The Domestic Box Office run is ending, International is kicking in.

Yep.

And what Dennis said (the Cumbernope thing).

 

I do not know if the problem is only Paramount. Some friends of mine say: "Disney should buy the rights to Star Trek. The performance would be better". What would Disney do with Star Trek? I sincerely don´t know.
I do not think that's the solution. Maybe Star Trek itself is the problem. The crucial question is:
what is the way forward? Reboot again? give movies a rest? Only series?

 

I cannot stress how much I HATE hearing that. "These movies aren't doing well, reboot 'em!" It's happened twice with Spider-Man, the more cynical, DCEU hating fans are saying it needs to happen with the DC movies when what needs to happen is for WB to keep their big yaps shut and let the project work. I don't want another reboot with Star Trek. Star Trek 4 needs a hook. It also needs to be able to save some money, so they need to ease back on their ambitions a bit. Maybe not to Star Trek V standards but still. A "smaller" story with a "smaller" budget may be the trick.

 

Universal should by the rights to Star Trek if it included the ability to make theme park attractions based on the franchise.

 

What would Disney do with Star Trek? Better marketing. Make a series of films, which are connected. Treat the IP with respect.

 

Universal already HAD a Star Trek attraction at the Hollywood Studios for over a decade; so ownership of the IP shouldn't be needed - just a licensing deal like they had previously for that attraction.

 

Unless Paramount goes under, Star Trek movie rights will remain with Paramount.

I think one of the problems has been Paramount really didn't know what to do with the reboot. Lets not forget that back when they were getting ready to do ST09 it was seen as a big gamble and no one really knew if it was going to be a hit or miss. There was no planning beyond the release of ST09 and when it was a certifiable hit, it got mishandled. Writing for what became Into Darkness didn't even start until 2011 - 3 years after filming of ST09 was finished - and I think that contributed to some of the lose of excitement. STID did lower box office domestically than 09 but did do better internationally (although I do believe Benedict Cumberbatch helped the international box office in some regards).

Another problem is the standalone story movies. Most big franchise tentpole movies do some kind of serialized method to their storytelling and sequels pick up right where the last movie left off. Others like Marvel have self contained stories but with hooks and teases about what is coming next. I wish when they did ST09 that they had more of an arc in mind.

They can't put ST against Star Wars sorry but Star Trek would do terrible box office if it launches too close to Star Wars. It appears the story for ST4 is already in place and the talk was that Paramount was eyeing a 2018 release (that may change based on Beyond) and also some people noticed the filming of the next Thor movie was moved up to accommodate some future project Chris Hemsworth is contracted to...one of which is the next Trek...which would suggest shooting at some point in 2017. Perhaps of a summer release, Paramount might eye a November or December release?

Speaking of Star Wars I do believe the relaunch of Star Wars and losing JJ to that project did somewhat affect Beyond.

 

Star Trek Transformers crossover. Problem solved.

 

Agreed, and I think the Shat would however make an excellent Harry Mudd if they ever go down Tribble Road.......

 

Ends tonight at my local theaters.

*preorders Bluray*

 

Saying there will be a fourth film is not the same as actually greenlighting a fourth film. It is an investment ploy.

I was listening to a video by Midnight Edge about Ghostbusters. I learned there is a break-even figure and there is a sequel figure. Right now, Star Trek Beyond is struggling to get to the break-even figure, which is about twice the production cost of the film. That figure is about $350 million. The sequel figure is much higher and, as far as I know, has not been stated openly.

According to Film Escape,

http://filmescape.com/how-the-box-office-really-works

This is why Paramount needs for Star Trek Beyond to get to $350 million. (The lower figure is probably due to tax rebates it received for filming in certain countries., or the figure would be higher, at $370 million.) So, if the film gets there, then Paramount will have recouped the cost of the film.

I am rooting for this film to succeed. I would like to see another film in the franchise. However, it looks bad for Star Trek.

 

Back when Paramount owned some theme parks, the parks featured a Borg-themed roller coaster. I was at Paramount's Kings Dominion around the time of the release of GEN, and the ride was there. It the only Trek themed thing in the park, and the coaster was so generic it was Borg-themed only in name. I also remember seeing GEN logo t-shirts in the gift shops, and they were the only Trek things I remember seeing for sale. So even when Paramount was in the theme park business, there was very little "Star Trek" in the parks.

When Paramount got out of the theme park business about a decade or so ago, the new buyers of those parks renamed and gave new themes to the Borg coasters. For example, what used to be the Borg coaster at Carowinds near Charlotte, NC is now the Nighthawk.

I was at Disney World in Orlando recently, and never mind the "Star Wars" Land that is opening at and taking a big chunk out of Hollywood Studios, SW is all over the place in every park. Its stuff dominates huge sections of gift shops. Without exaggeration, I'd guess one in five people walking around the parks has on something SW-themed. It's as if SW is taking over Disney. I've heard a SW-themed hotel will be built near Hollywood Studios. Yoda, R2D2, C3P0, and Storm Troopers are becoming as prevalent as Mickey, Donald, Goofy, and the Seven Dwarfs. Darth Vader's hood is almost on the level of the iconic mouse ears silhouette. The saturation point is so high it almost makes a non-SW fan sick.

 

Yes, the studio will only keep a percentage of box office revenue (about 55% domestic and 30-40% overseas). Most films do not make a profit until sometime during their secondary (home video, television rights, merchandise, etc). Secondary revenue is roughly on par with box office in most cases. A bit higher for movies with a large domestic take and less for those with more foreign box office. Of course P&A costs will also have to be accounted for before profit. For a movie like Star Trek P&A will probably be as much if not more than the production budget.

I'm going to guess the TOTAL budget that needs to be made up is in range of $330-380 million. I don't believe Paramount went crazy on marketing in the US (at least not based on what I saw). They may have tried more overseas since that's where they saw the big increase in revenue with the last film. $150-200 million marketing is a good ballpark estimate for a tentpole production like this.

Rough estimates for revenue would be about $80 million domestic, $40 million overseas and anywhere from $20-40 million from China. If that covers about half of the overall cost of the film then it should make a profit once all the additional revenue streams are factored in.

 

How has Paramount not showed the IP respect? They've showered money on the franchise, and have made three fairly well received films.

The stumble has nothing to do with anyone disrespecting the franchise.

 

Honestly, I kind of agree that the problem is that it's "Star Trek." It's not Star Wars or something "cool." Trek has a stigma. You can dress it up and make it all Star Warsy, but that won't make it Star Wars. As much as I loved Beyond, I know I loved it because it was the most "Trek" at its core than the other two. And "Trek" doesn't do consistently good box office business. Trek "surprises" at the box office. After the big money of TMP: It does really well, then a little better, then BOOM! Smash hit! The next ones do less. They make changes. Find something that works and BOOM! Smash hit! Then....low numbers. Then a reboot. BOOM! Smash hit! Then, numbers fall... It's when they introduce something new (or time travel). When they try to replicate it, it doesn't sustain the audience. Shit, does every Trek movie have to involve time travel to make money?

On the plus side, with the reboot, Trek is finally doing well outside the US, so let's see how the international box office does.

It's still playing at a number of theaters in my area. No more 3D, but it's there. I'm hoping to squeeze in a 4th showing before she vanishes into the night....

 

It'll be fine. It won't be a box-office smash but it'll make enough for a fourth film.

If anything, it might result in a tighter budget for the next movie. Less money helps bring out the creativity when you have less cash to fall back on. I feel this can be seen in the older films, STII and STVI being the most obvious examples.

 

Dennis, I can honestly say that's not true. I am looking at the film completely objectively.

I wanted to like Beyond, but I just didn't. I admit that I had my doubts about the director of the Fast + the Furious being a good fit for Star Trek and I was correct.

I can't for the life of me understand how you and so many others on this board enjoyed it as much as you did. The film was two hours of non stop/incoherent action with a weak villain whose motives were confusing at best...The film did have some nice character moments, but not enough to save it from mediocrity.

This is coming from someone who loved ST 09 and enjoyed Into Darkness more than most...I really liked what Abrams did with the reboot and I'm also someone who understands they are trying to expand the audience and can't make ST films like they did 30 years ago. I get the business aspect of it...Star Trek Beyond, just didn't do it for me.

 

Hey, the 'Friday the 13th' approach to milking your franchise is the the height of respect!

13 x[Catering solely to fans + No Budget]
- Innovation
= Profit!
(For a while anyway. Before an inevitable crash and burn.)​