@donners22 is right, guys. You want to make your comments about the topic, and not about other posters.
And that will earn you a warning. Comments to PM.
Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND
- Thread starter Khan 2.0
- Start date
Sure, but it represents some expansion of the brand into markets which were previously smaller or non-existent for Trek. The problem is not that the percentage of non-domestic takings is higher, it's that the actual numbers for both domestic and non-domestic takings are too low relative to the budget, which is a separate issue.
Trek's fanbase stagnated and shrunk from the mid-'90s, and Paramount shot itself in the foot through years of poor TV deals outside the US in favour of selling overpriced videos to the small portion of hardcore fans.
With a new - and finally well distributed - series on the way and, hopefully, more films to come, the greater potential audience may prove valuable.
Last edited:
Freudian slip?
Freudian slip?
Yup! Probably inspired by all this talk:http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/warner-bros-announce-superhero-films-through-2020.256771/page-32
In fact, Beyond just moved from #20 to #19 in worldwide box office this weekend.
None of the trek movies compare to the highest grossing superhero movies. Even if it had made $550 million like I originally expected, it's simply on a different tier. It's time to adjust expectations to the "niche" Trek has and be very proud that it does as well as it does. Many films don't. $340-350 is an excellent haul, Paramount will like that it made so much overseas in a down period. The last 2 trek films made $800 million. The last 3 have made more than the first 10 combined. It's a good time to be a Trek fan.
RAMA
RAMA
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/091916_1530
Dgital Bits confirms the November release date at Amazon
Dgital Bits confirms the November release date at Amazon
It may seem like semantics, but the difference between "not meeting inflated studio expectations" and "embarrassing flop that lost millions" is significant, especially when it comes to funding future productions.
Right. When a film doesn't meet expectations but is an established franchise and has a devoted fanbase, you make adjustments. We're not talking about John Carter here.
But you aren't talking about a Star Wars, Marvel or Harry Potter type of fanbase (other franchises with large numbers of films). You are talking about a small but devoted fanbase that seems to be getting smaller with each subsequent release.
Hopefully the fanbase goes crazy on the Home Video and digital download side of things because that might be the only saving grace left. If there's a similar drop in that revenue stream then what proof is there that another sequel won't continue down the same path (less domestic box office, less foreign box office, less secondary revenue)? When do you reach the point of diminishing return?
Perhaps the adjustment is simply to let the series go back to TV and see if that can't grow the fanbase enough to actually support motion pictures again in the future.
Honestly I think they need to just lower the budget and adjust the story to fit a lower budget. If they're forced to work with a tighter budget, I think they'll come up with creative story ideas, save some money, and make back their investment at the box office without all this hand-wringing about not making Avengers money.
Last edited:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/vide...-beyond-exclusive-deleted-scene/5131753891001
Deleted scene with keenser
Deleted scene with keenser
Appealing only to that fanbase will continue to exacerbate said shrinkage.
Love the reference to Mira Romaine.
The unskippable ad was longer than the clip!
It was a sweet little scene, though.
It was a sweet little scene, though.
That might seem intuitive but that's not how Hollywood works. Paramount isn't interested in making a 30% profit on 5 $50 million dollar movies. They would rather make a 25% profit on one $300 million tentpole movie. And there are various reasons for this like tentpoles actually do better on average than smaller productions, marketing has become so expensive that to widely advertise a movie made on a $50 million budget would still cost about the same as one with a $200 million budget, the kinds of FX heavy movies that appeal to foreign audiences usually can't be made on lower budgets, etc. I think you could probably make a quality story heavy Star Trek movie for less than $80 million but it wouldn't be anything that most major Studios are interested in doing.
In other words, Studios want to hit it big on a large bet and not risk a series of lesser wagers. If they don't see Star Trek as that kind of movie franchise it will lose its value. This isn't the kind of genre like a comedy or horror film that you can make for under $40 million and sometimes hit it big. And every movie seems to cost more than the previous. Look at the Hangover series. The most successful one domestically (the first one) was made on a $35 million budget. The third film still made $360 million worldwide but the budget had ballooned to over $100 million. Also, because big productions are more likely to make a lot of money, it is easier to secure financing and easier to get your money returned back to you (remember that these movies go through a lot of distributors and middle men, etc).
So yeah, the low budget, mid-level scenario could work great in the right hands but a Studio like Paramount needs a big winner. Especially considering the overall financial state they are in. My guess is if they make another Star Trek that it will still be a big budget (maybe $15-30m less than STB) production that will have a story designed to appeal to the general public and foreign audiences over Star Trek fans.
I disagree with the premise that these two groups are mutually exclusive or that Trek films should cater solely to the fans rather than trying to create new fans.
Making an educated guess, what do you think the chances of a sequel are? Likely or not?
Similar threads
