Future of Paramount includes Star Trek tentpole
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
Honestly, sometimes I think we really got the worst studio. Paramount is cheap where it really counts, but they also waste money and resources, it's a contradiction. They want movies to make money and be successful, but their team, for the most part, seems to have poor skills when it comes to promotion (timing especially), and critical analysis to see what makes a movie successful to nowadays audiences. Beyond was a weak movie that wasted the reboot's potential, and drove away the audience that made the first two more successful (this team implying they were ignoring stid backfired ) but in the end, it's the studios fault if they didn't have a clear plan for this trek and didn't make an effort to get a creative team and script that was better than what we got. The first movie was really really successful and popular, I struggle to understand how they could lose track and sabotage (no pun intended) this franchise like that. It's like they don't know what they are even doing.
I don't think Beyond was a bad movie. But I do think audiences were expecting a follow-up to the Augments, Section 31, the Klingons and other hanging plot threads. And I think it hurt the movie.
Paramount moronically rushed the production of Beyond so that it would be out for Star Trek's 50th anniversary. Then they didn't promote the 50th AT ALL. So why bother? IF Beyond had come out this summer instead, that would have given them another year to refine the script even more, and while I like Beyond, it could have been even better.
Personally, I found Beyond a crushing disappointment - I had high hopes that with Pegg writing it it would be a major step in the right direction. What I got was more of the same - a film virtually indistinguishable in style and tone from its two predecessors.
From a wider view, I work in a comic shop. Our customer base certainly contains the target demographic for Beyond and to be honest, no one really gave a stuff, even the Trek fans.
The new films seem to fall between two stools - they don't appeal to the old school and don't make a dent against the current superhero / Star Wars continuation fans.
It wouldn't be an issue if they had found an audience amongst the mainstream / casual cinemagoers, but they don't seem very bothered either...
The audience was also expecting a sequel of the first two in terms of the core dynamics as well, and I don't think going all for the old dynamics, at the expense of really developing the new things, to placate fans with nostalgia, helped the movie. Them going backwards with the dynamics was frustrating and a waste, and disappointing. We are just stuck in the 60s about some things and it's ridiculous.
Again, old trek fans believe all the fans of this trek will care only about the 3 dudes and bromance, and that stuff is "enough" to capture everyone's interest but it's a foolish biased thought already contradicted by facts.
Look at what critics really focus on. Look at the cast interviews and what interviewers ask the most about. Look at awards noms.
This is not old trek for old trek fans only. The past worked in the past but it doesn't necessarily works nowadays and it's just foolish to insist this trek must be tailored on those fans with nostalgia only.
STID despite an initial good reception seem to sully in the coming years + Botched start to production + God awful marketing compared to the first two movies + Fatigue in a time sequels seem to be suffering + Bad release window (should of been May 20th or June 3rd slot)
Beyond got good reviews from the Critical/Audience scores/grades from numerous sites, so even if some people didn't like it then clearly that was not the overriding issue with the masses.
Beyond got good reviews from the Critical/Audience scores/grades from numerous sites, so even if some people didn't like it then clearly that was not the overriding issue with the masses.
Into Darkness did better, across the board. It felt important in the Star Trek narrative, something Beyond just doesn't do.
Paramount badly misread its audiences when it bought into the whole "Into Darkness is the worst Trek move EVAR!!!" nonsense. Which was from a few dozen screaming internet trolls.
What you also have to look at is marketing. Beyond, IMO, was really nicely done. I enjoyed it a lot. But Paramount is absolutely horrendous at handling marketing.
If you have a movie with no or virtually no merchandise to supplement the income for the movie, you won't get anything in return to make a profit.
Even some horrendous movies get sequels endlessly because marketing and merchandising is a hit.
If you have a movie with no or virtually no merchandise to supplement the income for the movie, you won't get anything in return to make a profit.
Even some horrendous movies get sequels endlessly because marketing and merchandising is a hit.
The masses made their opinion about Beyond clear by choosing to spend for it less money than they did for the first two (eg those who didn't go watch it multiple times like for the first two, and aren't buying the dvds now), or no money at all (eg those turned off by spoilers making it obvious the movie wasn't for them and didn't look interesting).
Bad promotion aside, the movie simply wasn't as liked by the masses as the first two were and this can't be glossed over or made excuses for by blaming stid when that movie is, by comparision, very successful from all angles possible.
Eta: and for some "bad promotion" was the hints of the stuff that was in the movie too, such as the direction the creative team took with the characters, and Lin sounding apaethic about the first two and implying he was, basically, ignoring most of what the other team had done.
BEYOND honestly was "less" than the first two from every response, not just money but critics too. It got more tiepid reviews than stid too, and ultimately made a lower score on rotten tomatoes etc.
Also, while the first two got more attention from awards and top ten lists of best sci-fi movies, beyond barely got that kind of appraisal and recognition.
And simply put, even positive reviews were in large part a "not as bad as we feared it would". Even those who criticized it still seemed to not want to be too hard on pegg&Co because of the behind the scenes stuff kind of giving them a "it's the best they could do in those circumstances". And of course, the reviews were helped by the old fan nostalgia generally making some critics a bit biased and give this movie a pass for stuff they roast other franchises for.
For instance, many critics complained that they sidelined uhura and are still not doing enough with the new dynamics, but those who are old fans are not willing to also say why that was the case because they like the focus the old dynamics got and don't want to sacrifice some of the nostalgia, in spite of recognizing that it makes the reboot go backwards compared to the first movies and might alienate the modern audience. (some critics had warned about nostalgia becoming an issue back when they commented stid too)
Last edited:
No, not at all. I'm in my mid 50's and like TOS and love the TOS movies (mostly) but have had a lot more enjoyment from TNG and particularly DS9. I'm certainly not wedded to the Kirk Spock McCoy bromance.
I just think Beyond was fast paced superficial tat.
was speaking in general about people like PixelMagic who keep saying that the movies can be successful by only focusing on Kirk, Spock and McCoy (3 white dudes in space and their bromance, groundbreaking!) , when that wasn't even the dynamic of this trek and the actors aren't exactly such big stars that people will watch a movie just because their face is in the posters. Trek can do better than being still stuck in the confines of what they were allowed to do in the 60s, anyway. It should do better and maybe it must if they don't want to flop.
And I'm an old fan too (well, not too old
) but I got tired of the original trio and was more than willing to embrace JJ changing the status quo a bit and trying something different. And I know I wasn't the only one even if certain old fans on the internet keep speaking for all trek fans by claiming we "all" hate JJ and the reboot. paramount&Co seem to listen too much to what few on the internet write instead of looking at facts (eg the urban legend that stid was a flop just because some fanboys say it was)
I was just saying for my own personal enjoyment, I wouldn't miss any characters who are not Kirk/Spock/McCoy. Hell, Jayla is a better character than Uhura, Scotty or Sulu already.
Pretty sure you all talk about your own personal enjoyment, the problem is I often read it getting passed as an universal truth valid for everyone when there is more than a reason if promotional stuff barely features mccoy, let alone the original trio.
Of course Jaylah is better. She's a new female character they could bring or not bring back without any real consequence, and most importantly she doesn't interfere with the old trio dynamic because she barely interacts with Kirk and Spock and could never "replace Mccoy". Certain fans liking her wasn't exactly a surprise for me.
Like it, though I think that cast would somewhat blow the budget!
great cast, but last thing i wanna see right now is war with the koreans.
i mean klingons.
Similar threads
- Locked
