Based on Disney's 2019 release slate, I think there's very little chance we see a new Trek film until 2020 at the earliest. There's just nowhere to put it that doesn't run into an overly competitive situation. The release date was one of the problems for Beyond. I think they'll give this incarnation another go, given the risk of rebooting it again so soon and audiences appear to be tiring of quick reboots. The studio needs tentpoles, and they need Star Trek to be successful. They'll give it every chance to succeed.
Future of Paramount includes Star Trek tentpole
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
The market was crowded but not overly saturated. It was also a soft market, the softest in years around the world, and currently, projections in Hollywood are down even further for 2017. I don't know when it will turn around, but likely not till after the current US administration has 4 years to decimate a great economy they were handed on a silver platter.
As I've pointed out before, Beyond is probably at a $75-100 million profit at this time. In 2-3 years it will be in the $200 million range. Far from being a bomb, it will easily make money. The issue was more about our expectations (the studio was very conservative on this, far more than fans were). We all thought $500 million was a cinch before we realized the movie market was not going to get better, aside from animated and Marvel films.
Trek movies do well from each era. While I dislike using adjusted numbers due to inherent inaccuracies, the adjusted Gross for Trek movies is $3.5 billion, The last 3 movies are over 1/3rd that adjusted total. Beyond made in the $400 million range with disc sales, minus other secondary revenue, which is how Hollywood really does it's accounting and makes its money.
Last edited:
I hope that is true, but I'm skeptical. If it is so, why is Paramount so quiet on another film?
Last edited:
Maybe because it's proven that it's not?
I agree that RAMA's figures seem to be influenced by optimism bias, but I'm not an expert on Hollywood financials.
This could be potentially big news about the future of Star Trek
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/77983
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/77983
How so? That was a whole bunch of nothing and speculation.
Perhaps Meyer might want to take Into Darkness apart, and write a diatribe that also works as a film or mini-series. Show how Khan could even be brainwashed, change his name to John Harrison, and work for Section 31... for absolutely any duration of time... because nothing in my understanding of who he is, really makes that possible.
Last edited:
No, I supported everything I've said about the grosses before. I am using some suppositions to fill in blanks (for example the fact that foreign disc sales are 70-100% of domestic..which is the only information I could dig up on the subject other than the Secondary income statistics, which I posted last year when Beyond came out).
Another key statistic is exactly how much the Beyond exclusive merchandising deal was with China. I could be $25 million or $100 million, but it was the largest merchandising rights deal for Star Trek ever. So that has to be included in the total.
Overall, Beyond should be in profit now.
RAMA
For the biggest merchandising deal ever...there's exactly zero Beyond merchandise...lol.
There are the Beyond blu-rays and DVDs. Eaglemoss released the Franklin ship model and… that's about it really. You want MORE merchandise than that?!
You want MORE merchandise than that?!
Yes, I do. Namely a model kit of the new 1701-A.
Yes. Action figures, more models. Role play toys. Stuff for kids.There are the Beyond blu-rays and DVDs. Eaglemoss released the Franklin ship model and… that's about it really. You want MORE merchandise than that?!
That's how Disney hooks Star Wars. Toys and kid's tie-ins.
Disney gets that Star Wars is generational. Dads want to share the experience of Star Wars with their kids, moms want to give their daughters roles models like Leia. So we have a constant flow of affordable light sabers, toy ships, colorful books, and family-friendly video games.
Paramount seems to be fundamentally opposed to recognizing that that's how Star Trek became a thing. My dad showed me TNG, I'm showing my sons the Kelvin Universe movies. My kids love playing with my old phasers and stuff. But now I can't get them a model of the Enterprise that doesn't cost $70 or a phaser prop that won't bankrupt me.
I know Paramount is separate from CBS now but at least DSC is paying tribute to what came before. The 09 movie probably worked really well BECAUSE they gave it a sense of gravitas and history. Remember the first teaser?
Trek isn't always family friendly but there's nothing fundamentally unfriendly about it even at its worst. Beyond, of all movies, would have been a fantastic film to market to families. But not only did they not do that, they failed to market it to almost anyone who wasn't already a fan.
Edit: That reminds me so clearly of their marketing for Nemesis. I remember not seeing anything about it then suddenly seeing last-ditch commercials gratuitously focused on the action on MTV of all places.
You can't wait til the last minute and you can't count on a small group of fans to float these movies.
It's funny, I live in South Africa where knowledge of Star Trek is almost non-existent, and I remember loads of marketing for Nemesis, more in fact than any of the recent movies. It didn't help though, as Nemesis only earned $31K here which is quite pathetic.
I live in Dubai and went to Comic Con here and noticed they had the Captain's chair from Beyond at the event. You could sit on it and get your picture taken with the Beyond logo, it was around April of last year. To be honest that was practically the first and only bit of marketing I noticed apart from the rubbish trailers. It just looked so poxy compared to the likes of Marvel, DC and Star Wars - not to mention Fox with their X-Men promotions for Apocalypse. Paramount has a real issue with how it promotes the Star Trek movies - once JJ Abrams was taken out of the equation - it was like the series was just released and left to fend for itself. I would say the film is in a great deal more profit than people realise given how little was spent on marketing. I also think we will see a massively reduced budget next time out as well.
You know, I watched the 2009 film last night while I was reading and hanging out at home...and it really hit me how horrifically (and tragically) mis-managed this movie franchise has been since then. I mean, I remembered all the hype and positive (general audience...not crazed fanatic) reaction around the film. It was very popular, well-reviewed, and very well-marketed.
I feel so bad that they basically (and almost undeniably) trashed that in the long wait for "Into Darkness" and the dismal marketing effort surrounding "Beyond." With a property like Star Trek, everything is precarious and on "think ice" and they totally blew it with their (one?) opportunity in the wake of a well-made and well-received first film.
I fear now that there's really no recovering. I mean...I watched Guardians of the Galaxy for the first time earlier in the week...and I've got to tell you...I don't know what people see in this. It's uninspired, cookie-cutter, cliched dreck. In my opinion...the new Trek movies blow it away. Honestly. I mean that (and I'm not a HUGE fan of the newer movies...but I do enjoy them)! But that movie made 770M worldwide and it's sequel film (which I'm sure is equally paint-by-numbers) has already made over $800M. People say the Trek movie villains are under-written, yet praise GotG??? I don't know man....maybe I've just lost my mind. Because to me, GotG was a cheap, "same old same old" presentation. It's literally the same as every single other Marvel blockbuster movie. Yet, people eat it up while pecking away endlessly at the new Trek films.
Anyway, my point is that I am seriously worried that any momentum that Star Trek had is LONG dead. The first film was everything it needed to be: fun, well-reviewed, well-received, well-marketed, etc. I am devastated, in taking myself back to 2009, to really put into perspective how far things have slipped in 8 short years.
I feel so bad that they basically (and almost undeniably) trashed that in the long wait for "Into Darkness" and the dismal marketing effort surrounding "Beyond." With a property like Star Trek, everything is precarious and on "think ice" and they totally blew it with their (one?) opportunity in the wake of a well-made and well-received first film.
I fear now that there's really no recovering. I mean...I watched Guardians of the Galaxy for the first time earlier in the week...and I've got to tell you...I don't know what people see in this. It's uninspired, cookie-cutter, cliched dreck. In my opinion...the new Trek movies blow it away. Honestly. I mean that (and I'm not a HUGE fan of the newer movies...but I do enjoy them)! But that movie made 770M worldwide and it's sequel film (which I'm sure is equally paint-by-numbers) has already made over $800M. People say the Trek movie villains are under-written, yet praise GotG??? I don't know man....maybe I've just lost my mind. Because to me, GotG was a cheap, "same old same old" presentation. It's literally the same as every single other Marvel blockbuster movie. Yet, people eat it up while pecking away endlessly at the new Trek films.
Anyway, my point is that I am seriously worried that any momentum that Star Trek had is LONG dead. The first film was everything it needed to be: fun, well-reviewed, well-received, well-marketed, etc. I am devastated, in taking myself back to 2009, to really put into perspective how far things have slipped in 8 short years.
Waiting more than three years is always a risk for a franchise, Paramount did that with Into Darkness, after four years, which ended up hugely successful from a profit point of view, critically not so much, then the reason they waited so long JJ Abrams, jumped ship to a rival franchise and studio - and to give you an idea of mismanaged Trek has been since it came very close to being directed by a first time director, who was previously a writer, Orci. Marvel and Disney, give them their due, know how to give people what they want - Paramount on the other hand don't seem to have any one person driving the Trek franchise for better or worse and come together every few years to think something up.
yeh been thinking about the killed momentum thing - with STID, JJs possible reluctance at helming the sequel? (seem to remember reading articles after ST09 saying he wasn't sure if he wanted to direct another one), he and the writers being involved in a load of other stuff (Transformers 2, Super8, Cowboys&Aliens, People Like Us, Fringe, Alcatraz, etc), the question of to go with Khan or not which seemed to have been an issue for a good while and if so who to cast as Khan (maybe waiting on Benico Del Toro or Javier Barhem to agree or not) - all stuff that put that absolute killer of an extra year between ST09/STID (funny at the time of STID seem to remember abit of something said somewhere as to wondering who this new crew were or if it was the same crew as it was so long since the last one they thought these were like a new crew or something )
then with Beyond there was the whole JJ leaves for SW thing, and Orci then wanting to direct his Shatner script (and Paramount being reluctant to let him direct and maybe he not wanting anyone else to direct his script and perhaps Paramount weren't too thrilled with the script anyway?) which made it abit of a mad dash to come up with another story and then get the film out for summer 2016.. which maybe led to the somewhat lacklustre promotion of the movie..
Last edited:
It's shocking because it was also the franchise's 50th anniversary and while Beyond was a good film, with a lot to recommend, it felt like it could have been released in any year. Compare it to the 50th anniversary of Bond or Doctor Who which both took place in recent years?
Into Darkness did fine critically, and movie goers like it too. All one has to do is look at sites like Rotten Tomatoes.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness
Even most folks here gave the movie a 'B' or better.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
