Forbes article: ‘Snake Eyes’ Box Office Failure Is Terrible News For ‘Star Trek’

[fireproof78]

If the Star Trek reboot was to be something drastic, it probably should have taken a cue from Ron Moore's BSG. I don't mean in the sense of going dark and gritty, but rather that it's a total reworking of the original concept with no ties to any of the previous iterations of Trek. Honestly, I would have preferred that for a restart of Trek back in 2009. One of my least favorite aspects was dragging Leonard Nimoy along, as if the filmmakers weren't confident to do their reboot without having one of the old stars come and pass the torch.

I agree about the reworking and ST 09 could have bridged that a bit. Largely because Nimoy was one of the best parts of that film. I always appreciated him in there.

I think that the Kelvin universe can provide that jumping off point to go different if they are willing to try.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

They kinda tried with BEYOND (aside from Nimoy’s death being acknowledged), but that didn’t set the world on fire. You could blame marketing on that, but if it had stronger word of mouth it could have had better legs in the long run. That’s how THE VOYAGE HOME was able to win its audiences big time because it was a sleeper hit. Even more notable given it was a November release.

Perhaps they ought to stop doing Summer releases. After LICENCE TO KILL underperformed in 89, the Bond films stuck to November releases and has prospered since.

 

[fireproof78]

That's the thing-they kind of tried. But, they also fell back on familiar beats with Spock and McCoy interplay, Kirk's in jokes with the "episodic" nature of their work, etc. Going all in would help a lot in we are not going to reference the past, but focus on this new frontier.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I think the interplay was nice, because they only had a few fleeting moments prior, and it was a good way of breaking up the crew to give each group a moment to shine. Though I don’t think they did as much with Kirk and Chekov as a pair as they could have, which is also too bad given it was one of Yelchin’s last roles.

I do feel that the story of BEYOND should have been the fourth entry for them. There’s the thing between Kirk and Spock that’s played up as if they’re best friends but I don’t think the previous films did a good enough job to sell that, so it rung false in the third. It’s obviously trying to work as a stand-alone story, but I would have liked to see Kirk and Spock’s dynamic more when they actually were on the five year mission, rather than have them immediately split up.

 

[Maurice]

The STTMP budget was so high because Paramount did some creative accounting and included the pre-production budget of Phase II in it.
Because that was not the case for Star Trek II and Paramount reused sets and models, the budget for Star Trek II was relatively low.

Nah, that's not entirely accurate. TMP did cost a shit ton of money. Principle photography ran at least 6 weeks longer than scheduled, and Abel ran through millions for VFX before getting the boot, and then the studio threw money at Trumbull to get the VFX done, which ended up requiring two VFX houses running 24/7 for eight months, which means golden time pay.

As to Star Trek Phase II, TV, they had to pay out all the contracts for the cast and above the line people. I don't know why everyone treats it as "creative accounting" that the studio would count all the costs it took to get Star Trek revived as the cost of the film. That's how accounting works.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Because "Star Trek" and "GI Joe" fans go to the same movies?

 

[drt]

Because "Star Trek" and "GI Joe" fans go to the same movies?

Yeah, that's the oddest thing about this article. GI Joe is like a third-tier property at best, yet somehow Snake Eyes flopping bodes poorly for Star Trek?

 

[fireproof78]

Yeah, that's the oddest thing about this article. GI Joe is like a third-tier property at best, yet somehow Snake Eyes flopping bodes poorly for Star Trek?

It's wishful thinking more than anything else, both on the part of the article and expecting Kelvin universe to fail.

Star Trek can draw people in if it is done in a way that doesn't feel completely inaccessible. Marvel managed to do it for a time, but it has become weighed down a little by its own history. Star Trek has a similar thing, and then constant call backs and references, even in Kelvin, proved that Star Trek was not ready to let go of its own past.

And I know the common argument is that Trek's past makes it unique which is fine. It also makes it extremely niche and feel daunting to jump in. When I'm in online Trek groups (not just here but around the web) the biggest question I see commonly is, "What do I need to watch for it to all make sense?"

I think that the Kelvin offered that opportunity but then it fell back on history. So, I think Kelvin can still do that and be accessible and make some money if done with confidence in the story.

 

[StalwartUK]

Yeah, that's the oddest thing about this article. GI Joe is like a third-tier property at best, yet somehow Snake Eyes flopping bodes poorly for Star Trek?

They're both properties that Paramount regard - or rather would like to be - blockbusters like Mission Impossible.

It's pretty clear though if the last several years are anything to go by is they really have no idea what to do with Star Trek at least as a film franchise. If Beyond had been a smash hit we would've already seen a fourth movie and hopefully be awaiting a fifth (pandemic notwithstanding).

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Because "Star Trek" and "GI Joe" fans go to the same movies?

In terms of trying to attract a broader audience that goes to see Star Wars, MCU films, etc, that is a resounding YES.

It's wishful thinking more than anything else, both on the part of the article and expecting Kelvin universe to fail.

Why are you making that assumption? I know you're weary of the loud fans online collectively crapping on the Kelvin films, but that writer doesn't strike me as someone that has a disdain for that iteration of Trek. He's judging purely by the numbers, and the numbers haven't been looking too good for Star Trek films. In fact in the same article he says he hopes Paramount's failed attempt to reboot G.I. Joe will convince them to ultimately retain as much of the reboot cast as possible, so that its chances are at least better than none.

Don't mistake skepticism for disdain.

 

[fireproof78]

Why are you making that assumption? I know you're weary of the loud fans online collectively crapping on the Kelvin films, but that writer doesn't strike me as someone that has a disdain for that iteration of Trek. He's judging purely by the numbers, and the numbers haven't been looking too good for Star Trek films. In fact in the same article he says he hopes Paramount's failed attempt to reboot G.I. Joe will convince them to ultimately retain as much of the reboot cast as possible, so that its chances are at least better than none.

Don't mistake skepticism for disdain.

More cynicism but its directed at Paramount. In any case, my skepticism at the article is equally high.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

It seems just like with sequels and prequels, it's gonna take awhile for studios to realize that reboots are not an automatic assurance.

 

[fireproof78]

It seems just like with sequels and prequels, it's gonna take awhile for studios to realize that reboots are not an automatic assurance.

If they were then studios would actually make money. As with many things in life, Hollywood is looking for guarantees when there are none to be had.

 

[Sci]

I mean, I don't think box office performances of any movies are predicative of future box office performance, because the pandemic isn't over yet and audiences are still skittish about going to theaters. Even the latest MCU movie is under-performing. We are still living in a time of exception and we won't know what the new equilibrium is yet for the industry until COVID is well and truly over.

 

[RAMA]

Not really comparable, people went to see (or didn't) because it was an action series with stars, not because of the GI Joe franchise itself. People often go to Trek because of the brand name.

RAMA

 

[Khan 2.0]

more from Forbes
Why ‘Fast 10,’ ‘Guardians 3’ And ‘Star Trek 4’ May Cannibalize Each Other (forbes.com)

 

[fireproof78]

"Canabalize"?

 

[M'Sharak]

more from Forbes
Why ‘Fast 10,’ ‘Guardians 3’ And ‘Star Trek 4’ May Cannibalize Each Other (forbes.com)

Or: "Scott Mendelson had to fill his current quota of column inches for the genre-movie page, so here's what he's barfed onto a page for your consumption this month."

Now I’m making some assumptions about films for which we know little-to-nothing about.

Honestly, they could have printed only this sentence in lieu of that meandering chain of paragraphs, and we would have been no less enlightened at the end of reading it.

Hell, that sentence could easily stand in for nearly every piece Mendelson has written in the last 10 years.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

His guesses may be up in the air, but his assessments of how and why JJ Trek hasn't maintained a hot streak after ST09 hasn't been that far off. It'll be interesting to see what exactly a fourth film will turn out in light of BEYOND having under-performed.

 

[fireproof78]

Probably won't be a Kelvin film.