Why is the new film doing so terribly outside the US..???

[Therin of Andor]

the overseas reviews for the film were very good.
but for some reason the over seas marketing was neglected almost to the last moment.

I assume the marketing budget is handled by the local distributor in each country. They would already have made their estimates, based on the previous ratios of domestic vs international.

that and for some reason trek movies just havent done as well overseas.

Keep in mind that ST III wasn't even theatrically released in much of Europe, which is why ST IV was marketed as "The Voyage Home: Star Trek IV" and had a little Shatner-narrated primer as to what had happened in II and III.

 

[Jeri]

I actually saw The Voyage Home in Europe -- West Germany at the time. It was weird hearing it dubbed. They must have advertised it enough, since we heard about it.

I don't know what kind of reception it got, because we were students and went in the afternoon. There weren't that many, and they looked like students, too.

 

[mythicdove]

I thought it was doing well in Japan? No?

 

[MvRojo]

I thought it was doing well in Japan? No?

Opened with $2.2 million.

 

[RAMA]

ST 09's supposedly weak international take was $8 million this weekend, almost equaling the NA total of $12.5 mill!! $2.2 million came from Japan, nearly quintupling Nemesis' performance. Its over $100 mill officially at $101.5 million! ST is now at $311 worldwide, after starting at just over $290 million Fri. Amazing.

Edit: The international gross went from 30.5% to 32.6% of the total in one weekend.

RAMA

 

[Trilliam]

Or the "word of mouth" and the "critics" in America simply have different tastes, and people overseas make up their own minds.

Angels & Demons: great movie; sad they dropped a few things from the novel, but still a great movie.

I have read the book, but have no intention of seeing the movie. I'e found that if I read the book first (any book) I'm almost always sorry that I've bothered with the movie.

Hancock: great movie, maybe even fantastic.

No desire to see that one.

Indy 4: great movie.

Didn't float my boat. Mental bubblegum and not much else.

Mamma Mia: Not my cup of tea, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is simply a good movie.

Chick flick with a wedding somewhere in there set to Abba music - how original! Oh, wait they did that with "Muriel's Wedding" in the 90s (watched the DVD). No, I didn't see this one either.

Star Trek: Horrible.

Loved it, the husband loved it, the 4 offspring loved it. A good family night out. Actually, we've seen it twice.

 

[Random.Guy]

Star Trek is having a hard time in The Netherlands, despite positive movie reviews (mostly 4 out of 5 stars).
The Netherlands is about the worst possible market for SciFi/Action Hero movies, Dutch people tend to think it's all just fake and for nerds.
People will look at you like this: when being told you watch Star Trek.

To illustrate the Dutch movie going public:
The highest grossing movie for 2008 wasn't TDK, not even by a long shot. Mama Mia (of all movies ) was the highest grossing movie in The Netherlands with a $9.8million total. TDK came in only in 4th or 5th place grossing $7.2million.
Even Madagascar 2 did better.
So, good luck trying to market Star Trek over here...

Angels & Demons grossed $1.7million in one week, Star Trek needed two weeks to get $0.8million.

 

[Jeri]

When "Big" was, well, big -- I read that it played a solid year in a theater in Copenhagen. That's not the Netherlands, of course, but maybe they have the same problem with sci-fi.

 

[Jax]

back to the OP...

Trek still doing the buissness in the UK $26.5 million I believe . Were soon to overtake Wolverine Worldwide total and its oversea lead is only $40ish million so am sure we can cut that down a little to maybe $30 million come the end of both films oversea's runs.

I can't believe we have hammered Wolverine in the domestic market and it will not beat us by much oversea's leading us to a worldwide total win over a X Men franchise that had gross so many $$$ worldwide previously.

 

[MvRojo]

back to the OP...

Trek still doing the buissness in the UK $26.5 million I believe . Were soon to overtake Wolverine Worldwide total and its oversea lead is only $40ish million so am sure we can cut that down a little to maybe $30 million come the end of both films oversea's runs.

I can't believe we have hammered Wolverine in the domestic market and it will not beat us by much oversea's leading us to a worldwide total win over a X Men franchise that had gross so many $$$ worldwide previously.

Wolverine is $70 million ahead of Trek internationally at the moment ($170 vs. $101 million), but you are right that we are only $30 million behind globally ($340 vs. $311 million).

 

[Jax]

back to the OP...

Trek still doing the buissness in the UK $26.5 million I believe . Were soon to overtake Wolverine Worldwide total and its oversea lead is only $40ish million so am sure we can cut that down a little to maybe $30 million come the end of both films oversea's runs.

I can't believe we have hammered Wolverine in the domestic market and it will not beat us by much oversea's leading us to a worldwide total win over a X Men franchise that had gross so many $$$ worldwide previously.

Wolverine is $70 million ahead of Trek internationally at the moment ($170 vs. $101 million), but you are right that we are only $30 million behind globally ($340 vs. $311 million).

Yeh sorry meant globally not oversea's.

 

[M'Sharak]

Why is it the new film not doing so good outside the US?

Hmm... Oh, I'm taking a stab at it; but maybe because most of us people outside of the US actually realized the following:

http://www.californiachronicle.com/a...s/yb/130668300

?

You realized that a little-known online magazine site would reprint from a small-town Massachusetts newspaper a "review" which could easily have been cobbled together out of the bumper-sticker slogans of online Trek-watchers such as yourself by someone who may have given the movie only a cursory glance? Great. So what?

Sure, there are some valid points made about the movie, but what's the point in printing a review nearly a month after the movie opens (it's a daily paper, by the way, with six issues a week) when you're saying nothing which hasn't been said by others dozens of times over? There isn't an original thought in the whole thing. Not one. Even more telling: what's the point of someone else then reprinting such a tardy and slipshod review?

That's pretty weak and unconvincing, as an argument.

 

[3D Master]

Why is it the new film not doing so good outside the US?

Hmm... Oh, I'm taking a stab at it; but maybe because most of us people outside of the US actually realized the following:

http://www.californiachronicle.com/a...s/yb/130668300

?

You realized that a little-known online magazine site would reprint from a small-town Massachusetts newspaper a "review" which could easily have been cobbled together out of the bumper-sticker slogans of online Trek-watchers such as yourself by someone who may have given the movie only a cursory glance? Great. So what?

Sure, there are some valid points made about the movie, but what's the point in printing a review nearly a month after the movie opens (it's a daily paper, by the way, with six issues a week) when you're saying nothing which hasn't been said by others dozens of times over? There isn't an original thought in the whole thing. Not one. Even more telling: what's the point of someone else then reprinting such a tardy and slipshod review?

That's pretty weak and unconvincing, as an argument.

First, PROVE it's unoriginal. Second, it doesn't matter how unoriginal it is, if it is RIGHT.

 

[Australis]

3D, I don't get you.

You made a really good post a few pages back, with all the points about why you don't like the movie, mostly valid, some of which I'd like to see implemented in the next movie.

But you frame it in ugly, inflammatory language that patronises and belittles the people who did like the move, as if you are some far superior intellect. You don't need to do that. You shouldn't - all it does is diminsih the good points you make.

 

[pookha]

Why is it the new film not doing so good outside the US?

Hmm... Oh, I'm taking a stab at it; but maybe because most of us people outside of the US actually realized the following:

http://www.californiachronicle.com/a...s/yb/130668300

?

You realized that a little-known online magazine site would reprint from a small-town Massachusetts newspaper a "review" which could easily have been cobbled together out of the bumper-sticker slogans of online Trek-watchers such as yourself by someone who may have given the movie only a cursory glance? Great. So what?

Sure, there are some valid points made about the movie, but what's the point in printing a review nearly a month after the movie opens (it's a daily paper, by the way, with six issues a week) when you're saying nothing which hasn't been said by others dozens of times over? There isn't an original thought in the whole thing. Not one. Even more telling: what's the point of someone else then reprinting such a tardy and slipshod review?

That's pretty weak and unconvincing, as an argument.

First, PROVE it's unoriginal. Second, it doesn't matter how unoriginal it is, if it is RIGHT.

so the 90 percent of the reviews that liked the movie were wrong..
a review by the way that had so many factual errors i wonder how much attention the reviewer was paying to the movie.

 

[M'Sharak]

Why is it the new film not doing so good outside the US?

Hmm... Oh, I'm taking a stab at it; but maybe because most of us people outside of the US actually realized the following:

http://www.californiachronicle.com/a...s/yb/130668300

?

You realized that a little-known online magazine site would reprint from a small-town Massachusetts newspaper a "review" which could easily have been cobbled together out of the bumper-sticker slogans of online Trek-watchers such as yourself by someone who may have given the movie only a cursory glance? Great. So what?

Sure, there are some valid points made about the movie, but what's the point in printing a review nearly a month after the movie opens (it's a daily paper, by the way, with six issues a week) when you're saying nothing which hasn't been said by others dozens of times over? There isn't an original thought in the whole thing. Not one. Even more telling: what's the point of someone else then reprinting such a tardy and slipshod review?

That's pretty weak and unconvincing, as an argument.

First, PROVE it's unoriginal.

There's no need. You and I and everyone else here has seen everything in that review said many times before -- both here on the BBS and in material linked from elsewhere-- and often presented more coherently than does this jumbled mess of a review. You know it and I know it, and why you hold it up here as evidence of anything concrete (and particularly as evidence that European audiences are somehow smarter and more perceptive than any other comparable audience) is beyond me.

Second, it doesn't matter how unoriginal it is, if it is RIGHT.

It's neither right nor wrong. It represents an opinion in agreement with your own, and no more. It proves nothing.

 

[Cyrus]

The title of this threads needs to change. While Trek continues to be less popular overseas, it obviously is not doing terribly with over a $100 million.

 

[3D Master]

You realized that a little-known online magazine site would reprint from a small-town Massachusetts newspaper a "review" which could easily have been cobbled together out of the bumper-sticker slogans of online Trek-watchers such as yourself by someone who may have given the movie only a cursory glance? Great. So what?

Sure, there are some valid points made about the movie, but what's the point in printing a review nearly a month after the movie opens (it's a daily paper, by the way, with six issues a week) when you're saying nothing which hasn't been said by others dozens of times over? There isn't an original thought in the whole thing. Not one. Even more telling: what's the point of someone else then reprinting such a tardy and slipshod review?

That's pretty weak and unconvincing, as an argument.

First, PROVE it's unoriginal.

There's no need. You and I and everyone else here has seen everything in that review said many times before -- both here on the BBS and in material linked from elsewhere-- and often presented more coherently than does this jumbled mess of a review. You know it and I know it,

Whether or not it has been said before, has no bearing on whether this was the reviewers own impressions of the movie, or whether her just copied and pasted it from other sources. In fact, if you consider it a jumbled mess compared to other place, it pretty much proves it isn't a copy and paste job of those, now is it?

Further, I don't see a jumbled mess; I see completely right criticism.

and why you hold it up here as evidence of anything concrete (and particularly as evidence that European audiences are somehow smarter and more perceptive than any other comparable audience) is beyond me.

There is not a single thing wrong in that review. It's all stuff in the movie and why it's bad.

Second, it doesn't matter how unoriginal it is, if it is RIGHT.

It's neither right nor wrong. It represents an opinion in agreement with your own, and no more. It proves nothing.

Seeing as everything in that movie review about to the movie is factually correct, and anyone with a functional mind must concede those factually correct points raised are bad; it rather does prove some things. The only question afterwards is, whether or not you can or are willing to shut down your mind enough to let flashy pictures and sound overwhelm you and let that make you feel giddy about this mess of a picture.

I'm not one of them.

First, PROVE it's unoriginal. Second, it doesn't matter how unoriginal it is, if it is RIGHT.

so the 90 percent of the reviews that liked the movie were wrong..

Yes.

a review by the way that had so many factual errors i wonder how much attention the reviewer was paying to the movie.

There were no factual errors whatsoever.

3D, I don't get you.

You made a really good post a few pages back, with all the points about why you don't like the movie, mostly valid, some of which I'd like to see implemented in the next movie.

But you frame it in ugly, inflammatory language that patronises and belittles the people who did like the move, as if you are some far superior intellect. You don't need to do that. You shouldn't - all it does is diminsih the good points you make.

What ugly, inflammatory language, and how does that patronize and belittle people? You mean the few sentences about how horribly bad the new movie is? It's pretty much impossible to say how bad the movie is by calling it "great".

Maybe you should question why you feel patronized and belittled when someone calls this movie horrendously bad. It seems it's more to do with you, then with my words.

 

[cultcross]

However Trek's box office is doing elsewhere, in the UK I've been amazed at the reception. as Deckerd mentioned, it's keeping high up the charts (Nemesis sunk like a stone, was beaten by the end of week one by Maid in Manhattan) and I was out and about in the sun yesterday and heard 4 different groups of people chatting casually about Star Trek - Getting on for as many as I've overheard in my life to date outside of fan circles.
Star Trek is most definitely a success in the UK.

Oh and just as an example, 3dMaster,

There were no factual errors whatsoever.

Here's one:
"Defying all logic, Future Spock is willing to sacrifice a billion of his own people in order keep his existence a secret from his past self"

Erm, when did that happen?

 

[3D Master]

Oh and just as an example, 3dMaster,

There were no factual errors whatsoever.

Here's one:
"Defying all logic, Future Spock is willing to sacrifice a billion of his own people in order keep his existence a secret from his past self"

Erm, when did that happen?

Oh, you're right! I was wrong. Spock when he was dumped on Delta Vega, he immediately set out to reach the Starfleet outpost, he reached it, and told Scotty his tale. Scotty contacted Starfleet, and with proper warning Starfleet - and a raised eyebrow from younger Spock at seeing his old self in the view creen - destroyed the Narada (sp?) and saved Vulcan!

He most certainly did not stuff himself in a cave doing nothing, except to get out and look with regret at the destruction of his planet, and then went to wait longer until he met Kirk, and only THEN set out for the Starfleet outpost - because you know, Kirk not being the captain of the Enterprise is so much more important than the destruction his home world.

Hold on a moment...

Oh, yeah!