Yeah they do - my boss just rolled his eyes and wen't 'ugh'. Try as they have Star Trek just hasn't shook off it's image. I'm not sure it ever will.
Why didn't Beyond do better at the Box Office?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
- Status
Yeah they do - my boss just rolled his eyes and wen't 'ugh'. Try as they have Star Trek just hasn't shook off it's image. I'm not sure it ever will.
After seeing many of the tentpole films this year, the only thing that seems to distinguish them is the franchise color. Too many of the films have the same story, and, after a point, they all blend together. The rare films, the ones that are making like gangbusters, were innovative or presented a new angle on characters. Star Trek Beyond is a pleasant diversion from the ugliness of the world.
With the Suicide Squad coming up next week, Star Trek Beyond will, if the projections hold true, be buried. The SS is projected to gross $125 million. If this Star Trek film is the last, then it will have ended with a blast.
With the Suicide Squad coming up next week, Star Trek Beyond will, if the projections hold true, be buried. The SS is projected to gross $125 million. If this Star Trek film is the last, then it will have ended with a blast.
Ledger was not a huge superstar either but why it worked with Ledger was that he was one of the singular main characters and the main antagonist of the film playing a very iconic villain like Joker and because of this, WB could easily promote the dark knight heavily under heath ledger.
And he gave one of his best performances. Almost universally praised by critics. Main character and a great performance by a recently passed away actor in a critically praised movie that had great word of mouth . . . . that's quite a bit working in his TDKs favor. And it was a great film. It was going to do a lot of money anyways. The Ledger factor just boosted it.
Trekmovie.com has a new article up today about Beyond's second weekend results and basically confirming what we already know, Beyond's box office is officially being viewed by the industry as a disappointment and Star Trek 4 is likely now in question - or at least what type of film the next Trek movie should be because there will eventually be another film.
Here's an interesting quote from the article:
Paramount, unfortunately, views the Kelvin Universe films as tentpole blockbusters that carry budgets of $150 million plus and are supposed to bring in a massive haul at the box office.
Next weekend will be even worse for Beyond as Suicide Squad comes out and Beyond 3D showings will be dropped by numerous theaters across the country limiting Beyond's revenue potentials.
There are a couple of scenarios that are being branded about right now about Trek 4 namely a lower budget (probably $150 million), bringing JJ Abrams back to direct (as he is not directing the Star Wars sequels), production could take place in summer of 2017 to ensure a 2018 release - which again would indicate a lower budget and tighter schedule.
Here's an interesting quote from the article:
Paramount, unfortunately, views the Kelvin Universe films as tentpole blockbusters that carry budgets of $150 million plus and are supposed to bring in a massive haul at the box office.
Next weekend will be even worse for Beyond as Suicide Squad comes out and Beyond 3D showings will be dropped by numerous theaters across the country limiting Beyond's revenue potentials.
There are a couple of scenarios that are being branded about right now about Trek 4 namely a lower budget (probably $150 million), bringing JJ Abrams back to direct (as he is not directing the Star Wars sequels), production could take place in summer of 2017 to ensure a 2018 release - which again would indicate a lower budget and tighter schedule.
In the hands of the right director, that isn't a problem.
The guy is a terrible writer.
I'd take Abrams as director on a smaller budget, no problem.
Well he did keep ST09 on the original $150 million budget. STID's budget was higher partially as a result of 09's box office successes and that fact that typically in Hollywood sequels are more expensive than their originator film.
Beyond was supposed to have a lower budget closer to 09's ( I believe in the $160-170 range) but part of the reason it went over was due to absorbing costs for the original pre-production from the first script.
Btw Pine and Quinto have negotiated their ST4 salaries at $6 million a piece. I would imagine Saldana's salary would be in a similar range and Urban and Cho's maybe slightly lower. Hemsworth's salary would likely be the same as Pine or even higher (he's making around $8 million for the new Thor movie).
I still consider 150M to be "big budget". That aside, 150M production budget in 2009 is 170M when adjusted for inflation. Also, the actors were cheaper then, plus they didn't have the big guest staring actors like Cumberbatch and Elba. JJ himself was probably cheaper then too. His star has raised a lot since then. Big name Hollywood directors can be very expensive.
If Paramount needs to cut the budget on ST4 in order to make money, I think budget would need to go below 150M. ST4 would probably bring in less than Beyond, so only shaving 35M off the production budget probably wouldn't cut it. They'd probably have to lower it some more and lower the marketing costs.
Since I agree with Orange Crusher that yes, alienating so much of the fan base coupled with losing the action lovers who watched the first 2 films to some other action dreck is at least part of the reason this reboot continuity is dying, you're back down to seconded.
My POV is that there are millions of Americans who grew up with Star Trek who are not Trekkers, but who DO have fond, nostalgic memories of Trek the way they knew it, as part of the immersive pop media environment they knew, especially people who started simply being aware of Trek with TOS and also those who started being aware of it with TNG. And they said, "forget it, we like what we remember, don't make me absorb all this new stuff just to get a hold of the story. It was hard enough for me, a nonfan, to pick up the old stuff, and now I have to understand alternate universes and learn all this again? Fuck that."
Also, I think they should have gone with a "big thing threatens" plot. Like the return of Gary Mitchell--or nuTrek version of his appearance. The Tholian conflict we know happened, but amp it up. The Kelvans (with an a). The neck crawlies from Conspiracy. Something with Q. Any of these would have had a significant wow factor over what they did do. Anything but yet another take on bad earth/Starfleet guy.
But for me there is a silver lining here: if this dies, there's room for someone to do this RIGHT. Or not at all. But not at all is better than this series of lipsticked pigs.
Last edited:
This feels like deja vu. Didn't we have similar conversations around the box office of INTO DARKNESS and the budget for STAR TREK 3 (now BEYOND)?
INTO DARKNESS was constantly being blasted as a box office disappointment, when it really wasn't.
INTO DARKNESS was constantly being blasted as a box office disappointment, when it really wasn't.
I have to disagree with, well, just about everything posted here. Especially the last bit.
Technically, Intro Darkness was a slight box office disappointment domestically - it covered it's production costs with domestic gross. What helped Into Darkness was it's international box office. It made over $100 million more internationally than ST09.
Beyond likely won't break the $200 million domestic mark and all indications are it is underplaying internationally where Paramount clearly hoped it would continue STID's successes.
I'm not trashing Beyond because I saw it twice and I liked it. Box Office is not a reflection of movie's quality. The truth is Beyond isn't doing the business that was hoped for given its budget. That's not to say Star Trek is dead, there will be another movie at some point but whether that's Kelvin universe movie or something else remains to be seen.
At my local, it'll be on eight times this saturday throughout the day. (Bourne is down to nine).
Dory and Suicide Squad are the ones taking most of the slots this week
I blame DS9s ratings....
But in all seriousness the Kelvin timeline has never been fully embraced by fans or regular movie goers. I think this all leads back party to how the 2009 film was done. It's liked but It never had the same kind of appeal of Marvel, Batman, Bourne, Harry Potter, Bond etc when it's made to be in the same class as those. The recent Star Trek films have been entertaining but they needed a little more something in them than just bang for buck.
But in all seriousness the Kelvin timeline has never been fully embraced by fans or regular movie goers. I think this all leads back party to how the 2009 film was done. It's liked but It never had the same kind of appeal of Marvel, Batman, Bourne, Harry Potter, Bond etc when it's made to be in the same class as those. The recent Star Trek films have been entertaining but they needed a little more something in them than just bang for buck.
^^^
FYI - Nu Star Trek 4 has already been greenlit by Paramount.
Movies get greenlit all the time and canceled. Greenlighting a movie before the release is a marketing tactic. If Beyond doesn't pull enough profit, Star Trek 4 will be canceled.
Sequels being greenlit before the movie actually comes out has become something of standard marketing tool used by studios to try and drum up business. A Sequel to the new Ghostbusters movie was greenlit before it came out, and it's not going to happen now. It's possible Trek 4 could be cancelled.
Regardless there will be another Star Trek movie sooner or later.
- Status
Similar threads
