Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND

[Captain of the USS Averof]

It looks like the final worldwide box office for Star Trek Beyond is $343,471,816.

That's x1.85 times it's budget. (For the record, Star Trek Insurrection earned x1.93 times it's budget.)

 

[Khan 2.0]

couldn't reach the 350 or even 345 mark

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

That's disappointing as it wasn't a bad movie.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Personally I think STB was by far the best of the three but I might be a minority.

For me, the return of Simon Pegg, Doug Jung and Justin Lin for Star Trek 4 would be an ideal scenario, if and when Paramount greenlights it.

 

[jaime]

It looks like the final worldwide box office for Star Trek Beyond is $343,471,816.

That's x1.85 times it's budget. (For the record, Star Trek Insurrection earned x1.93 times it's budget.)

Ouch

 

[jaime]

Personally I think STB was by far the best of the three but I might be a minority.

For me, the return of Simon Pegg, Doug Jung and Justin Lin for Star Trek 4 would be an ideal scenario, if and when Paramount greenlights it.

Yup. That is definitely true. (Meaning, this is the Internet and agree with this statement.)

 

[Khan 2.0]

Personally I think STB was by far the best of the three but I might be a minority.

For me, the return of Simon Pegg, Doug Jung and Justin Lin for Star Trek 4 would be an ideal scenario, if and when Paramount greenlights it.

Paramount are probably in the process of begging JJ to come back in order to get back to STID box office

 

[fireproof78]

It looks like the final worldwide box office for Star Trek Beyond is $343,471,816.

That's x1.85 times it's budget. (For the record, Star Trek Insurrection earned x1.93 times it's budget.)

So, nobody at Paramount is getting fired of it.

Hopefully this means that ST4 will be locked in.

 

[jaime]

Paramount are probably in the process of begging JJ to come back in order to get back to STID box office

Gods I hope not.
STID is probably part of why the box for Beyond is so small. Same way you can blame Insurrection and Enterprise for some of Nemesis poor showing.

 

[BillJ]

Gods I hope not.
STID is probably part of why the box for Beyond is so small. Same way you can blame Insurrection and Enterprise for some of Nemesis poor showing.

I seriously doubt it. Star Trek Into Darkness was the franchises highest grosser and did pretty well with fans, general audiences and critics alike. Paramount simply lost faith in the direction the film franchise was going.

 

[Smellmet]

I seriously doubt it. Star Trek Into Darkness was the franchises highest grosser and did pretty well with fans, general audiences and critics alike. Paramount simply lost faith in the direction the film franchise was going.

Beyond was released into a very crowded schedule, at the end of the season, in a poor year for summer blockbusters. I agree it has nothing to do with STID.

 

[TonyLeung82]

Personally I think STB was by far the best of the three but I might be a minority.

You are not a minority.
The first movie was really good, at the end there was a good feeling, but still something was missing...
Part 3 had the best interaction of the crew from all the 3 movies, it was the best of them, nevertheless part 1 was also very good.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Personally I think STB was by far the best of the three but I might be a minority.

need to see STB again but at the moment afraid imo its - ST09,STID,STB (and in the bigger picture - II, III, FC, VI, IV, JJ trilogy, TMP, GEN, V, NEM, INS)

 

[Smellmet]

I've seen it three times now, and I think it edges the other two by the narrowest of margins. There's still stuff I didn't care for in it, the bike scene for one, and I'd have liked krall to have been fleshed out a little more, but the rest was awesome.

 

[jaime]

I seriously doubt it. Star Trek Into Darkness was the franchises highest grosser and did pretty well with fans, general audiences and critics alike. Paramount simply lost faith in the direction the film franchise was going.

That's why going into this one we had the sort-apologist approach to it from JJ...I think it had more criticism levelled at it than any Trek film I remember, certainly in the mainstream (Alice Eve stripping down, the misleading over Khan, accusations of whitewashing...) it had that whole 'worst trek film ever' silly story about the poll at the convention, and speaking as someone who liked it and thought it was going well (despite my dislike of reboots in general and post-viewing dislike of 09) until it goes off a cliff around the time animou makes his cameo, there's a lot to criticise in that film even from a non-Trek fan perspective. It made money, sure, but that's a fiddly metric to make use of in regards to quality (Blade Runner was a flop. Blade Runner. Phantom Menace made moolah didn't it? Critics and fans weren't too struck on it. Critics didn't like Blade Runner much either. Fools.) but the truth is cinema goer X, fan or non fan, who didn't enjoy STID isn't gonna plonk down cash for Beyond with its publicised troubled production and ridiculed trailer...to be honest, this summer was the beginning of the backlash against franchise Hollywood and the big move to streaming. That's my feeling. I bought Beyond on DVD/streaming, (I don't do cinema, no time, expensive solitary hobby these days.) and was pleased that it was pretty damn good and lived up to the feeling I had based on other publicity (despite hating the reboots in general as an idea..but this was also the summer we got a new word in our lexicon...the kelvinverse. And Prime was on its way back.) I also bought the ghostbusters reboot and....had the opposite experience. 'Maybe it's not that bad' became 'oh my god it's worse than I could have imagined.' But that's 2016 in a nutshell really. We see franchise fatigue on a grand scale this year...maybe it's all the other stuff going on in the world, but here in the U.K. Newspapers are even discussing panel shows losing viewers, reality TV shows dying a death...it's paradigm shift time across the board, and part of the reason is always some turning point in the past of a given thing...it's possibly even true in politics. 2016 is the year people just got sick of it all.

On a related note, Beyond had a lovely poster, the best since generations, and I think the fact it wore the TMP influence on its sleeve was a big plus. With the current creative direction (apart from the horrible design on the new A) I could really grow to like these films, especially as part of a wider franchise that has the sense to properly embrace its past and not be just another reboot in a sea of reboots.

 

[WebLurker]

Personally I think STB was by far the best of the three but I might be a minority.

I don't know the majority/minority divide, but I think it's the only one of the reboots that is worth seeing, and it's the only one that's an actual Star Trek movie.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't know the majority/minority divide, but I think it's the only one of the reboots that is worth seeing, and it's the only one that's an actual Star Trek movie.

Despite many discussions on this point, I still do not understand why 09 and ID are not considered "Star Trek" by many.
I mean, Beyond is a great, fun film, and has lots of fantastic character moments, though some are a bit over the top for me. But, I'm not sure what Beyond has that the others didn't.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

I just hope the new movies for once can break the trend of the Enterprise being trashed after Beyond? It's become a bad joke.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Despite many discussions on this point, I still do not understand why 09 and ID are not considered "Star Trek" by many.
I mean, Beyond is a great, fun film, and has lots of fantastic character moments, though some are a bit over the top for me. But, I'm not sure what Beyond has that the others didn't.

Nothing makes me roll my eyes harder than the "not real Star Trek" nonsense. I mean, there are episodes of Trek that I think are embarrassing or atrociously bad *cough* The Perfect Mate *cough*. But they're still Star Trek. It's just, y'know, bad Star Trek. We can have that discussion. But as soon as someone tries to build a fence of their own design around what they consider the "Trve Norwegian Black Metal" of Star Trek, I check out. It's gatekeeping. I'd much rather talk about content and ideas, not who/what is a "poser."

 

[WebLurker]

Despite many discussions on this point, I still do not understand why 09 and ID are not considered "Star Trek" by many.
I mean, Beyond is a great, fun film, and has lots of fantastic character moments, though some are a bit over the top for me. But, I'm not sure what Beyond has that the others didn't.

I'd say that Beyond first of all, gave the non-Kirk and Spock characters more to do. The Spock/McCoy relationship (something that was an important part of the TV show) was used in Beyond, something that the previous two movies had not used much, if at all. The makers did their homework and the ENT-era materials were design-accurate to the TV show (unlike in the first movie, where none of the ships from the original timeline looked like they belonged), and the connections made sense (I think Into Darkness knew that Khan was popular, but didn't really understand why).

IMHO, this was the first movie that captured the spirit of the TV show it was based on. The characters were all closer to the TV versions than they had been previously. We finally got away from Earth and to top it off, the battles and the space station setting were more creative and better executed set pieces than we got the first two times around.

Nothing makes me roll my eyes harder than the "not real Star Trek" nonsense. I mean, there are episodes of Trek that I think are embarrassing or atrociously bad *cough* The Perfect Mate *cough*. But they're still Star Trek. It's just, y'know, bad Star Trek. We can have that discussion. But as soon as someone tries to build a fence of their own design around what they consider the "Trve Norwegian Black Metal" of Star Trek, I check out. It's gatekeeping. I'd much rather talk about content and ideas, not who/what is a "poser."

First of all, everything I say is IMHO. Second of all, even if not literally true, that is an accurate statement of how I feel about those movies, so by saying it I'm explaining where I'm coming from. Thirdly, as a viewer, I'm not obligated to "accept" everything I'm presented with. If I don't see how it fits the bill, I'm perfectly within my rights to explain that, esp. since I'm not forcing it on anyone. If you like those movies, fair enough.

The question I have with any major change to a franchise is how far can it be twisted before it becomes something different? Maybe I should've put it that way, but when seeing those movies, it's lacking somehow.