There was talk between 09 and ID about Bad Robot/JJ being very frustrated at how the Trek IP was being handled, even after the massive success of 09, they couldn't get a new TV show going, difficult to get a video game out etc etc etc.
The Domestic Box Office run is ending, International is kicking in.
- Thread starter KGator
- Start date
- Status
There was talk between 09 and ID about Bad Robot/JJ being very frustrated at how the Trek IP was being handled, even after the massive success of 09, they couldn't get a new TV show going, difficult to get a video game out etc etc etc.
This is accurate, although you seem to have ignored the brutal fact that after accounting for inflation, Beyond took no more domestically than First Contact (1996) but had 2 and half times the budget. In today's money, First Contact cost $69m and took approximately $141m domestic, only $7m less than Beyond. First Contact was profitable. Beyond, with it's $180m budget, $148m domestic take and pitiful overseas returns, is not.
The fan base hasn't grown in the last 20 years. That's a fact, as has been pointed out in other industry articles.
Now, here's the problem. Paramount bean counters are probably looking at any future Star Trek film and thinking How the fuck do we make a Star Trek movie for $90m? Because, that's what the budget will have to be assuming the law of diminishing returns continues to cut a huge swathe through the franchise.
Agree entirely with Lakenheath.
The Trekmovie article is a very confused and blinkered piece of writing. In one breath, the writer states the film generated good reviews but had poor word of mouth which was one of the reasons for poor box office, yet in the final paragraph calls Beyond a "brilliant film", something it most certainly wasn't. Now, while Mr Journalist is entitled to their personal opinion, they could at least attempt some analysis of why such a "brilliant" film received such bad word of mouth. I get the impression there was no desire on the part of a Star Trek flag waving website to admit what every fan knows, and that's that no one other than Star Trek fans will pay to see a Star Trek film at the cinema. And the article's clearly making the assumption that even those fans were giving the film poor word of mouth. Large parts of the article make no sense.
The problem then is - who is the audience?
Are they going to get this cast back on such a budget and still have much left to produce something which is not visually inferior to like films? If not, do they start over with a new cast, and presumably new characters?
I laughed at a few /r/startrek posts along the lines that they can simply make a film for $90 million and reap $200 million plus. Insurrection didn't manage that off the back of a successful film, with the cast and characters from a popular TV show plus an Oscar winner, with two other Trek shows airing at the time. Who are all these people who will watch this new film?
A new film with half the budget, no momentum and a new cast/crew and/or little budget room does not strike me as a recipe for success.
And yes, Khan worked, but that still had the momentum of TOS, a commercially (if not critically) successful predecessor, less similar competition and a budget which was similar to the first Star Wars film.
I'd be thrilled if they made the next film with a similar budget to 09; I'd be worried if it dropped sharply.
I just wanted to clarify a point I made in an earlier comment. I said that taking into account inflation, Beyond was on par with Trek films of the 90s. What I was referring to was the box office business of these films NOT the budget. I'm well aware tha Beyond's budget is well Beyond (pun intended) those Trek films.
I saw it again today, people! And the theater I was in was almost half full. For a 2:20 PM showing, no less.
I think there was another factor for the success of TWoK - Ricardo Montalban. He had an electrifying charisma which has not been matched by later villains in the film series.
The summer of 1982 was a fantastic summer. There was E.T., Blade Runner, Poltergeist, The Thing, and Tron.
The summer of 1982 was a fantastic summer. There was E.T., Blade Runner, Poltergeist, The Thing, and Tron.
Well, that's one of the knocks on Beyond - Elba is a fine actor, but he's unrecognisable and has less scope to emote either visually or aurally (I do like that the new films have aliens who sound something other than American or English, but it can be limiting).
The contrast with Cumberbatch and Greenwood from the previous film is stark.
As I recall, Christopher Plummer asked for minimal Klingon makeup for precisely that reason, and made the most of it in all his scene-chewing glory.
Yet The Thing, Blade Runner, and Tron were also considered financial disappointments.
The more things change, the more things stay the same.
I'm not.
Besides the box-office, STID overall was a bigger success with critics and in audience audience polls. It was just...more well-liked than Beyond. As Star Trek is meant to make lots of people happy, that'd be a logical direction to go.
To begrudge that would be like wishing that James Cameron never makes Avatar 2, because I was underwhelmed by the previous one.
Last edited:
And what is so wrong with Trek being cool again? I'd like my family to step into my world a little more. With Trek being somewhat cool, they took a step through my door to see what I'd loved all this time.
Fine with me. That's certainly not mutually exclusive with telling a good story, and any progress away from the "Ew, Star Trek" mentality which many people seem to have would be beneficial.
I think that Star Trek is mismanaged. Star Trek is much more than movies. I sincerely hope they bring it back to its roots, back on track, to take a break from everything that involves movies and to focus on a great serie. If serie is cool, gives a good audiencie, there, they could talk later about a movie.
Last edited:
Here's why that won't happen: Paramount no longer owns the TV rights to Star Trek CBS does. So at present, Star Trek is run by two different camps. There has been attempts over the last year to try and smooth out the legalities and collaborate together but it has not worked out.
So to continue to make money from the Star Trek brand they have to release movies.
Define visually inferior. Someone else said earlier that Trek has always worked best on a small scale. I don't believe a vastly smaller budget and a visually inferior film necessarily go hand in hand. A tight budget often serves to sharpen the mind of everyone involved.
I've no answer to that, and to be honest, I'm probably not one of them.
Agreed.
It will have to be made for far less than $150m as I said earlier. Any future film is unlikely to take $300m globally. Rule of thumb appears to be gross of 2.5x budget just to break even.
You seem to imply that Beyond isn't 'cool'. Beyond is a wonderfully entertaining film with great storytelling and excellent characterizations, not to mention fabulous visuals and extraordinary sound. Please elaborate why it isn't 'cool' or 'cool' enough.
1) Trekkie's are the only ones who could be arsed to see it
2) Trekkie's instantly contaminate everything they touch with a 'lameness' bacteria. Especially the things they like, because of all the drooling.
All Trekkie's except me, of course. I'm so cool, I can ice tea.
Why do you have entire sentences in italics?
Last edited:
I'm sorry, either I don't understand your answer or I must not have made myself very clear. I'm not talking about Trek's 'coolness' in general. When I said that Paramount will want JJ back for ST4, Khan 2.0 replied to me that "time for Trek to go back to being 'cool'". So my question is what makes Beyond 'uncool' in comparison to ST'09 and STID? Box office performance aside isn't also a modern sci-fi summer blockbuster filled with entertainment and spectacle?
Because it is quoted verbatim from Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhug...eyond-hasnt-hit-warp-speed-at-the-box-office/
I agree 100% with the article and its review.
That's what I'm asking, what things? It's not like Beyond is a cerebral 2001-Space-Odyssey-style sci-fi movie that's not action packed.
Oh, I get it now.
Lens flares = 'cool'! 
Yes, I can see how their lack in Beyond drove movie goers away. 
- Status
