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

[Rahul]

I see Beyond has just outperformed X-Men: Apocalypse in the US (but sadly nowhere near worldwide)

Does anyone know what's next for the X-Men film franchise? I see that, much like Trek they have a TV series (Leigon, about the son of Charles Xavier) launching next year but haven't seen anything about the future of the films, aside from the key actors being signed for a sequel. Perhaps whatever happens there will be an indicator for Trek's future.

X-Men: Apocalypse made 543 mio. $ worldwide though! That's less than Deadpool or Days of Future Past. But still an amazingly large profit (the budget was 178 mio.). That's a number Star Trek can only dream of.

As an aside to the above:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=pacificrim.htm
Different studio and franchise; but back in 2013 - Pacific Rim with a reported budget of 190 Million back then only brought in a little over $100 million in box office receipts in the U.S. - BUT got a sequel green lit soley based on the Chinse BO response to the film.

In the end, I think there's still a lot of incentive for Paramount to go ahead with STXIV (aka nuTrek 4) as they announced, but yeah,time will tell.

Pacific RIm also had a final box office of 411 mio. $ (that's more than 90 mio. $ more than Beyond currently has, not adjusted for inflation), but they still exchanged the whole creative team, and will have new lead characters and as of now none of the old actors are coming back. Expect something like that for Trek4 as well, if we see it.

I think he's subtracting out the $25-30M supposedly spent on the Orci version before Lin was brought onboard, which may factor into Paramount's thinking around the viability of the fourth movie.

That being said, I have doubts they spent anywhere close to that number - I'd bet at most it was only a tenth that.

As they damn well should be! Those are still costs during the development of 'Beyond' which the box office of that movie needs to cover though.
I mentioned somewhere else: More than 150 mio. $ as a budget for a Star Trek movie is just outright asking for failure. I love Star Trek. But truth is, it is (and will for ever be) more of a niché market, whose pop-cultural influence (and influence on the real world science community) is much larger than it's actual vievership numbers are.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I mentioned somewhere else: More than 150 mio. $ as a budget for a Star Trek movie is just outright asking for failure. I love Star Trek. But truth is, it is (and will for ever be) more of a niché market, whose pop-cultural influence (and influence on the real world science community) is much larger than it's actual vievership numbers are.

This kind of perspective irritates the hell out of me. Why, oh why are folks satisfied with the "niche" market stuff? You know what happens to a "niche" market item? The niche gets smaller and smaller and eventually no but a zealous few even know where it is.

This constant harping on how Star Trek needs to be small budget, to stop going after the mainstream market, to stay inside its warm and comfy safety zone is the kind of thinking that leads to the DEATH of an entertainment franchise. For heaven's sake at one point Trek was represented by two shows on television, regular feature films, lots of novels and merch, etc.

Advocating that Trek become and stay a "niche" market is self-defeating. Star Trek may not be able to compete with Star Wars, but it sure as heck can trade punches with the big boys of the comic world, and this endless fussing about any attempt made to appeal to the mass-market just reinforces the Nerdy High Priests of Roddenberry stereotype, and makes it even harder for Trek to be a moderate or mid-market success.

 

[BillJ]

This kind of perspective irritates the hell out of me. Why, oh why are folks satisfied with the "niche" market stuff? You know what happens to a "niche" market item? The niche gets smaller and smaller and eventually no but a zealous few even know where it is.

This constant harping on how Star Trek needs to be small budget, to stop going after the mainstream market, to stay inside its warm and comfy safety zone is the kind of thinking that leads to the DEATH of an entertainment franchise. For heaven's sake at one point Trek was represented by two shows on television, regular feature films, lots of novels and merch, etc.

Advocating that Trek become and stay a "niche" market is self-defeating. Star Trek may not be able to compete with Star Wars, but it sure as heck can trade punches with the big boys of the comic world, and this endless fussing about any attempt made to appeal to the mass-market just reinforces the Nerdy High Priests of Roddenberry stereotype, and makes it even harder for Trek to be a moderate or mid-market success.

A-fucking-men!

 

[Rahul]

This kind of perspective irritates the hell out of me. Why, oh why are folks satisfied with the "niche" market stuff? You know what happens to a "niche" market item? The niche gets smaller and smaller and eventually no but a zealous few even know where it is.

This constant harping on how Star Trek needs to be small budget, to stop going after the mainstream market, to stay inside its warm and comfy safety zone is the kind of thinking that leads to the DEATH of an entertainment franchise. For heaven's sake at one point Trek was represented by two shows on television, regular feature films, lots of novels and merch, etc.

Advocating that Trek become and stay a "niche" market is self-defeating. Star Trek may not be able to compete with Star Wars, but it sure as heck can trade punches with the big boys of the comic world, and this endless fussing about any attempt made to appeal to the mass-market just reinforces the Nerdy High Priests of Roddenberry stereotype, and makes it even harder for Trek to be a moderate or mid-market success.

The truth is: The whole sci-fi genre is a niché market. Star Wars is the one and only exception, and that's arguibly because it's not truly sci-fi, but more conventional storrytelling in a science fantasy setting.

Would I like that to be different? Of course! But there's nothing I can really do about it. I like Star Trek as a prime example of science fiction. If taking it out of that niché means Star Trek will "not" be science fiction anymore, but some mindless action blockbuster/disaster movie/superhero mock-up I'm not really interested in that anymore.

 

[locutus101]

Defeatism never wins.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Would I like that to be different? Of course! But there's nothing I can really do about it. I like Star Trek as a prime example of science fiction. If taking it out of that niché means Star Trek will "not" be science fiction anymore, but some mindless action blockbuster/disaster movie/superhero mock-up I'm not really interested in that anymore.

So, in your opinion, the only films that appeal to the mass market are mindless action/superhero/disaster films?
If Trek ever includes mindless action, feats of superhuman strength and daring, or disasters and their consequences, than it has become something you are not interested in?

I wonder if its the viewer or what is being viewed that is actually "niche" in that scenario?

 

[Rahul]

So, in your opinion, the only films that appeal to the mass market are mindless action/superhero/disaster films?
If Trek ever includes mindless action, feats of superhuman strength and daring, or disasters and their consequences, than it has become something you are not interested in?

I wonder if its the viewer or what is being viewed that is actually "niche" in that scenario?

When has it become to THAT argument? Nice strawman logic there...

Truth is: Science fiction is a niché market. As was Fantasy before The Lord of the Rings. Denying that is naive.

They're called "genre" for a reason. They are only part of the mass market. Science fiction a very small one. The "mindless action/superhero/disaster films" are not the whole mass market. But a bigger one. And they are the part of the mass market the nuTrek movies tried to pander to. Which IMO was a mistake.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Trying to narrow the focus of a particular form of entertainment by referring to it as a "genre" is a silly as calling a scientific principle unproven because it is referred to as a "theory."

Science fiction is a "genre" that also happens to dominate the entertainment industry.

 

[BillJ]

They're called "genre" for a reason. They are only part of the mass market. Science fiction a very small part. The "mindless action/superhero/disaster films" are not the whole mass market. But they are the part of the mass market the nuTrek movies tried to pander to. Which IMO was a mistake.

I would tend to think Paramount would disagree with this, even with Beyond underperforming. They have three of the highest grossing, most critically acclaimed films in the series with the formula you dislike.
Companies usually don't line up to invest in a product they don't think will work. They also don't ink $100 million dollar merchandising deals.

Probably the biggest failing of Beyond was switching gears to pander to Trek fans. Paramount lost faith in their plan, and it caused their big movie to stumble. The advertising switched gears from trying to lure in the younger crowd to playing it safe with stodgy mid-life crisis trailers.

 

[Rahul]

I would tend to think Paramount would disagree with this, even with Beyond underperforming. They have three of the highest grossing, most critically acclaimed films in the series with the formula you dislike.
Companies usually don't line up to invest in a product they don't think will work. They also don't ink $100 million dollar merchandising deals.

Probably the biggest failing of Beyond was switching gears to pander to Trek fans. Paramount lost faith in their plan, and it caused their big movie to stumble. The advertising switched gears from trying to lure in the younger crowd to playing it safe with stodgy mid-life crisis trailers.

That's kind of my point. They have three high grossing movies. Because they tried to tap into the more popular mindless action/superhero/disaster genre. As such, they kind of left the original sci-fi niché. And thereby they left me, and a larger part of the older Trek fans. Now if they could have made up for that with the new people they wouldn't have a problem now and still be successful. But they didn't. Turns out those people who aren't Trekkies aren't that brand loyal to Star Trek. Who would have guessed?

That's why I said IMO. Because it's only my opinion. I think Star Trek should be sci-fi. If it isn't, I'm not really interested in it. That's not a problem for them if they find enough other people that watch it. But apparently they didn't.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Ah. "Niche" = "what I like".

So it would be better for Trek to be "niche" than for it to be "appealing to the mass market," or "successful" or "popular."

That's an amusingly selfish methodology.

 

[BillJ]

That's why I said IMO. Because it's only my opinion. I think Star Trek should be sci-fi. If it isn't, I'm not really interested in it. That's not a problem for them if they find enough other people that watch it. But apparently they didn't.

The Abrams films are every bit as much "sci-fi" as any other Trek outing. Technobabble doesn't make something more "sci-fi".

 

[BillJ]

Future society? Sounds like sci-fi to me.
Spaceships? Sounds like sci-fi to me.
Ray guns? Sounds like sci-fi to me.
Matter-energy transportation device? Sounds like sci-fi to me.
Time travel? Sounds like sci-fi to me.
Traveling across the cosmos? Sounds like sci-fi to me.
Big Fucking Item that does tons of damage? Sounds like sci-fi to me.
Genetically engineered superman? Sounds like sci-fi to me.
Big ass space station? Sounds like sci-fi to me.
Aliens? Sounds like sci-fi to me.
Big ass explosions? Sounds like sci-fi to me.

But what the fuck do I know?

 

[Jedi_Master]

What some fans fail to understand is that a franchise that appeals to the broad mass market of unwashed heathens who don't know the difference between a photon and a proton torpedo is a healthy franchise capable of supporting many different types of creative expression including those loathsome 'mindless action' films, novels, comics, TV shows, and various other forms that may even include stuff that appeals to their highly refined tastes.
When fans choose to boycott a franchise's biggest and most important offerings they actually are working against their own best interest, starving the franchise and convincing the corporate masters of that franchise that there is little value in funding new forms of creative expression.

 

[Rahul]

The Abrams films are every bit as much "sci-fi" as any other Trek outing. Technobabble doesn't make something more "sci-fi".

Naw. I'm fine with less technobabble. They're not "sci-fi" only because they have a sci-fi--y setting though. They're boringly normal action/revenge stories. Star Wars isn't really sci-fi either, nor are the marvel movies only because they have aliens and spaceships.

Interstellar is sci-fi. Or The Martian. This years Arrival will be. Ex Machina. Most of the old Trek movies are.

 

[Kelthaz]

Future society? Sounds like sci-fi to me.
Spaceships? Sounds like sci-fi to me.
Ray guns? Sounds like sci-fi to me.
Matter-energy transportation device? Sounds like sci-fi to me.
Time travel? Sounds like sci-fi to me.
Traveling across the cosmos? Sounds like sci-fi to me.
Big Fucking Item that does tons of damage? Sounds like sci-fi to me.
Genetically engineered superman? Sounds like sci-fi to me.
Big ass space station? Sounds like sci-fi to me.
Aliens? Sounds like sci-fi to me.
Big ass explosions? Sounds like sci-fi to me.

But what the fuck do I know?

Oh come on dude. You're being disingenuous here. You know very well what Rahul meant by his post.

 

[BillJ]

Interstellar is sci-fi. Or The Martian. This years Arrival will be. Ex Machina.

You seem to have a very limited definition of sci-fi.

 

[Rahul]

What some fans fail to understand is that a franchise that appeals to the broad mass market of unwashed heathens who don't know the difference between a photon and a proton torpedo is a healthy franchise capable of supporting many different types of creative expression including those loathsome 'mindless action' films, novels, comics, TV shows, and various other forms that may even include stuff that appeals to their highly refined tastes.
When fans choose to boycott a franchise's biggest and most important offerings they actually are working against their own best interest, starving the franchise and convincing the corporate masters of that franchise that there is little value in funding new forms of creative expression.

You really need to stop the straw-man here!

I'm not boycotting anything. I'm just not interest. They want to sell me a product. If I don't like it, I won't buy it. If they find enough other people that buy it - no problem for them. If they don't - shame.

 

[BillJ]

Oh come on dude. You're being disingenuous here. You know very well what Rahul meant by his post.

What he meant was that the Abrams films aren't what he wants. It is disingenuous to say that they aren't "sci-fl". People should say what they mean.

 

[Rahul]

You seem to have a very limited definition of sci-fi.

Sci-fi is not a setting. You can tell literally any story in a sci-fi setting. Be it a love story, a war story, or an action story. Doesn't make it a sci-fi story.

I should have been more precise: I think Star Trek should do sci-fi stories. Those are usually high-concept. But aren't limited to it. WOK is a sci-fi story, even though it has only limited sci-fi elements.