Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND

[Amaris]

That didn't stop any of these movies:

Captain America: Civil War: $1,153 million
The Jungle Book: $966 million
Batman v Superman: $873 million
Deadpool: $782 million
Suicide Squad: $739 million
The Mermaid: $553 million
X-Men: Apocalypse: $543 million

And that's not including Zootopia, Finding Dory and The Secret Life of Pets and all the 2016 movies not yet released.

Star Trek is none of those massive franchises, and The Mermaid is a Chinese film made for Chinese audiences. Those skew very high because of that for obvious reasons.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Star Trek is none of those massive franchises, and The Mermaid is a Chinese film made for Chinese audiences. Those skew very high because of that for obvious reasons.

So, a page later… you disprove your own argument?

Too bad this has been such a disappointing year for big budget movies.

LOL!

 

[Amaris]

So, a page later… you disprove your own argument?



LOL!

I'm not certain what you're talking about? What argument of mien did I disprove? All I said was that Star Trek is none of those massive franchises, and it's not. The other films are properties of Disney/Pixar, and Marvel, two downright massive IP owners. Star Trek has never been as popular as those franchises, and regardless of the movies released, while likely never hit that kind of peak popularity. Before the new films, the biggest grossing film was The Motion Picture. It took 40 years for them to do it again with Star Trek (2009). According to Variety, and other industry papers, this year has been poor for a number of movies that should have done remarkably well: http://variety.com/2016/film/features/box-office-decline-summer-blockbusters-the-bfg-1201822322/

The article specifically mentions the point I made, too:

There have been hits, particularly for Disney, with Pixar’s “Finding Dory” and Marvel’s “Captain America: Civil War” together racking up $1.8 billion worldwide.

Year to date, receipts are up 2%, thanks largely to winter hits such as “Deadpool” and “Zootopia.” Blockbuster season is a different story. Ticket sales are down roughly 10% this summer, but the slide is more precipitous than those numbers suggest. Rising ticket prices, fueled by 3D, Imax, and other premium formats, have enabled the industry to paper over a huge gulf in attendance. On a per-capita basis, the moviegoing audience is at its lowest levels in nearly a century. Most disturbing, millennials are avoiding theaters.

This is likely what caused the drop in box office for Beyond, as the franchise has been aiming for millennials in order to keep the lifeblood of the franchise strong. So, again, I'm not certain where you find any eyeroll worthy statements?

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

It's either a bad year for every blockbuster movie or it's not.

Star Trek has never been as popular as those franchises, and regardless of the movies released, while likely never hit that kind of peak popularity.

Again you're contradicting yourself. That's exactly the opposite of this:

I think if Beyond had been shown in 2012, it would have obliterated every box office record it ever had.

So which is it?

 

[Amaris]

It's either a bad year for every blockbuster movie or it's not.



Again you're contradicting yourself. That's exactly the opposite of this:



So which is it?

Those statements do not contradict themselves. This is the year 2016, the year Beyond was released in theaters. Stating that if it had been released in 2012, instead of Into Darkness, ST:B would have destroyed previous Trek box office records is not only non-contradictory, but reinforces my follow-up statement that 2016 was a bad year for a Star Trek film.

 

[Mudd]

Meh, STB is by far the biggest movie that Paramount released this year. You want to see a production they've actually lost money and sleep over, look at the TMNT sequel.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Those statements do not contradict themselves. This is the year 2016, the year Beyond was released in theaters. Stating that if it had been released in 2012, instead of Into Darkness, ST:B would have destroyed previous Trek box office records is not only non-contradictory, but reinforces my follow-up statement that 2016 was a bad year for a Star Trek film.

Thank you for informing me of the year. I really enjoy it when people are condescending towards me.

It is a bad year for a Star Trek film? Really? I thought you said it was "terrific"?

$318 million and still in theaters is terrific!

 

[BillJ]

It's either a bad year for every blockbuster movie or it's not.

Nothing is universal. I think you know that. Marvel is big right now, Disney has been big for twenty-plus years in animation. Star Trek has never been able to compete on that level.

 

[RAMA]

Apart from the script and director getting shitcanned 30 million dollars and several months into production. No, no proof at all.

I'm talking about the nonsense about JJ. Just Supposition. No proof.

We all know beyond started out rocky but found a good director and writer and the movie has very good critical reaction.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Nothing is universal. I think you know that. Marvel is big right now, Disney has been big for twenty-plus years in animation. Star Trek has never been able to compete on that level.

I agree. That's why I didn't put any animated films on the 2016 hit movies list. And that's why I disagreed with the generalization that it "has been such a disappointing year for big budget movies".

Meh, STB is by far the biggest movie that Paramount released this year. You want to see a production they've actually lost money and sleep over, look at the TMNT sequel.

Actually it's the combo-punch of Ben-Hur, TMNT 2, Zoolander 2 and quite a few other films (both released and yet unreleased) that has Paramount's execs losing their sleep over. But Beyond didn't relieve them either.

 

[M'Sharak]

Thank you for informing me of the year. I really enjoy it when people are condescending towards me.

If someone were doing that, then the thing for you to do would be to use the 'Report' button.

If someone were doing that, which I'm really not seeing.

 

[BillJ]

I agree. That's why I didn't put any animated films on the 2016 hit movies list. And that's why I disagreed with the generalization that it "has been such a disappointing year for big budget movies".

If ticket sales are down 10%, it is likely affecting everyone to some degree that isn't Disney. For Beyond, that roughly $350 million dollar gross becomes $385 million. A huge chunk of change.

The question for Paramount isn't an easy one to answer: was it the marketing, the downturn in ticket sales or people simply not being "into" Star Trek any longer that caused the lackluster box office? Beyond seems to rate fairly well among critics, people who saw it in theaters, and now people seeing it at home.

I don't envy the people who have to make decisions regarding Star Trek on the big screen going forward.

 

[Amaris]

Thank you for informing me of the year. I really enjoy it when people are condescending towards me.

I'm not being condescending at all. You said my statements contradicted themselves even though I was referencing two different years.

It is a bad year for a Star Trek film? Really? I thought you said it was "terrific"?

Indeed, it's still terrific, but I was hoping China's box office would have been higher. There's nothing wrong with wanting overwhelming success.

 

[Mudd]

If ticket sales are down 10%, it is likely affecting everyone to some degree that isn't Disney. For Beyond, that roughly $350 million dollar gross becomes $385 million. A huge chunk of change.

The question for Paramount isn't an easy one to answer: was it the marketing, the downturn in ticket sales or people simply not being "into" Star Trek any longer that caused the lackluster box office? Beyond seems to rate fairly well among critics, people who saw it in theaters, and now people seeing it at home.

I don't envy the people who have to make decisions regarding Star Trek on the big screen going forward.

Envy them. Their lifestyles are to die for.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Indeed, it's still terrific, but I was hoping China's box office would have been higher. There's nothing wrong with wanting overwhelming success.

In an ideal (re: just) world, Beyond would have been the biggest movie of the year.

 

[Amaris]

In an ideal (re: just) world, Beyond would have been the biggest movie of the year.

Agreed. It seems to have received a very warm reception. I'm very greedy in my love of Trek, and want each one to do better than the last.

 

[BillJ]

In an ideal (re: just) world, Beyond would have been the biggest movie of the year.

I didn't need it to be the biggest movie of the year, but $500 million would've been nice.

 

[eyeresist]

Having those scenes in NuTrek, and having an interpretation of the refit vessel at the end of the Beyond are the same bag to me, filed under the category 'fanwank'

I notice you have modified your argument from "I expected the refit" to "I expected an interpretation of the refit". Very clever.

 

[M'Sharak]

I notice you have modified your argument from "I expected the refit" to "I expected an interpretation of the refit". Very clever.

Did he modify?

Maybe I'm not following this thread back far enough, but what he asked was concerned with how difficult it would be "to replicate and update the... lines and proportions of the 1979... refit". (emphasis mine)

It does seem to me that @Smellmet was saying that that he would have liked to see something closer to the 1979 design than what we got, rather than that he fully expected to see the TMP refit reproduced unchanged.

 

[eyeresist]

Did he modify?

He modified his argument, not that specific post.