running and jumping phasers first between plattforms. First Contact was surprisingly grounded in action and slow-paced, and instead reliying on many horror elements for suspense. That's a completely different animal than the nuTrek movies. Basically they need to switch from the George A. Romero-Borg to the 28-days-later/Danny Boyle-Borg. And I don't believe that can be made successfull.

 

[BillJ]

And I don't believe that can be made successfull.

I do. Without a doubt.

 

[BillJ]

I imagine that with the widely panned Suicide Squad doing $700 million, Paramount will lay Beyond's failure on their marketing division.

 

[Rahul]

Ph, the Borg can and will work wonderfully updated for future Trek products. Just not in those Kelvin-timeline movies. They are stylistically too far apart. And adapting them to a Fast-and-Furious style action villain will make them as bland a villain as Krall and his soldiers in the marketing campaign.

 

[Rahul]

I imagine that with the widely panned Suicide Squad doing $700 million, Paramount will lay Beyond's failure on their marketing division.

Suicide Squad had a unique premise, Will Smith and Margot Robbie as leads, the return/re-imagination of the Joker, an appereance by Ben Affleck's Batman, the first super-villain team-up, a super famous soundtrack, and was the first unique entry in the DCEU, a multi billion dollar franchise. NOTHING in 'Beyond' would have ever been able to compete with that.

 

[RAMA]

I know you're trying real hard to put a positive spin on Beyond's underwhelming box office, but this is a 100% plain lie and you know it. Even your own source that you're quoting proves it:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Star-Trek-Beyond#tab=summary

Star Trek Beyond (2016)
Production Budget: $185,000,000
Worldwide Box Office $318,357,109

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Star-Trek#tab=summary

Star Trek (2009)
Production Budget: $140,000,000
Worldwide Box Office $385,680,446

And that's without even adjusting for inflation!

I pointed out I don't know the exact amount invested, but the budget of Beyond with it for Paramount alone is likely in the $140-160 million range. The only thing we really DO know is that the budget didn't cost Paramount $185 million.

If it's $160 million: Gross: $340-350 million(I gave a breakdown of the possible country grosses yesterday)
ST09: $140 million Gross: $385 million

See how that works? They're relatively close. Inflation isn't a great gauge with box office figures. I tend to ignore the adjusted grosses because they are full of inaccuracies and suppositions.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

If we go with the 2X multiplier, it would need to make, at least, $370 million to break even. Without counting what was spent in advertising.

Studios don't count advertising as part of the cost of a movie. It's a separate budget. However there are other costs associated with movie releases and of course, a lot of other avenues of revenue, both of which are pointed out in my Beyond box office post roundup from a couple of weeks ago.

 

[eyeresist]

They need to pull the Borg out of mothballs.

They need to build the stories from the characters outward, rather than simply inserting them into an adventure story. I think the best Trek movies were ultimately personal stories (TWOK, TSFS, TUC, FC, NEM (and, to some extent, GEN, ST 1 & 2)).