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

[Mudd]

At this point it's not even an assumption anymore, but pretty much a fact.

You're saying that based on a "formula" that's oversimplified, inapplicable to most blockbusters, and lazy.

The people who know what films are profitable are the accountants, and they don't tell.

Here's how you know if a movie in a series made money: they make another one.

 

[Jedi_Master]

The problem is Paramount itself. The studio simply does not know what to do with the Star Trek franchise..

Other than use it as the basis for three successful feature films in the past decade, start a new TV series, release well over 2 dozen novels, over a dozen comic books, merchandise, documentaries, a successful MMORPG, other than that Paramount is just sitting on their hands, wondering... what do we do with this thing?

 

[Rahul]

You're saying that based on a "formula" that's oversimplified, inapplicable to most blockbusters, and lazy.

The people who know what films are profitable are the accountants, and they don't tell.

Here's how you know if a movie in a series made money: they make another one.

That's not based on "my" formular, that's based on around pretty much every serious movie publication that has looked into the box office of this film. I do trust the assessment of industry insiders talking about the success or failures of movies more than I do trust you in this regard, anonymus message board commenter. Sorry.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

It's no secret formula, it's just logic. With marketing and distribution expenses the studio gave roughly about $300 million for Beyond. So until Beyond's box office exceeds $300 million they're in.

And that's without taking into account the fact that studios keep (slightly more than) 50% of the domestic box office and about 25% to 33% of the international box office.

Unfortunately Beyond's sold tickets won't give Paramount any profit.

 

[Joe_Atari]

The people who know what films are profitable are the accountants, and they don't tell.

Very true; I wish more fanboys would learn this before they bandy about BO figures like they're sports scores. The public numbers are largely meaningless, except possibly in a marketing sense ("#1 at the box office!", etc.).

Here's how you know if a movie in a series made money: they make another one.

An oversimplification in itself. Another popular misconception around here is that a film is financially successful if it breaks even or makes any profit at all. A film's backers are expecting a hefty return on their investment -- more than they could get from investing their money in other likely less risky ways -- much of which will trickle in over months or even years. We're talking tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in profits they're looking for, not revenues. Beyond is not generating that, and that's what casts doubt on the fourth movie more than anything else.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

With all this talk of profitability, I keep thinking of The Producers...

 

[Disco]

Outdated, as in that for movies that make a larger share of their BO worldwide than domestic the situation is even more grim. But yeah. That's pretty much the starting point for industry insiders (after which the of course add correction factors). Anything else to add? No? Thought so...



At this point it's not even an assumption anymore, but pretty much a fact.

Except it's not fact or even an assumption. China is doing well and Beyond is expected to hit £370m as a result so based on the rather shaky 2x formula it breaks even and, this bit is subjective, I expect Star Trek 4 in some form.

 

[Rahul]

Except it's not fact or even an assumption. China is doing well and Beyond is expected to hit £370m as a result so based on the rather shaky 2x formula it breaks even and, this bit is subjective, I expect Star Trek 4 in some form.

Yeah, no. The current way Beyond is tracking they could be happy if they would reach 350 mio., let alone 370. I expect something around 330 mio. But even then, barely hitting break even doesn't scream "success", failing to do so and coming 50 mio. short of it even less.

A Star Trek 4 is still likely at this point, simply because Paramount is seriously lacking alternatives. But expect the budget to be cut, more focus on a big name guest actor, and don't expect the whole cast to return. Apart from Pine and Quinto everyone else's return becomes more and more unlikely the less profit Beyond makes.

 

[F. King Daniel]

So far we know Pine, Quinto and Hemsworth are signed for ST4.

 

[Disco]

Yeah, no. The current way Beyond is tracking they could be happy if they would reach 350 mio., let alone 370. I expect something around 330 mio. But even then, barely hitting break even doesn't scream "success", failing to do so and coming 50 mio. short of it even less.

A Star Trek 4 is still likely at this point, simply because Paramount is seriously lacking alternatives. But expect the budget to be cut, more focus on a big name guest actor, and don't expect the whole cast to return. Apart from Pine and Quinto everyone else's return becomes more and more unlikely the less profit Beyond makes.

I'm not sure what you're basing that on. Beyond is sitting it $285m (http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Star-Trek-Beyond#tab=summary) and is expecting to do $100m in China (http://chinafilminsider.com/china-screen-paramount-trek-promo-campaign-reaches-stars/). It's already done $30m in China so another $70m brings it up to $355m. Another $15m from the remaining markets isn't unreasonable.

While not a success it should break even based on the antiquated 2 x budget formula.

 

[Rahul]

I'm not sure what you're basing that on. Beyond is sitting it $285m (http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Star-Trek-Beyond#tab=summary) and is expecting to do $100m in China (http://chinafilminsider.com/china-screen-paramount-trek-promo-campaign-reaches-stars/). It's already done $30m in China so another $70m brings it up to $355m. Another $15m from the remaining markets isn't unreasonable.

While not a success it should break even based on the antiquated 2 x budget formula.

Yeah, we'll see. Untill this point it hasn't met expectations in all other territories. I doubt the Chinese will be the super excemption. I saw other adjusted predictions of about ~70 mio. in China, which is IMO more realistic. To reach more than that it would need to have incredibly good legs, much more than in any other country, and as it stands Beyond has proven to be instead rather frontloaded with a sharp drop after the first weekend.

Again. We will see. It certainly would be good for Trek to reach 370 mio. (or, hell, even 350 mio., even if it doesn't break even it's better to almost do, instead of sitting at 330 and needing secondary returns to make the breake-even point). And it's certainly not impossible. But at this point I go with a somewhat cynical "unlikely".

Again: None of this is a catastrophe. In the grand scheme of things Beyond will make a few bucks in the long run and probably grant another sequel. It's only questionable how much they are going to invest in said sequel, and wether the majority of the main cast will return.To quote Nicholas Meyer: "lower your expectations". Otherwise there might be bad surprises adhead.

 

[RAMA]

Exactly. In the short term--within 2 years--Beyond will make about $100-$200 million over break even, even if we use the inaccurate 2x multiplyer. Should make Paramount very happy. In the long term it will be much higher than that.

Very true; I wish more fanboys would learn this before they bandy about BO figures like they're sports scores. The public numbers are largely meaningless, except possibly in a marketing sense ("#1 at the box office!", etc.).


An oversimplification in itself. Another popular misconception around here is that a film is financially successful if it breaks even or makes any profit at all. A film's backers are expecting a hefty return on their investment -- more than they could get from investing their money in other likely less risky ways -- much of which will trickle in over months or even years. We're talking tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in profits they're looking for, not revenues. Beyond is not generating that, and that's what casts doubt on the fourth movie more than anything else.

Edit: It amazes me as I engage with other fans about Beyond on social media, and I'll post a pic from it...people are saying.."what movie is this from?" constantly. A lot of them say: This is from the new movie? I can't wait to see it. I'm like..Why haven't you seen it already? It's almost done it's run. I'm beginning to think Trekkies are very lackadaisical movie goers.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Edit: It amazes me as I engage with other fans about Beyond on social media, and I'll post a pic from it...people are saying.."what movie is this from?" constantly. A lot of them say: This is from the new movie? I can't wait to see it. I'm like..Why haven't you seen it already? It's almost done it's run. I'm beginning to think Trekkies are very lackadaisical movie goers.

Or that Paramount's "marketing" for Beyond was a joke.

 

[KGator]

I don't know how big it will be but I have seen many quotes online of casual fans and even some older fans who are willing to wait for video on this one...personally I think that's a mistake because Beyond was one of the best looking big screen movies in a few years..but aside from that...I think Beyond will do good business streaming and from disc.

The visuals at the Yorktown are best viewed on the big screen. The combat scenes are so dark and short that it really doesn't matter but the Yorktown . . . great special effect.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Profit is not the only reason studios green-light sequels.
Profit is a term that rarely applies in the byzantine world of film financing.
Reduction of budgets does not equal more profit thus more films.
More money spent on marketing does not equal more profit thus more films.
If you haven't watched the film - can you really gnash your teeth when you look at the box office results or blame "bad marketing" for Beyond's perceived lack of success?

 

[KGator]

I expect STB home video to be in the $50-60 million range. While this is a pittance compared to the nearly $200 million that Star Trek 09 made, it's a VERY good number in the current home video landscape. Given that, I think a final Worldwide result in the mid $300s will put STB in the black. It may not be a big money maker but it should cover it's expenses with a slight profit. And since the value of Star Trek for Paramount is in the FRANCHISE rather than the individual picture, I believe they continue with the series and see if they can right the ship.

 

[RAMA]

Or that Paramount's "marketing" for Beyond was a joke.

Well I disagree. The marketing (at least in the US and China) was the most expansive I've ever seen, and I've been following the Trek box office and marketing since STIV(1985-86). In response to just this sort of comment on FB I listed the evidence in my favor in answer to the posting of several websites reporting on the lack of marketing. Firstly, the perception was mainly from before May 20th, when the Fan Event let loose a record amount of marketing from the studio($130 million worth, breaking the franchise record).

One of the links was a Trekmovie or Trekcore comparison of the marketing timeline to prove this incontrovertible fan perception, only to find that for the same time period early in the marketing (and before May 20th) Beyond led STID in marketing events 15 to 8! Needless to say they never updated their story. I also posted here and elsewhere how I had 10 TVs before me at the gym and I saw multiple Beyond commercials, but not a single one for Ghostbusters or Jason Bourne (the preceding and following week's releases). They were literally everywhere.

Someone else pointed out to me that Millenials don't use or own cable much anymore but even there, the net presence was the biggest ever..the first trailer was nominated for an award and was watched by over 40 million people, putting it in the top 10 most watched ever. The second one well over 20 million. The Rihanna tie-in video was watched by 28+ million.

Another comment: Trek didn't do any tie-ins. Well this is true. Star Trek movies do not have a good record of tie-ins, but there is no real link between movie merchandising and movie success, it's usually the other way around. STTMP had one of the biggest marketing tie-in efforts and most failed miserably, even the first Happy Meal, which was never repeated again for Trek. STII released almost nothing in the way of tie-ins, and it was only when it proved successful that they put out trading cards, and a handful of others. Beyond is doing the same things, tie-ins are coming slowly in the next few months, but not a huge amount like ST09.

I'm convinced marketing wasn't the issue. I think there was a general malaise amongst both movie and casual Trek fans this year, and the odd thing is it extended to a lot of foreign countries as well, China in particular. it's possible that ISIS, terrorists, and Brexit have made people wary across the world about the stability of the global economy. Some are suggesting the fascination in the newly open Chinese market over the last 7 years is fading especially if the movie product isn't very good.

I actually think a lot of Trekkies..from what I've seen evidenced on this board and especially social media have a large segment of somewhat backwards mini-Luddites who like the shows for nostalgia. From my Discovery discussions, it''s clear a lot of them don't know anything about streaming or cable, some have even told me they weren't computer or smartphone savvy when I was trying to explain some technical things to them. A lot of them still have flip phones and collect DVDs (yes DVDs!). My impression is a lot of them don't even go regularly to movies..so they missed out on a lot of the advertising. Rabbit ears were just fine and we don't need to pay for cable and greedy CBS! Yes, I've literally heard that sentiment a dozen times..people who still watch OTA broadcasts.

I expect STB home video to be in the $50-60 million range. While this is a pittance compared to the nearly $200 million that Star Trek 09 made, it's a VERY good number in the current home video landscape. Given that, I think a final Worldwide result in the mid $300s will put STB in the black. It may not be a big money maker but it should cover it's expenses with a slight profit. And since the value of Star Trek for Paramount is in the FRANCHISE rather than the individual picture, I believe they continue with the series and see if they can right the ship.

That won't impact the overall secondary revenue much, as it's about on par with the graph number.

 

[Smellmet]

I don't thing the amount of marketing is the issue. For me the film just didn't come across like as big of an event that STID was, and I think it was also unwise to give away the destruction of the Enterprise in the trailers, that sequence in the film was amazing and would have packed a bigger punch if you didn't know it was coming. The trailers gave away too much overall in my opinion, and the whole thing just gave off the vibe of 'meh, just another Star Trek movie' - there was nothing of any real consequence to the universe happening in the trailers IMO, nothing that made people think 'I must see that!'

I loved the film by the way.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I don't thing the amount of marketing is the issue. For me the film just didn't come across like as big of an event that STID was, and I think it was also unwise to give away the destruction of the Enterprise in the trailers, that sequence in the film was amazing and would have packed a bigger punch if you didn't know it was coming. The trailers gave away too much overall in my opinion, and the whole thing just gave off the vibe of 'meh, just another Star Trek movie' - there was nothing of any real consequence to the universe happening in the trailers IMO, nothing that made people think 'I must see that!'

I loved the film by the way.

I loved Beyond too and I'm not sure why it isn't doing better. I guess Suicide Squad and Jason Bourne played a part in that.

I like the idea of withholding the destruction of the Enterprise from trailers. I think it would have been a big shocking moment for that to go down in the first 20 minutes of the movie. Very unexpected. The use of Sabotage threw a lot of people off too -- it certainly did bother me at first. But then you watch the movie and in context that song (and the motorcycle, for that matter) makes sense and ends up being one of the best scenes in the movie. Marketing vs Audience Expectations ftw.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Well I disagree. The marketing (at least in the US and China) was the most expansive I've ever seen, and I've been following the Trek box office and marketing since STIV(1985-86). In response to just this sort of comment on FB I listed the evidence in my favor in answer to the posting of several websites reporting on the lack of marketing. Firstly, the perception was mainly from before May 20th, when the Fan Event let loose a record amount of marketing from the studio($130 million worth, breaking the franchise record).

One of the links was a Trekmovie or Trekcore comparison of the marketing timeline to prove this incontrovertible fan perception, only to find that for the same time period early in the marketing (and before May 20th) Beyond led STID in marketing events 15 to 8! Needless to say they never updated their story. I also posted here and elsewhere how I had 10 TVs before me at the gym and I saw multiple Beyond commercials, but not a single one for Ghostbusters or Jason Bourne (the preceding and following week's releases). They were literally everywhere.

Someone else pointed out to me that Millenials don't use or own cable much anymore but even there, the net presence was the biggest ever..the first trailer was nominated for an award and was watched by over 40 million people, putting it in the top 10 most watched ever. The second one well over 20 million. The Rihanna tie-in video was watched by 28+ million.

Another comment: Trek didn't do any tie-ins. Well this is true. Star Trek movies do not have a good record of tie-ins, but there is no real link between movie merchandising and movie success, it's usually the other way around. STTMP had one of the biggest marketing tie-in efforts and most failed miserably, even the first Happy Meal, which was never repeated again for Trek. STII released almost nothing in the way of tie-ins, and it was only when it proved successful that they put out trading cards, and a handful of others. Beyond is doing the same things, tie-ins are coming slowly in the next few months, but not a huge amount like ST09.

I'm convinced marketing wasn't the issue. I think there was a general malaise amongst both movie and casual Trek fans this year, and the odd thing is it extended to a lot of foreign countries as well, China in particular. it's possible that ISIS, terrorists, and Brexit have made people wary across the world about the stability of the global economy. Some are suggesting the fascination in the newly open Chinese market over the last 7 years is fading especially if the movie product isn't very good.

I actually think a lot of Trekkies..from what I've seen evidenced on this board and especially social media have a large segment of somewhat backwards mini-Luddites who like the shows for nostalgia. From my Discovery discussions, it''s clear a lot of them don't know anything about streaming or cable, some have even told me they weren't computer or smartphone savvy when I was trying to explain some technical things to them. A lot of them still have flip phones and collect DVDs (yes DVDs!). My impression is a lot of them don't even go regularly to movies..so they missed out on a lot of the advertising. Rabbit ears were just fine and we don't need to pay for cable and greedy CBS! Yes, I've literally heard that sentiment a dozen times..people who still watch OTA broadcasts.



That won't impact the overall secondary revenue much, as it's about on par with the graph number.

Marketing Blitz Thin and Late

Quite simply, Paramount’s marketing campaign for Beyond was meager and dilatory, especially compared to its predecessors.

Beyond’s much-maligned first trailer, which was released in December 2015, came out 221 days before the film’s release date. As we previously reported in a comparison of the marketing timelines of Beyond and Into Darkness, promotion for the film slowly resumed in March 2016 with the release of two major interviews, 10 photos, and two behind-the-scenes videos.

Marketing for Beyond ramped up in late April and throughout May as Paramount released a slew of photos from the film, magazines printed features and interviews, and official signage appeared at the Cannes International Film Festival. Promotion for the film switched into high gear after the debut of the film’s first full trailer on the Paramount lot on May 20th.

Shortly thereafter, posters began to appear in theatres and from late June until July 22nd, Paramount released a series of television spots with new footage. Featurettes and interviews appeared in the July editions of various magazines, and a final trailer was released only three days before the film’s release.

The lull between the first trailer and the second left this website disappointed with the efforts Paramount had exerted in promoting Beyond. We believe the general audience was not aware that a new Star Trek film was coming out in 2016. In contrast, when Paramount was building up anticipation for Star Trek and Into Darkness, they went where no Star Trek film had gone before: the Super Bowl. Advertising during the NFL’s championship game is so expensive because of the sheer number of viewers who tune in, many of whom we would consider to be the general audience who could be intrigued by a Star Trek movie.

For Super Bowl 50, taking place in the franchise’s 50th anniversary year and five months before Beyond’s release, an advertisement for the movie was conspicuously absent. Some may argue that Star Trek and Into Darkness were featured during the Super Bowl because their release was a short three months away. However, Super Bowl 50 featured ads for Independence Day: Resurgence and Jason Bourne, films that were released in late June and late July, respectively. While it is impossible to quantify how this affected the general audience’s interest in Beyond, such a prominent and widely-seen advertisement could only have helped the film at the box office.

I don't thing the amount of marketing is the issue. For me the film just didn't come across like as big of an event that STID was, and I think it was also unwise to give away the destruction of the Enterprise in the trailers, that sequence in the film was amazing and would have packed a bigger punch if you didn't know it was coming. The trailers gave away too much overall in my opinion, and the whole thing just gave off the vibe of 'meh, just another Star Trek movie' - there was nothing of any real consequence to the universe happening in the trailers IMO, nothing that made people think 'I must see that!'

I loved the film by the way.

So what you're saying (x3 times) is that the trailers were bad… which means marketing was bad… which was what I said.