If Star Trek Beyond fails

[Quinton O'Connor]

I'll never forget the sneak preview of Into Darkness I attended here in Tampa, Florida. I'd never gone to one before, nor had I ever gone into a film on my own yet surrounded by similarly hardcore folks. It was quite the experience! Mostly a pleasant one, what with all the high-spirited laughing and fun conversation. There was some heavy groaning at certain points, too, but hey, everyone was really engaged. The one problem I had was that, when someone asked me prior to the start of the movie which Trek was my favorite and I answered with Deep Space Nine, this raucous fellow behind us haunted me about my answer periodically the rest of the way through. A real class act, that one. Shouted "Deep Space Nine sucks!" on the way out; I was pleased when six people yelled back "you suck." What an experience.

I went to ID another six times. I didn't plan on it, but it happened. Different friends wanted to see it with me but couldn't get together all at once, and then a couple of them liked it enough to want to see it again, and asked me to go with them again as a result. I'm happy to have pitched in a solid $70 toward the film's ~$490 million haul, I suppose.

 

[Phantom]

I think it's important to keep in mind that in today's Hollywood, a film banking $750+ million can be considered a failure.

In such an environment, anything can happen.

 

[BillJ]

I think it's important to keep in mind that in today's Hollywood, a film banking $750+ million can be considered a failure.

In such an environment, anything can happen.

Which is non-sense. If you believe Hollywood accounting, then neither Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix still hasn't made money even though it has grossed $938 million dollars. Hollywood is littered with these kinds of stories and would be out of business if even a quarter of them were true.

http://deadline.com/2010/07/studio-...f-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting-51886/

Never trust Hollywood accounting.

And yet Warner Bros isn’t doing anything differently here than is done by every other studio. Clearly, nothing has changed since Art Buchwald successfully sued Paramount over the 1988 hit Coming to America when the subject of net participation was scrutinized, and a judge called studio accounting methods “unconscionable”.

 

[M'Sharak]

Darkness was so bad, it will have put a lot of casual Trek watchers off. I can see Beyond struggling to around $400m box office worldwide.

I think we might be at the point where diminishing returns will start to kick in.

I'm a fan who wore a t-shirt, cargo shorts, and flip flops to STID...

That's pretty casual, all right.

 

[ralph]

did you ever consider that maybe STB is going to be an unexpected and overwhelming success? Some fans say: "STB Destined to fail". I think that we should give a vote of confidence to them.

 

[BillJ]

did you ever consider that maybe STB is going to be an unexpected and overwhelming success? Some fans say: "STB Destined to fail". I think that we should give a vote of confidence to them.

If the numbers are accurate, I'm not sure why Into Darkness didn't perform better? It scored pretty well overall with both audiences and critics.

I'm hoping with the positive at-large feelings Into Darkness generated (and the fact it did very well on the home video market) that Beyond will surprise us all and bust into $600 million dollar territory.

 

[Phantom]

I think it's important to keep in mind that in today's Hollywood, a film banking $750+ million can be considered a failure.

In such an environment, anything can happen.

Which is non-sense. If you believe Hollywood accounting, then neither Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix still hasn't made money even though it has grossed $938 million dollars. Hollywood is littered with these kinds of stories and would be out of business if even a quarter of them were true.

http://deadline.com/2010/07/studio-...f-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting-51886/

Never trust Hollywood accounting.

And yet Warner Bros isn’t doing anything differently here than is done by every other studio. Clearly, nothing has changed since Art Buchwald successfully sued Paramount over the 1988 hit Coming to America when the subject of net participation was scrutinized, and a judge called studio accounting methods “unconscionable”.

Nevertheless, Sony abandoned ASM 3 and the Sinister Six and Venom spin-offs after ASM 2 "only" made $750 million +.

So it DOES happen that even financially successful movies get treated as if they "fail".

 

[ralph]

did you ever consider that maybe STB is going to be an unexpected and overwhelming success? Some fans say: "STB Destined to fail". I think that we should give a vote of confidence to them.

If the numbers are accurate, I'm not sure why Into Darkness didn't perform better? It scored pretty well overall with both audiences and critics.

I'm hoping with the positive at-large feelings Into Darkness generated (and the fact it did very well on the home video market) that Beyond will surprise us all and bust into $600 million dollar territory.

Yes.
I never imagined F&F could be success.
So, I prefer to wait the first trailer come out.

 

[Franklin]

Darkness was so bad, it will have put a lot of casual Trek watchers off. I can see Beyond struggling to around $400m box office worldwide.

I think we might be at the point where diminishing returns will start to kick in.

I'm a fan who wore a t-shirt, cargo shorts, and flip flops to STID...

That's pretty casual, all right.

did you ever consider that maybe STB is going to be an unexpected and overwhelming success? Some fans say: "STB Destined to fail". I think that we should give a vote of confidence to them.

If the numbers are accurate, I'm not sure why Into Darkness didn't perform better? It scored pretty well overall with both audiences and critics.

I'm hoping with the positive at-large feelings Into Darkness generated (and the fact it did very well on the home video market) that Beyond will surprise us all and bust into $600 million dollar territory.

The marketing of STID always seemed "off" to me. While I was damn satisfied with the story, I'm not sure some people got what they were expecting from the way it was portrayed in the commercials and publicity.

I also think if it had come out a year earlier, it would've ridden more of the good vibe coming off of ST09. Trek may not have left the radar screen between ST09 and STID, but it was flying low.

With the 50th anniversary coming up, that should create some extra buzz and give a boost to STB at the box office that ST09 and STID obviously didn't have. And of course if it's a good story, all the better.

Nothing profound in those statements, but -- .

 

[Phantom]

^ F&F was almost guaranteed to make it and be successful. It has all the ingredients of "mindless summer popcorn flick". Stunts, exotic locales, and hot women in tight/skimpy clothes.

 

[BillJ]

Nevertheless, Sony abandoned ASM 3 and the Sinister Six and Venom spin-offs after ASM 2 "only" made $750 million +.

I think the abandonment has more to do with the fact they are going to reboot again so Spider-Man can be worked into the Marvel universe movies.

If they do see a movie that made $750 million dollars as a failure that means they've failed internally. Which I'm not surprised about when it comes to Sony.

 

[fireproof78]

Nevertheless, Sony abandoned ASM 3 and the Sinister Six and Venom spin-offs after ASM 2 "only" made $750 million +.

I think the abandonment has more to do with the fact they are going to reboot again so Spider-Man can be worked into the Marvel universe movies.

If they do see a movie that made $750 million dollars as a failure that means they've failed internally. Which I'm not surprised about when it comes to Sony.

Sony's relationship with the Spiderman franchise is complicated, at best. They have to do something with it in order to maintain it. ASM 2 was the lowest grossing Spider Man film that Sony had produced, and was not satisfying to the top brass at Sony. With the interactive Marvel Universe, Sony opted to team up with Marvel to reboot the character a third time and pave the way for Spidey's appearance in the MCU.

Also, Hollywood accounting is crazy, at best. There are some films that "don't report a profit" due to the fact that continued merchandising and distribution is actually detracted from gross sales.

Since BR and Paramount are already discussing a Trek IV, I see no reason to worry about the franchise.

 

[F. King Daniel]

If Star Trek Beyond fails, there won't be a fourth movie.

BUT, that means I'll still have three awesome movies I can enjoy over and over (well, at least 2 since there's always the chance STB will be awful)

A similar situation is Terminator Genisys. I loved that movie and was sad to learn it flopped in the US and thus probably won't get it's deserved two sequels or spin-off TV series. But I'm eagerly awaiting the DVD to watch it again!

 

[Therin of Andor]

Darkness was so bad, it will have put a lot of casual Trek watchers off.

Huh? I meet a lot of "Star Trek" fans who knew only the two JJ movies. (Some of them went straight out to research what came before.)

Complaints seem to come from a small percentage of the diehards, but then that's par for the course: TAS, TMP, ST V, TNG, VOY, ENT, NEM... All resoundly hated by a (different each time) percentage of diehard fandom.

 

[martok2112]

Yes, the hardcore Trekkies that hate the new films will always try to use revisionist history to somehow bring across their view (mistaking their own opinions for "facts") that the new films are a massive failure.

Box office returns, ratings on well known cyber-critic sites, and general word of mouth have painted ST '09 and STID as good and enjoyable Star Trek movies. But the delusional malcontents will never see that, and will therefore try to convince everyone that TOS Star Trek is "the way, the truth, and the light" and that the Abrams' films are "the anti-Christ", and that all who enjoy it are "the unwashed masses, the infidels to Master Roddenberry's 'Holy Word', and general idiots."

There are the reasonable few that can temper their dislike with rationality... and then there are the delusional fewer who just can't accept anything other than the complete and utter cessation of that which has rejuvenated what was a dying, if not dead property.

 

[JWPlatt]

If they do see a movie that made $750 million dollars as a failure that means they've failed internally.

Or a tremendous Accounting success - the less money they can show it makes, the better for their pockets. I can imagine target losses given to Accounting.

 

[Sybok Was Wrong]

If "Star Trek Beyond" fails, Star Trek will come back to TV no matter what.

"Muppets Most Wanted" didn't do well and now The Muppets are coming back to TV where they were most popular.

The same will happen if STB fails; there's still $$$ to be made from Star Trek.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

That kind of assumption is just setting yourself up for massive dissapointment. Trek and Muppets are two totally different beasts.

 

[Admiral Bear]

Darkness was so bad, it will have put a lot of casual Trek watchers off.

If you go to places like Netflix or Rotten Tomatoes, you'll see this simply isn't the case. The film comes across as fairly well liked.

This is meaningless. So 90% of the people who watched Into Darnkess and then reported their opinion on Rotten Tomatoes liked it. 90% of a tiny proportion of the global audience.

Even Gravity, probably one of the most pointless and dull sci-fi films ever made, took $200m more than Into Darkness.

Bottom line. You're never going to increase the number of people who will go and watch a Star Trek film at the cinema above the number that watched Star Trek 2009.

Darkness took substantially less ($29m)at the US box office than Into Darkness, something which to me at least increases the irrelevence of RT's 90%. A lot of people in the US can only be assumed to have not liked Star Trek 2009, or didn't like what they saw in the trailers for Darkness.

I can only see the US gross for Beyond dropping further.

 

[fireproof78]

Darkness was so bad, it will have put a lot of casual Trek watchers off.

If you go to places like Netflix or Rotten Tomatoes, you'll see this simply isn't the case. The film comes across as fairly well liked.

This is meaningless. So 90% of the people who watched Into Darnkess and then reported their opinion on Rotten Tomatoes liked it. 90% of a tiny proportion of the global audience.

Even Gravity, probably one of the most pointless and dull sci-fi films ever made, took $200m more than Into Darkness.

Bottom line. You're never going to increase the number of people who will go and watch a Star Trek film at the cinema above the number that watched Star Trek 2009.

Darkness took substantially less ($29m)at the US box office than Into Darkness, something which to me at least increases the irrelevence of RT's 90%. A lot of people in the US can only be assumed to have not liked Star Trek 2009, or didn't like what they saw in the trailers for Darkness.

I can only see the US gross for Beyond dropping further.

Why?

I see multiple reasons for STB to do better than ID that I'll list in brief.

First, it is Justin Lin, who is becoming a far more of a name as a director and producer of Fast and Furious. Like the films or hate the films, the man has some name recognition that will be unique enough to garner additional attention.

Secondly, Abrams freely admits to mistakes made in the marketing of ID, and the veil of secrecy that was used around Khan. They recognize that mistake and will likely change accordingly.

Finally, STB is working towards being more in the vein of 09, rather than STID which was panned at times for using Khan, and negative word of mouth. I personally didn't see STID until 4 weeks after it was released due to the negative reaction.

Gravity was a spectacle, as much interest was garnered in how they the movie as was the story itself. It had far more positive word of mouth and gathered interest by that positive reception.

Also, Star Trek 2009 seemed to receive a largely positive reception from most people I knew and made plenty of money to satisfy Paramount.

STB has the potential to do very well, in my opinion.