Why didn't Beyond do better at the Box Office?

[Visitor1982]

It's funny to see Nu-Trek fans claiming nothing is wrong with how the Bad Robot movies have been doing. Alienating fans, throwing bigger budgets at them and then not being able to recoup that money. They want to continue the same way. Making bigger movies, with bigger budgets, more explosions and shoot downs. Not accepting that since 2009, the movies have become less and less successful. Harcore fans walking away, now the general audience is walking away too. And yet we still should go on like before. Talk about having your heads in the sand.

We should not go back to 1982 or 1986 or 1996, but saying nothing is wrong and we should continue as before is 'illogical' at least.

Saying that Star Trek can't be cerebral or smart on the big screen with a smaller budget and be successful is nonsense too.

 

[Disco]

Into Darkness was more successful than 09...

 

[Visitor1982]

No, it wasn't. It had a bigger budget, so the profit had to rise accordingly... it was less successful in the States. Paramount expected much more from Into Darkness.

 

[Disco]

It was more successful internationally. The States market wasn't the whole picture.

 

[Visitor1982]

So far Beyond, however, isn't doing well at all internationally... It's down in every market. Not even China can fix that.

 

[Trekkin]

Alienating fans,

Oh, but they obviously saw the error in their ways there. That's why they made Beyond with the goal of 'embracing the fans.'

Must be why it's been so much more successful than those 'alienating' movies

... throwing bigger budgets at them

BEY actually had (as far as anyone knows) a smaller budget than its predecessor.

Also, the original movie series also had a general trend of escalating budgets. The budget slashing only tended to follow the massive critical flops.

and then not being able to recoup that money.

Those 'alienating the fans' movies certainly made back their money. And then some.

Twice.


http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek11.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm

 

[Relayer1]

I'm wondering exactly how did Beyond 'embrace' the fans ? It's every bit as frenetic, superficial, explody, nonsensical, badly motivated and weakly plotted as the previous two.

I'm not saying that it's not possible to enjoy movies like that, but it doesn't help to portray Beyond as something it's not. It's the third in a very, very similarly styled series, not the change in direction and approach hoped for when Pegg got the gig. It's no more or less than the others...

 

[urbandefault]

Yes, yes really. Alot of the original Star Trek fans liked Star Trek for the Sci Fi, not for the brute PC forced upon us. It might come as a shock to you that alot of Sci Fi fans like non PC stories as well. We want a good Sci Fi story, not a PC propaganda piece disguised as Star Trek. While there might not be many people who actively think "oh I won't see the new Trek because it's PC", there will be a large number of Star Trek fans who feels that the Story and characters simply aren't good anymore and the forced PC is a huge part of it.

Forced PC has killed ALOT of movie franchises or good storys.

I'm about as non-PC as it gets, and I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

 

[Trekkin]

Exactly how did Beyond 'embrace' the fans ? .

We have a thread (or five) where people have spent over a week, err...'explaining' why they feel that it did. I'm sure you can find many possible answers there.

Not that it's 'success' in 'embracing the fans' actually matters. Not when all I said was that it aimed at embracing the fans. For eg:

This is a universe that is so inclusive; no one is not welcome in Star Trek. So it has to embrace the fans that have been there for 50 years, and it has to embrace the people who go, ‘Oh, Star Trek, what’s that?’

I'm pretty certain the term 'Star Trek fans,' doesn't exclude all those decades-long members who consider the 'frantic, superficial, explody, nonsensical, badly motivated and weakly plotted' to have always been pretty tightly interwoven into Star Trek's DNA.

I'm also pretty certain there'd be long-time 'fans' who don't consider Abrams movies (or BEY) to fit that description at all.

We're a funny bunch like that. A diverse, fickle, argumentative bunch. Like really irritable bananas.

 

[anh165]

If most people who paid and seen Star Trek Beyond enjoyed the film, then who cares?!

The only ones who are bothered by the box-office results are the millionaire execs at Paramount.

 

[Devon]

It's funny to see Nu-Trek fans claiming nothing is wrong with how the Bad Robot movies have been doing. Alienating fans, throwing bigger budgets at them and then not being able to recoup that money. They want to continue the same way. Making bigger movies, with bigger budgets, more explosions and shoot downs. Not accepting that since 2009, the movies have become less and less successful. Harcore fans walking away, now the general audience is walking away too. And yet we still should go on like before. Talk about having your heads in the sand.

We should not go back to 1982 or 1986 or 1996, but saying nothing is wrong and we should continue as before is 'illogical' at least.

Saying that Star Trek can't be cerebral or smart on the big screen with a smaller budget and be successful is nonsense too.

Although, now may not be a good time to tell you that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was less successful at the box office than "The Motion Picture," and Star Trek II being even less successful than Star Trek II. Oh the humanity!!!!

 

[Makarov]

Great movies do badly all the time and I agree it shouldn't matter unless you're an executive at paramount yourself or worried it will affect future sequels. That being said I don't think Beyond falls into the great category, compared to Into Darkness I'd call it bad. When the most impressive thing in the movie is the ship destruction shown in the trailer, the claims of the reboot being explosions and CGI over story have some merit this time.

 

[Trekkin]

Great movies do badly all the time.

Really, really badly. Horrors which Trekkies can't even imagine.

*Hugs a well-worn copy of The BFG*

 

[Visitor1982]

Denial, denial...

YEP!

 

[BillJ]

Denial, denial...

YEP!

Meh. You can think what you like. But it likely won't match reality on this subject. People are disappointed a fairly well rated movie by people who saw it, is under performing.

Life goes on.

 

[Visitor1982]

It's not a bad movie at all. It's rather fun actually and if they would go all out comedy on the next one, that might be a good idea. I had a feeling it probably wouldn't do well (I predicted 50 million for opening weekend), but it's no that I wanted it to fail. As long as Trek stays Trek, which to me means a good movie with a good story, fun, action and adventure (Beyond delivered 3 out of 4 IMO), please do make more and hopefully be a great success. I do feel though that with 125 million it's also possible to make a good, fun, action adventure Star Trek movie. It doesn't have to be 175 million. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Maybe china can push it into the 350-400m range (150m in US. About 120-150m overseas. 80-100m china) .. taking into account STID doing 57m in 2013 and looking at some of the similar type of movies that have done big in china recently (ID:R 75m, XM:A 120m, Spectre 85m, AntMan 100m, Terminator Genisys 115m, San Andreas 100m, Interstellar 120m, XMOFP 115m, Dawn of Apes 105m, Skyfall 60m) STB doing in the 100m range is not impossible..

 

[BillJ]

I do feel though that with 125 million it's also possible to make a good, fun, action adventure Star Trek movie. It doesn't have to be 175 million. That's all I'm saying.

That is something to take up with Paramount. But I don't think they would spend money they didn't need to spend. Hollywood is notoriously stingy. Peter Mayhew is still waiting for Return of the Jedi to make a profit so he can get a bonus from it.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

A thing to know about China - this country keeps a hefty percentage of the box office receipts. I read in one article it can be as much as fifty percent, so those figures mentioned above, halve them, and that is what the studio gets.

It seems the only franchises which are thriving are those associated with Disney. (James Bond appears every few years.) Just about every other franchise is struggling or is DOA.

 

[BillJ]

Seems appropriate to drop this here...

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/

Here is an amazing glimpse into the dark side of the force that is Hollywood economics. The actor who played Darth Vader still has not received residuals from the 1983 film "Return of the Jedi" because the movie, which ranks 15th in U.S. box office history, still has no technical profits to distribute.

How can a movie that grossed $475 million on a $32 million budget not turn a profit? It comes down to Tinseltown accounting. As Planet Money explained in an interview with Edward Jay Epstein in 2010, studios typically set up a separate "corporation" for each movie they produce. Like any company, it calculates profits by subtracting expenses from revenues. Erase any possible profit, the studio charges this "movie corporation" a big fee that overshadows the film's revenue. For accounting purposes, the movie is a money "loser" and there are no profits to distribute.