6 reasons Beyond will be the biggest ST movie yet

[RAMA]

How are you arriving at 40M? The trailer on the Paramount site IS the YoutTube video.

I kept a running tab on the viewing numbers here on this BBS and on social media. The last I saw, the paramount video had 14 million viewers and the Star Trek.com sourced one had almost 19 million views. The other day I saw a different video on youtube for the trailer with 3.6 million views. I'm being conservative with the 40 million number.

RAMA

 

[johnjm22]

I kept a running tab on the viewing numbers here on this BBS and on social media. The last I saw, the paramount video had 14 million viewers and the Star Trek.com sourced one had almost 19 million views. The other day I saw a different video on youtube for the trailer with 3.6 million views. I'm being conservative with the 40 million number.

RAMA

Where are you seeing the views on the StarTrek.com site? I see the trailer uploaded on there, but I don't see a view count.

 

[F. King Daniel]

A screen shot from December 14, with the number of views on Facebook.

 

[Overgeeked]

6 Reasons why Star Trek Beyond will be the most successful Star Trek movie in history

1.The demographics of China’s growth in movie theaters on the Mainland, where 15 new screens open daily. There are 5,600 cinemas with 28,000 screens, and that number is projected to nearly 2X this year.

Doesn't follow that because there are more screens therefore there will be more interest.

2. Produced by JJ Abrams Force Awakens/Box office 2.053 billion
3. Written by Simon Pegg Total box office 4.3 billion
4. Directed by Justin Lin Total Box office 1.9 billion

Big names and box office hauls for previous projects don't guarantee future performance.

5. Star Trek 50th Anniversary

Could impact, sure.

6. JJ Abrams 2 film ST gross: $1.1 billion

It's also largely ridiculed as a terrible movie. Sales don't guarantee quality. See Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey.

Chinese possibly interested in buying Paramount
http://www.livetradingnews.com/ther...ney-investing-in-paramount-studios-133012.htm

Damn, I hope not.

 

[Trekkin]

6. JJ Abrams 2 film ST gross: $1.1 billion

It's also largely ridiculed as a terrible movie.

Cmon dude. I don't even really agree with the OP, and even I know that you have to try harder than that.

 

[Devon]

It's also largely ridiculed as a terrible movie.

Nope.

 

[BillJ]

It's also largely ridiculed as a terrible movie.

Not even close...

An average score of 4.2/5 on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 309,000+ scores. Into Darkness was rated a 'B-' or better by 75% of the folks here at TrekBBS. Surely those should provide some counter evidence to your "largely ridiculed as a terrible movie" nonsense?

 

[The Wormhole]

An average score of 4.2/5 on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 309,000+ scores. Into Darkness was rated a 'B-' or better by 75% of the folks here at TrekBBS. Surely those should provide some counter evidence to your "largely ridiculed as a terrible movie" nonsense?

Those figures clearly originate from studio plants trying to push the Abrams agenda of turning Trek into something fun and exciting and therefore an impurity in the eyes of Roddenberry and his Vision.

 

[johnjm22]

STID has had the strangest reception of any movie I've ever seen.

It's apparently a critical success, but nearly everyone I talk to in real life ridicules the film, or liked it initially but has changed their mind.

It's a financial success, but a disappointment.

People who worked on it feel the need to apologize or defend it.

It's a weird situation.

 

[BillJ]

It's a weird situation.

I can agree to that. I just think some bad press got out there, including acting like a hundred people at a convention were somehow a barometer of how Trekkies everywhere felt about the movie.

 

[mattman8907]

you can't please everyone. cause if you did everyone would be griping about something else.

 

[Trekkin]

STID has had the strangest reception of any movie I've ever seen.

It's apparently a critical success, but nearly everyone I talk to in real life ridicules the film, or liked it initially but has changed their mind.

It's a financial success, but a disappointment.

People who worked on it feel the need to apologize or defend it.

It's a weird situation.

Not a new situation for us.

I mean, people have made two feature-length documentaries just to show off the fandoms 'extreme' ten-per-cent. For a lot of non-fans, it seems the Trekkies are more interesting to follow than actual Star Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

I can agree to that. I just think some bad press got out there, including acting like a hundred people at a convention were somehow a barometer of how Trekkies everywhere felt about the movie.

I agree its weird. I think part of it is due to the secrecy of Abrams, part of it due to the convention voting it "worst Trek film" without the sample size being considered. Apparently once that vote happened, the opinion of all of fandom was locked in, at least according to the Internet.

As for Abrams and other apologizing for the film, that seems to be more in line with the contemporary culture of film directors and producers having to explain themselves all along the way.

 

[Maurice]

Most of the people I know who saw STID who aren't Trekkies liked it and haven't changed their opinions.

 

[The Wormhole]

I think part of it is due to the secrecy of Abrams,

The secrecy surrounding STID is one of the weirdest and stupidest things I've seen done in movies in recent years. So they decide to bring back Khan because he's apparently the very definition of villainy in Star Trek. Captain Kirk's Joker. They cast a popular rising star in the role. And then make his identity a plot twist. What the hell is the point in bringing back a one of the most iconic characters of the franchise, if you're not going to use the character's identity as a promotional tool?

It certainly doesn't help matters that Khan's alias, renegade Starfleet officer turned terrorist John Harrison is a more interesting story idea. Watching the scenes before the Khan revelation definitely present an interesting character. Here's one of Starfleet's best and brightest, a skilled asset and someone can accomplish results at anything he sets his mind to, and he's betrayed Starfleet. Just what is his deal? What has made him turn against Starfleet and made him okay murdering his fellow officers? Then you find out he's Khan out for revenge against an Evil Admiral for being a douchebag to him.

And finally, months of interviews with everyone in the Bad Robot camp constantly delivering the same meaningless double-talk about connections to canon and whatever got annoying. While I criticized Paramount for not doing anything to promote Beyond earlier, I must admit silence is preferable to having the same stuff being regurgitated every month in one long cock-tease.

 

[thumbtack]

Most of the people I know who saw STID who aren't Trekkies liked it and haven't changed their opinions.

Good news, since most of the people who go to Star Trek movies are not trekkies.

 

[Phily B]

STID was a fine movie, it got a good rating on here. I enjoyed it, I thought it was well put together and had a solid story if a bit incoherent at times with a fairly poor ending. The way certain, very vocal people go on about it you'd think it was Star Trek 5 or 10. In reality it was well received amongst audiences and critics, box office wise it fell short due to poor marketing but also, in my opinion, Trek has a ceiling and BO wise will never earn all that much, especially in the climate of comic book movies.

 

[johnjm22]

I think part of the problem with STID's promotion was that it looked like another summer disaster movie in previews. Barely any space. The movie's poster reaffirmed it. If people want to watch city environments getting destroyed, they'll watch a super hero movie.

Had they advertised it with Khan, it probably would have made the film stick out more.

STB's trailer looks like there won't be much space in this film either.

 

[fireproof78]

The secrecy surrounding STID is one of the weirdest and stupidest things I've seen done in movies in recent years. So they decide to bring back Khan because he's apparently the very definition of villainy in Star Trek. Captain Kirk's Joker. They cast a popular rising star in the role. And then make his identity a plot twist. What the hell is the point in bringing back a one of the most iconic characters of the franchise, if you're not going to use the character's identity as a promotional tool?

It certainly doesn't help matters that Khan's alias, renegade Starfleet officer turned terrorist John Harrison is a more interesting story idea. Watching the scenes before the Khan revelation definitely present an interesting character. Here's one of Starfleet's best and brightest, a skilled asset and someone can accomplish results at anything he sets his mind to, and he's betrayed Starfleet. Just what is his deal? What has made him turn against Starfleet and made him okay murdering his fellow officers? Then you find out he's Khan out for revenge against an Evil Admiral for being a douchebag to him.

And finally, months of interviews with everyone in the Bad Robot camp constantly delivering the same meaningless double-talk about connections to canon and whatever got annoying. While I criticized Paramount for not doing anything to promote Beyond earlier, I must admit silence is preferable to having the same stuff being regurgitated every month in one long cock-tease.

The secrecy was strange, and I have to agree that Harriman as Harriman and not Khan was another storyline that could have been incredibly interesting to explore. I personally would have enjoyed the idea of Harriman being a genetically engineered soldier, inspired by Khan, like Paxton was inspired by Colonel Green in "Terra Prime." It would could take a concept that has been done in Star Trek before, but turn it on its head, with Section 31 doing the genetic experimentation to create super soldiers to fight the Klingons.

As for the marketing, yeah,it was dumb and Abrams admitted as much. I personally didn't have a problem with it, more than I had the issue that Khan was the go to villain. As much as I like TWOK, it still strikes as the movie that casts the longest shadow and production teams feel the need to emulate. Now, I personally think that STID had a solid story and thematic elements that differentiated it from TWOK but the fact that Khan was the villain, and the Engineering scene brought in the comparison that the movie couldn't really escape. It also showed that as much as the franchise is trying to look forward, it also looks backward too much, in my opinion.

To bring it around to the original thread title, I think Beyond could work because it seems to be trying to have a genuine adventure with the new crew, and not an origin story or a trial by fire. Obviously there is still the crisis and drama of the blockbuster film, but I think it will have a different feel for the crew than before.

 

[The Wormhole]

As much as I like TWOK, it still strikes as the movie that casts the longest shadow and production teams feel the need to emulate. Now, I personally think that STID had a solid story and thematic elements that differentiated it from TWOK but the fact that Khan was the villain, and the Engineering scene brought in the comparison that the movie couldn't really escape. It also showed that as much as the franchise is trying to look forward, it also looks backward too much, in my opinion.

Hell, most Trek movies from First Contact onwards have tried to emulate TWOK in someway. Think about that, for the past twenty years, Star Trek movies have been aping a movie made in the early 80s. Hopefully now that STID is essentially a remake of TWOK everyone has got that worked out of their system and we can finally move onto something different for the movies.