Is there really anyone out here on this board claiming Beyond is not a financial disappointment?
The Domestic Box Office run is ending, International is kicking in.
- Thread starter KGator
- Start date
- Status
Financial? No one really knows but Paramount and their financing partners. Box office disappointment? Can't really interpret the numbers any other way.
Yes. I am. It is a disappointment. I've been on these boards claiming it could do 600 million before its release, deep down I really expected it to do at least 450, when that second week drop was announced and reality kicked in I was gutted, I didn't expect these numbers, and I don't think paramount did either. Let's hope they regroup and try again.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme...r-disappointments-of-the-summer/#62d92d451909
http://www.inquisitr.com/3409505/its-official-star-trek-beyond-is-a-box-office-flop/
http://screenrant.com/star-trek-beyond-box-office-success-failure/
http://deadline.com/2016/07/star-tr...ower-than-star-trek-into-darkness-1201791469/
http://trekmovie.com/2016/08/25/sta...-box-office-well-received-but-not-profitable/
http://moviepilot.com/posts/4048755
https://www.theguardian.com/film/fi...spot-uk-box-office-spielberg-star-trek-beyond
http://www.moviefone.com/2016/07/24/box-office-star-trek-beyond-ice-age-sequels/
http://movieweb.com/paramount-pictures-box-office-bombs-2016-2017/
http://www.goliath.com/movies/the-12-biggest-box-office-disappointments-of-summer-2016/
Next time just ask Google...
View attachment 1841
"Credible lists of flops" = "Angry fanboys and clickbait websites like Inquistr."
Yes, Inquisitr is among them. That happens, when the final numbers aren't out yet. Until you will see the final financial statements for the year on Paramount's website most (well, ALL) box office performance judgements are only educated guesses.
Apparently yes...
I have to admit I have a problem believing 'Beyond' is a financial disappointment. 330 mio. $ is a whole lot of money. If that's a "disappointment" it's because of ridiculous overbudgeting.
Seriously, 185 mio. as a budget for Star Trek. That's insane! That's a bigger budget than Cpt. America: The First Avenger (140 mio.) and CA: The Winter Soldier (170 mio.) had, more than both Thor movies (also 140 & 170 mio.) had, and much more than Ant-Man (130 mio.) had! And those were much more distinctive and better looking movies. But Star Trek will never be as popular with mainstream audiences as superheroes and the Avengers are. Betting it will earn more money than them was simply foolish and deserved a punishment.
Last edited:
Chuckle. Condescension makes me feel less bad about pointing out the obvious.
Link 1: Opinion piece
Link 2: Opinion piece with the word "official" in the title. Written on August 11th. Uses no official sources, just a lot of guess work hidden behind number recitations.
Link 3: Opinion piece written August 9th. Uses a boogle of weasel words.
Link 4: Mostly complimentary/speculative opinion piece. No official sources or
judgement.
Link 5: Opinion piece with a smattering of analysis.
Link 6: Opinion piece - uses random formulas that aren't based on anything - whines about large budgets.
Link 7: Speculative piece - focuses on UK box office.
Link 8: Discussion piece - complimentary, offers speculation as to why Beyond and other sequels did poorly compared to previous films.
Link 9: Opinion piece - built on analysis from individuals who's conclusions have been strenuously objected to by studios.
Link 10: Clickbait
Next time - it may be beneficial to read the links before copy-pasting them into a post.
Plus,
Pro tip: He/she who makes a claim looks rather foolish when he/she responds to requests for proof with "Google it."
Next time, read the text:
Edit:
At this point stating "'Beyond' is a box office disappointment" doesn't really fall under the umbrella "claim" anymore.
Last edited:
I read all the text, and I summarized the validity of each link. Perhaps you have more valid links? Ones that can support your claim quoted below?
That one was already linked to in this thread earlier.
Link to the post in question?
Dude. Posting the same link twice doesn't add anything to a conversation. Asking another person to do it for you only because you are too lazy to go search a few pages back yourself is downright sabotaging a conversation.
No sir/ma'am. I am asking you to support a very specific and direct claim. If you choose to make such a claim, then it is best to be prepared to support it during the course of a conversation. That's how Internet conversation works.
So, just for kicks - here is the claim that you made -
As that is a specific and direct claim - I am sure you will have no qualms with supporting it with a link or - as your claim references multiple sources - multiple links.
I gave you a whole lot of links. The article mentioned was linked to only a few posts before that.
Frankly, I really don't see a point in repeating the same sources over and over again. They are here. In this thread. Why should I go through the last pages for you and repeat myself just because you missed part of the conversation and don't feel like make up for that yourself?
Frankly, I really don't see a point in repeating the same sources over and over again. They are here. In this thread. Why should I go through the last pages for you and repeat myself just because you missed part of the conversation and don't feel like make up for that yourself?
Sorry again. The links you posted did not support the claim you made.
Perhaps you want to support that claim with a link or some other proof?
ETA: I have gone back 8 pages and cannot find the link you refer to that supports your very specific claim.
Well and thoroughly disposed of. Bravo.
Clickbait.
You should have also read the original text before commenting:
It's kind of hard to find official sources when the official source hasn't published anything yet.
That's why I posted the second best thing: Journalism. Educated guessing. If that's "clickbait" because it hasn't that official source (which, again, hasn't been published yet), I can't help you really either.
What your posts define as "journalism" is quite enlightening.
Actually if they're including as part of that what they spent on Pre-Production for the Robert Orci script that Paramount decided to completely abandon; no it's really not. <--- And that can be laid at the feet of the Paramount Production Execs who first okay-ed, chen changed ttheir mind - and not at the feet of the actual Production teams scouting locations, building sets, casting, etc.
Reading Jedi_Master's comments, I am reminded of a piece of dialog from "The Dagger of a Mind".
I went to see the movie again today. It is my fourth time to the well. It is a good movie, just not a tentpole movie. Forcing this franchise into becoming a tentpole is a disservice. I want as much as anyone to see a fourth film. However, I have to be grounded in reality. This film did not do as well as other tentpole movies and is the product of a studio losing money the year before, this year, and, based on projections, the coming year. I have to ask myself, can this film succeed in the summer of 2018 or 2019? Based on the schedule of films, I see Star Trek being buried, especially in the latter. If the schedule holds, the summer of 2019 will be known as the summer of Star Wars and Indiana Jones.
I went to see the movie again today. It is my fourth time to the well. It is a good movie, just not a tentpole movie. Forcing this franchise into becoming a tentpole is a disservice. I want as much as anyone to see a fourth film. However, I have to be grounded in reality. This film did not do as well as other tentpole movies and is the product of a studio losing money the year before, this year, and, based on projections, the coming year. I have to ask myself, can this film succeed in the summer of 2018 or 2019? Based on the schedule of films, I see Star Trek being buried, especially in the latter. If the schedule holds, the summer of 2019 will be known as the summer of Star Wars and Indiana Jones.
That's a valid thought. But those other movies had the exact same problems. They had scripts that were never finished, scouted locations for scenes that were never filmed (there was a whole "subterranian trolls"-arc that was cut from "The Dark World" in the last minute - for which production went quite far). They casted for roles that were never filmed or reduced to cameos in editing. And all of them had expensive re-shoots.
They still came in under budget. Ant-Man had booted off the director last minute. The new creative crew re-built the movie basically from scratch. There were years and millions of dollars thrown out of the window. They still stayed in budget. It's possible to have all those problems, and still deliver a successfull blockbuster for under 150 mio. dollar. They just spent it more wisely.
- Status
