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

[Trajet]

Insurrection made back twice its production budget and was considered a disappointment. Paramount waited 4 years instead of the usual 2 to make Nemesis.

...and the first Trek film to fail to earn back its budget was Nemesis, and it buried the movie franchise for an unprecedented seven years.

So I think there's good reason for pessimism. Which is a huge shame; Beyond was my favorite of the Kelvin movies.

Beyond has made its budget back, plus an additional $140m so far. It's in no danger of burying the franchise, but it might cause Paramount to reconsider their position and finally employ a sense of financial realism when allocating budgets for Star Trek movies, like they did when Star Trek: The Motion Picture wasn't exactly a slam dunk at the global box office. We all know the films resulting from that worked out quite well for the studio.

 

[Kelthaz]

Beyond has made its budget back, plus an additional $140m so far.

No, it hasn't. Studios don't receive 100% of the revenue generated by tickets. The actual theaters take a large part of that money too. Domestically studios get about 50% of the gross and internationally it's about 25-33%. With a $185 million dollar production budget Star Trek Beyond needs to make more than $400 million internationally to make back it's production budget. And that's not even including the marketing budget.

 

[KGator]

It's been released during the first down period in China in 9 YEARS! Beyond has been released in a down year here and in China! Both independent of each other, so with good reviews and good word of mouth, the movie itself is not the cause of it's lower box office.

The other thing that would give you a clue about the down period in China is that both Bourne and Ice Age were expected to make over $100 million and are winding up about where Beyond will be! The weekend that Beyond premiered it made more than Bourne (30% more), but the week overall was down from any other week at the Chinese box office. It's still a slow period and getting slower..in fact Beyond's second week was the lowest of the year in China..like the US, students go back to school and so on.

If I compared the year in China to American football it''s like a hot team that won it's first 10 games, then you went to see them on the 14th game, when they were in the midst of 6 games losing streak to close the year...Well that's when ST opened up.

Who expected Beyond to be in the top 10? I never said it. I don't base success on that, especially for a niche franchise like Trek. Not sure who told you they expected such a thing.

It's not about sunshine,, you panic about it, but it's most likely broken even already and even if it hasn't it's still made $322 million--and likely $340 million plus(almost every penny it will make in secondary income will be profit). 3rd highest gross in Trek history. We already know it will make a large amount of secondary revenue like almost every $100+ blockbuster (per the article and graph I posted) and within a period of 2 years. There is no likelihood it won't make a profit. Therefore, there's no reason for you to say the sky is falling.

When an article online posts it lost money, they only mean based on the $185 number and then only by the box office totals. As I've pointed out neither the cost nor the assumptions are likely to be accurate. They generally write the headlines as click bait. Unfortunately lots of people fall for it.

RAMA

You really don't have any clue about what you are talking about do you? Bourne and Ice Age were both expected to make over $100 million? Seriously? Where in God's name did you hear that? $100 million combined maybe. Are you confusing Ice Age 5 with Kung Fu Panda 3 and Jason Bourne with Spectre? The last Bourne movie came out in 2012 and made $16 million. So the franchise went from $40 million less than STID to probably about $8 million more than STB. It didn't leapfrog STB because they replaced Jeremy Renner with Jackie Chan. It jumped Star Trek because no one wanted to see STB DESPITE all the extra promotion Paramount and Huahua threw their way. Bad movies can be dumped in China and make $50 million. Which is just a little less than STB made despite a good release date and virtually no competition. It's like the locals preferred not to go to the movies rather than watch what was being offered.

Second, September is a big box office month in China - it's just usually reserved for more local films. I seriously wonder if just make stuff up as you go along. I still remember you spouting off that Star Trek Beyond was being released in China on July 22nd and me having to tell you the d*mn poster you kept citing was for Hong Kong and not mainland China. BIG difference. The Chinese box office doesn't grind down until mid October. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and Mission Impossible RN had similar release dates the past two years and made $107m and $135m respectively. You act like China is just another version of the US with smaller people and a different language. They have their own schedule with different seasons, holidays and even a different calendar. Stop basing your theories on small town America.

STB hasn't made $322 million. That is the movie's ticket revenue. It has made less than $130 million in box office income on a $185 million dollar production budget. Not to mention another $120-180 million P&A. The rule of thumb is that you would like to cover your total P&A costs with box office and then cover your production budget with secondary revenue. A movie like Suicide Squad might go into the black before it ever hits it's secondary revenue streams. Star Trek Beyond might not go into the black for a decade. It's low domestic to international ratio means $340m is a pretty high estimate for what it might generate in the first 3 years following release and still potentially fall below the possible $365m high end of total costs. It can still generate profit down the road (movies have long profit lifespans) but is it really a successful investment when it could still be in the negative when a sequel is released? That doesn't bode well for the profit potential of the sequel.

 

[KGator]

Beyond has made its budget back, plus an additional $140m so far. It's in no danger of burying the franchise, but it might cause Paramount to reconsider their position and finally employ a sense of financial realism when allocating budgets for Star Trek movies, like they did when Star Trek: The Motion Picture wasn't exactly a slam dunk at the global box office. We all know the films resulting from that worked out quite well for the studio.

Do you really think that when you pay $10 for a movie ticket that it all goes to the Studio? What, are theaters all non-profit, government subsidized organizations now? Are all the workers there volunteers getting only service hours for high school credit?

And when you buy a pair of Nike shoes from the store all that money goes to the Nike Corporation too right? Because based on your statement that would also seem to be true.

I don't want to start dropping any cold hard facts on you but ST TMP made almost $82 million domestically on a $35 million budget in an era where there was no real Global Box Office. Anything they made overseas would not even have been reported. That's still about a 2.4 domestic multiplier. STB won't hit a 2.0 GLOBALLY!!! And studios keep a smaller percentage of foreign box office receipts.

 

[Roald]

Do you really think that when you pay $10 for a movie ticket that it all goes to the Studio? What, are theaters all non-profit, government subsidized organizations now? Are all the workers there volunteers getting only service hours for high school credit?

And when you buy a pair of Nike shoes from the store all that money goes to the Nike Corporation too right? Because based on your statement that would also seem to be true.

I don't want to start dropping any cold hard facts on you but ST TMP made almost $82 million domestically on a $35 million budget in an era where there was no real Global Box Office. Anything they made overseas would not even have been reported. That's still about a 2.4 domestic multiplier. STB won't hit a 2.0 GLOBALLY!!! And studios keep a smaller percentage of foreign box office receipts.

Yeah, but in 1979 there was no income from home video, streaming rights etc.. In those days, solely the box office determined how succesful a film was.. I'm sure BEY will make a lot of money post its cinema release..

 

[Visitor1982]

Well, not surprised Beyond is doing terrible, even in China. It's been doing bad in every country it has been released in, no matter how you try to spin it and find excuses.

Perhaps it's doing bad because it not such a great movie.

A real 50th anniversary movie should have been quite different in my opinion.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Well, not surprised Beyond is doing terrible, even in China. It's been doing bad in every country it has been released in, no matter how you try to spin it and find excuses.

Perhaps it's doing bad because it not such a great movie.

A real 50th anniversary movie should have been quite different in my opinion.

Go on then...

 

[Visitor1982]

I think Orci's script could have potential. Use characters from previous Star Trek shows. I'm not one of those 'TOS is the only Star Trek' fans, but I feel that a story with Shatner would probably have made more people go into the cinema to watch a Star Trek movie.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Why all the pessimism? Nemesis was made after Insurrection underwhelmed at the box office...

If Insurrection "underwhelmed" at the box office then how are we to describe Beyond's (unfortunately even inferior) performance?

Star Trek Insurrection's final worldwide box office was a little more 1.93 times its budget. Repeat: That's a 1.93 multiplier.

Do you know when Beyond will reach the 1.93 multiplier? When it will have reached $357 million box office worldwide!

So Beyond needs another $35 million just to become equally "underwhelming" as Insurrection was!

 

[Galactic Alignment]

I think that, objectively, it's safe to say that another JJverse sequel is very unlikely that this stage. Another Trek film at some point is likely, but it remains to see how they'll go about it – another TOS reboot? A whole new crew and scenario?

 

[stardream]

I am personally fine with the three we have. To me it's all about Kirk's character growth and they could stop at this point and I'd be fine with it.

Another movie would be great but for now, I'll keep myself busy with the new TV show.

 

[KGator]

By the way, for anyone suggesting that there is a huge slowdown in China's box office, you are WAY off base. China's total box office is still expected to be 10-20% higher in 2016 than it was in 2015. I get that somehow people can be confused by words. When the media declares the Chinese box office to be in a "slump" because it's only growing at a half or lower the rate of the previous few years some people automatically associate that with a "drop" or "loss". However the idea that China could grow at a 40-50% rate every year was simply unreasonable. So yes, it is in a growth slowdown. That is NOT the same as a recession folks.

Despite the constant, yearly growth, Star Trek Beyond will remain relatively flat from it's predecessor STID. It had several advantages over most Hollywood releases (less competition, good release date, local promotions through Huahua, etc) and couldn't turn those advantages into a market gain. The series is flatlining, there's no way around that fact anymore.

The only thing that Star Trek has in its favor is that Paramount is getting hammered across the board. Maybe that's enough to greenlight a sequel but if Paramount is hoping that ST14 will help save it from financial ruin . . . that seems like a real longshot.

 

[Visitor1982]

How much time between Into Darkness and Beyond was there before Paramount made an official announcement about a sequel? Can we expect anything, a reaction from Paramount, on how they perceive Beyond performed?

 

[Four Lights]

I think Orci's script could have potential. Use characters from previous Star Trek shows. I'm not one of those 'TOS is the only Star Trek' fans, but I feel that a story with Shatner would probably have made more people go into the cinema to watch a Star Trek movie.

The franchise has already had numerous cameos or stunt castings of past actors over the years already.

Kirk was inserted into the first TNG film with what most people agree was mixed results at best.
Then we had prime Spock shoehorned into the first two kelvin films when the story could easily have been told without him being there. And now we've just had wistful moments over photos of the old TOS cast in Beyond as well.
All this is without even beginning to go into the numerous times on the TV shows characters like Kirk, Scotty, Bones, Sulu, Spock, Kang, Kor, Koloth and Sarek showed up.

Just how many "tributes" does this show need?

The only thing most of the general cinema going public gain from these endless fan service indulgences now is that the franchise is bloated on a sense of its own self importance.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

How much time between Into Darkness and Beyond was there before Paramount made an official announcement about a sequel? Can we expect anything, a reaction from Paramount, on how they perceive Beyond performed?

June 26, 2015: Media reports that the cast have re-negotiated their contracts for STB and also for a fourth film.
July 15, 2016: Rumors of Chris Hemsworth's (George Kirk) return in the fourth film are confirmed.
July 18, 2016: Paramount confirms plans for "Star Trek 4".
July 22, 2016: "Star Trek Beyond" is released in cinemas.
July 22 – 14 September, 2016:

 

[rRico]

There is no rush now while the movie is still in release.

 

[Rahul]

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 predicted some time ago a worldwide BO of 330 mio. Does that seem likely now?

That's actually a few million loss for Paramount. But they just don't have any other successful franchises anymore now. And It's not a real bomb either. I guess they are still doing a nuTrek 4. But they will try to completely overhaul everything.

My guesses for a 4th Kelvin timeline movie:

• ST4 will still come, but in another 3-4 years, instead of 2.
  
• It will only have a small part of the main cast coming back. Pine and Quinto yes (they already have contracts). The whole rest is questionable. I guess Pegg might return because he loves Trek. Urban probably not, because I think they won't offer him a part as big as he had in Beyond. John Cho maybe, because he doesn't earn blockbuster money anywhere else at the moment. Zaldana probably not, she has other successfull franchises and her role was continually downgraded. Yelchin, sadly won't.
  
• They will fight tooth and nail to get JJ Abrams back into the directing chair.
  
• Chris Hemsworth will have as big a role as the main leads, if not bigger. They will also advertise his face like they advertised Cumberbatch's
• The budget will be cut whenever possible: They will only start development when the script is ready (instead of Into Darkness and Beyond, where they had script revisions while already shooting --> production and release for ST4 will be pushed back). Only part of the (expensive) main cast will return. They will shoot wherever they get tax benefits. I guess they will try to keep the budget under 150 mio., and put all of it into vfx shots and well-known guest actors.
• Most of the film will be shot inside,on studio sets. No expensive outdoor shootings like in Dubai, only establishing shots of "strange new planets", but no outside scenes. Instead lots of Corridors and rooms on board starships/space stations/palasts/whatever

 

[wayoung]

I don't doubt there will be another sequel. Beyond has underperformed and I severely doubt anyone is happy about its box office but Paramount itself isn't doing too hot and Trek is one of the few franchises it has that's pulls in any money - they aren't going to pack it in. There will be another movie, either with a reduced budget or an even bigger budget and marketing spree to try and turn it into the Star Warsian franchise they thought they'd gotten in 09. It could go either way. I hope the former - I've expressed my preference for more mid budget films in other threads vs. The continuing flood of floundering big budget movies.

Two things to keep in mind I haven't seen posted here lately - the people who paid for Beyond want a healthy ROI, and not one that takes ten years to see. If your movie isn't producing profits that exceed the ROI investors could expect from putting their money elsewhere those people won't be likely to invest money in your next movie. So not even does Beyond have to make back its profit but should have a ROI that exceeds, say, the seven percent compounded you can generally expect from mutual funds. And it has to have it fairly quickly for the same reason - taking five years from initial investment to a flat 10% profit isn't going to make anyone happy, even if the film is technically in the black by that point.

Second thing to keep in mind, everytime a new Trek movie comes out Paramount makes more money on the old ones / associated merchandise that isn't tracked publicly. So even if Beyond fails Paramount itself can still be turning a nice profit nobody knows about, making it worthwhile for them to continue making Trek films, even if they have to find other partners to invest in it.

 

[RAMA]

It'll be at least $340 million. It's at $323,459,798 updated. Another $7-8 million from China between now and Sunday..Another $3 million from Mexico in it's run. Another million or so from Brazil in it's run. $8-12 million in Japan possibly in October.

I was surprised to see the UK contributed $500,000 since it's last update. We might see that much from them in the next update.

We don't know if it's a current "loss", but most likely it will break even in terms of box office. It will not lose any money. Even if we say it lost $30-40 million in box office alone secondary revenue will be many times that..my updated guess, with the China merchandising deal already announced the other day(much bigger than any recent or current US deal) as well as the bluray already in the top 6 on Amazon, we'll see and eventual return of $120-200 million from Beyond in less than 2 years(and that is a conservative guess). Again refer to my graph on secondary revenue.

My guess, Paramount might want to think about lowering the budget, but encouraged by that much profit, they will possibly seek out more co-investors as they did with Beyond to keep their stake in it down instead. It makes for good publicity because most of the casual audience only hears of box office figures.

RAMA

I predicted some time ago a worldwide BO of 330 mio. Does that seem likely now?

That's actually a few million loss for Paramount. But they just don't have any other successful franchises anymore now. And It's not a real bomb either. I guess they are still doing a nuTrek 4. But they will try to completely overhaul everything.

My guesses for a 4th Kelvin timeline movie:

• ST4 will still come, but in another 3-4 years, instead of 2.
  
• It will only have a small part of the main cast coming back. Pine and Quinto yes (they already have contracts). The whole rest is questionable. I guess Pegg might return because he loves Trek. Urban probably not, because I think they won't offer him a part as big as he had in Beyond. John Cho maybe, because he doesn't earn blockbuster money anywhere else at the moment. Zaldana probably not, she has other successfull franchises and her role was continually downgraded. Yelchin, sadly won't.
  
• They will fight tooth and nail to get JJ Abrams back into the directing chair.
  
• Chris Hemsworth will have as big a role as the main leads, if not bigger. They will also advertise his face like they advertised Cumberbatch's
• The budget will be cut whenever possible: They will only start development when the script is ready (instead of Into Darkness and Beyond, where they had script revisions while already shooting --> production and release for ST4 will be pushed back). Only part of the (expensive) main cast will return. They will shoot wherever they get tax benefits. I guess they will try to keep the budget under 150 mio., and put all of it into vfx shots and well-known guest actors.
• Most of the film will be shot inside,on studio sets. No expensive outdoor shootings like in Dubai, only establishing shots of "strange new planets", but no outside scenes. Instead lots of Corridors and rooms on board starships/space stations/palasts/whatever

 

[RAMA]

What Paramount looks at with ST4:

1. Established franchise. $340-350 gross is better than any foreseeable replacement. It's potential $550+ revenue in 2 years makes it a viable franchise.

2. It already has a production team, writers, a story and actors signed up for it.

3. It already has sets and therefore less overhead than for a new franchise.

4. It'll hope for a less "down" period to release it in, acknowledging that was the market force at work at the time of Beyond's release.

5. They already announced the movie so it would look bad for investors if they back down.

6. Good reviews and good fan reaction. Not as important for business as the others, but at least it can be marketed as "successful" and popular.

RAMA