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

[John Clark]

Seeing it in 3D at our local Odeon, with snacks and the full plastic frame 3D glasses cost me £11.70.

Ouch. For before noon showings, 3d is only extra if you forget your glasses. (Cinema is one of the UK AMC ones)

Pricewise It helps that I always try and get us in a showing before noon. Evening showings on a Saturday it's £7.50 or £8.50 for 3d

With regards Beyond, our cinema is showing it four times this saturday. BFG and Suicide Squad seem to be taking most of the screens up, but there's also an airing of The Thing (The Kurt Russell version) and Prince of Darkness.

 

[KGator]

The advertising people did everything in their possibilities. Beyond might be a good movie. But it has nothing to stand out, or differentiate it from other blockbusters. The trailers were a pretty good representation of the final product.

The only way they could have built "anticipation" would have been marketing the movie as something it wasn't. AKA marketing it as "a nod to 50 years of Trek", or plastering the trailers with pop-songs like Suicide Squad/Guardians of the Galaxy. That would have only led to even more disappointment, as the final product would have been nothing like advertised, or even worse, the studio stepping in and recutting the film to be more like the trailers (again, Suicide Squad).

Beyond didn't fail because of the marketing. It didn't even fail for a lack of quality. It simply failed for being rather bland, in an already overcrowded summer with many other much more anticipated event movies. People only watch 2-4 movies a year. If that year has Deadpool, Civil War, Ghostbuster, X-Men, Jason Bourne, Suicide Squad, a new Star Wars and what else not, people just don't have the time and money to spent on a movie that is simply just another Star Trek sequel.

Godzilla, Deadpool, Minions, Suicide Squad, Pets, Straight Out of Compton, Jurassic Park, etc . . . there are plenty of films that became events largely because of great marketing campaigns. Hell, Deadpool and Suicide Squad were considered extremely risky ventures but the marketing managed to capture people's attention and made them compelling films. Godzilla is a prime example of GREAT trailers that were actually inaccurate and it is what caused the poor WOM after a great opening weekend. Suicide Squad has also been criticized because the trailers were more fun and exciting than the actual movie (which has been called by many as terrible).

Let's face it, Star Trek Beyond was a light, fun and forgettable summer movie. It was never going to hook people on its own with an amazing concept that people became enamored with. This movie wasn't going to create buzz . . . the buzz had to be created through the marketing. If anything the marketing made it look like an even MORE generic and unimaginative movie than it actually was. When you make a movie that's fun and forgettable and don't sell the hell out of it before hand . . . . don't be surprised when it gets quickly forgotten when other similar movies are released or movies with much better marketing strategies.

Rihanna singing the theme song was a nice touch but if you wanted excitement . . . put Rihanna IN THE MOVIE and let her fans build up free publicity for you.

Face it, the Paramount Marketing department leaves a lot to be desired. Which of the following big Paramount pictures to be released this year are you excited for? Ben Hur? Jack Reacher? Rings? Arrival (which actually looks like it might be good even though no one will probably go see it), Office Christmas Party?

Compare that to Disney or Warner Brothers. Hell, I saw where someone is trying to sue WB over false advertising for Suicide Squad (not enough Joker). Other Warner Brother films? Sully and The Accountant are not films I'm interested in but look at those trailers . . . . well done . . . they pull you in. And Fantastic Beasts? They have been pushing that for a while, I bet that pays off with a box office monster.

 

[Jax]

I just wish Paramount had released the movie in May after X Men, there was a spot for a big movie and they put TMNT there despite knowing how good the May runs were for the last two movies. The summer box office seems to start strong and get weaker these days quicker than in the past (maybe ticket prices?). If they released May with you know some better marketing we would not be having the issue of Beyond likely not cracking $300 million worldwide.

I do hope between now and October (why such a fractured WW release date compared to STID) it can pick up steam especially in china but even then Beyond will break even at best.

 

[Rahul]

Godzilla, Deadpool, Minions, Suicide Squad, Pets, Straight Out of Compton, Jurassic Park, etc . . . there are plenty of films that became events largely because of great marketing campaigns. Hell, Deadpool and Suicide Squad were considered extremely risky ventures but the marketing managed to capture people's attention and made them compelling films. Godzilla is a prime example of GREAT trailers that were actually inaccurate and it is what caused the poor WOM after a great opening weekend. Suicide Squad has also been criticized because the trailers were more fun and exciting than the actual movie (which has been called by many as terrible).

Let's face it, Star Trek Beyond was a light, fun and forgettable summer movie. It was never going to hook people on its own with an amazing concept that people became enamored with. This movie wasn't going to create buzz . . . the buzz had to be created through the marketing. If anything the marketing made it look like an even MORE generic and unimaginative movie than it actually was. When you make a movie that's fun and forgettable and don't sell the hell out of it before hand . . . . don't be surprised when it gets quickly forgotten when other similar movies are released or movies with much better marketing strategies.

Rihanna singing the theme song was a nice touch but if you wanted excitement . . . put Rihanna IN THE MOVIE and let her fans build up free publicity for you.

Face it, the Paramount Marketing department leaves a lot to be desired. Which of the following big Paramount pictures to be released this year are you excited for? Ben Hur? Jack Reacher? Rings? Arrival (which actually looks like it might be good even though no one will probably go see it), Office Christmas Party?

Compare that to Disney or Warner Brothers. Hell, I saw where someone is trying to sue WB over false advertising for Suicide Squad (not enough Joker). Other Warner Brother films? Sully and The Accountant are not films I'm interested in but look at those trailers . . . . well done . . . they pull you in. And Fantastic Beasts? They have been pushing that for a while, I bet that pays off with a box office monster.

To be honest, I think Disney is the only company that regularly succeedes with amazing marketing campaigns. Incidentally, they are the only ones that produce the marketing campaign already in-house, while the other studios outsourcre them.

WB had major blunders, too. The Suicide Squat trailers deeply misrepresented the movie. The Batman v. Superman marketing was pretty much a disaster, where they showed images of every(!) major scene in the movie.

In Disney, the people doing tha marketing are in constant interaction with the filmmakers themselves. Basically from the inception of a movie they already plan which VFX-shots to produce first so that they are ready for the very first teaser. And additionally they pretty much start the development of their movies with "what can we sell people", instead of the (usual) other way around where an artist has an idea and the marketing team has to try to advertise it afterwards. Production and script-writing often starts way before there's even a director attached.

For the marvel movies, the very first teaser usually focuses mainly on introducing the main character(S), and ending with a vfx-shot. After that, they still focus only on the characters and the action, and after the title card comes a quick joke. For the Star Wars movies the first teaser is familiar images to show you "a new Star Wars is coming", then the second and third trailer follow the superhero way. Their animated movies and live-action-fairy-tales have similar consistent trailers.

You cannot expect external advertisement houses to be as efficient as this well-oiled machine. Not when the way of filmmaking is so different for the other studios. The advertisement houses usually get all the raw clips of a movie. They can give feedback, maybe influence tone. But they are never going to be as involved with a production as a in-house marketing machine.

Beyond was as good advertised as any other generic summer movie blockbuster in the same league. Star Trek simply never will have the marketing budget of a Star Wars or Avengers or Justice League. Period.

Had the movie guys better things to show (they wished for Jennifer Lawrence as Jaylah, or a well known, popular acto with a face as a villain), the marketing could have done a better job. As it is they did a pretty decent one, putting characters and action in focus, and promising a nice ride.

 

[Kemaiku]

Ouch. For before noon showings, 3d is only extra if you forget your glasses. (Cinema is one of the UK AMC ones)

Pricewise It helps that I always try and get us in a showing before noon. Evening showings on a Saturday it's £7.50 or £8.50 for 3d

With regards Beyond, our cinema is showing it four times this saturday. BFG and Suicide Squad seem to be taking most of the screens up, but there's also an airing of The Thing (The Kurt Russell version) and Prince of Darkness.

The one in town does 2D for £4.50 and 3D for £6.50. Most of my Odeon bill was food, I hadn't eaten at that point, totally justified buying that much chocolate.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Well, (A) the majority of this thread didn't like the teaser trailer, (B) the majority of the Internet didn't care for it and (C) the movie's attendance is off more than a third from the previous film.

The math seems pretty straightforward. Either you think the movie was simply bad and the word of mouth was toxic or no one felt compelled to go see it which means the marketing was poor and ineffective. And you know what was the first impression to audiences? Yep, the trailer that no one seemed to like. Just read the posts on this thread about the teaser trailer.

But feel free to believe otherwise. "That trailer was great and built so much early momentum and excitement that new Trek fans are literally just falling from the sky."

This whole post feels like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[John Clark]

The one in town does 2D for £4.50 and 3D for £6.50. Most of my Odeon bill was food, I hadn't eaten at that point, totally justified buying that much chocolate.

Ours will make their money there too. As it's usually early in the morning, I don't bother but the concession stands seem to be busy enough so they seem to be happy enough.

 

[Smellmet]

Maybe casting rihanna in jaylahs part would've been a good marketing tool. She's acted before and would've been a good match for the part (I enjoyed what we got though).

On a side note I paid £16.50 to watch STB in 3D IMAX.

 

[TheTowerBridgeFox]

Firstly I enjoyed this film. especially the references to the original series, and I hope they go ahead with the next one.

as to the subject of this topic.

1 Last years over hyped star wars film may have used up the publics appetite for space fantasies.

2 this was compounded by the poster looking like a star wars poster.(star Trek needs more distinctive promotion)

3 The title isn't descriptive enough.

also

what goes on to be regarded as the best films ever made and what was regarded as good box office at the time of its release ain't the same thing.

some films built stature over time.

 

[wayoung]

Firstly I enjoyed this film. especially the references to the original series, and I hope they go ahead with the next one.

as to the subject of this topic.

1 Last years over hyped star wars film may have used up the publics appetite for space fantasies.

2 this was compounded by the poster looking like a star wars poster.(star Trek needs more distinctive promotion)

3 The title isn't descriptive enough.

also

what goes on to be regarded as the best films ever made and what was regarded as good box office at the time of its release ain't the same thing.

some films built stature over time.

How did the posters look like Star Wars posters? They were, literally, redone Star Trek TMP posters. There wasn't anything related to the Star Wars posters about them besides the word "Star" and a couple floating heads.

I loved the posters, much more than the actual movie.

 

[Noname Given]

Is it the advertising or are people simply tuning out "Star Trek"?

I'd say it's a combination; but for something Paramount considers a 'Tentpole Franchise' and with the 50th Anniversary of Star trek tie in - the marketing was just not well done.

Well, (A) the majority of this thread didn't like the teaser trailer, (B) the majority of the Internet didn't care for it and (C) the movie's attendance is off more than a third from the previous film.

But also, the majority of this thread went and paid to see the film anyway. This thread is an anecdotal sample of the general movie going public, and nearly everyone here IS (or has a larger interest in) Star Trek in general, then the general populace.

It really appears Paramount expected the film to be advertised by word of mouth from excited Star Trek fans; and that somehow the general populace realized it's the 50th Anniversary of Star Trek - if the marketing in the Los Angeles area was anything to go by.

Compared to ad campaigns for SWTFA or the last few Marvel films (even Ant Man) - the Paramount campaign for STBwas lackluster.

Whether that's because they were nervous and hedging their bets on better overall ROI in the long run by foregoing a fair amount of marketing is anyone's guess.

 

[TheTowerBridgeFox]

Not all the posters just the first poster they put out in the UK Jaylah looks like shes holding a life saver

I like all the other posters.

 

[KGator]

WB had major blunders, too. The Suicide Squat trailers deeply misrepresented the movie. The Batman v. Superman marketing was pretty much a disaster, where they showed images of every(!) major scene in the movie.

I'm sorry but how was Suicide Squad's marketing a mistake? Marketing's job is to bring people to the movie theater. The film will live and die on its own after that. People forget that early on projections were for this film to open in the 60s. Then the trailers started coming out and interest grew, Internet chatter picked up and projections increased.

There is a reason that WB has made over a billion dollars for something like 12 years in a row. The marketing strategy is created and implemented by the WB marketing and distribution division. They seem to have it down pretty well.

 

[RAMA]

Let's keep the speculation about who he finds annoying to yourself super-sleuth. He's allowed to find an online reviewer annoying without you insinuating that it has something to do with her nationality.

It was a question, wasn't it?

In fact, at read the post and swore it was a previous post from over a month ago...I had to make sure I hadn't accidentally clicked on the wrong post. So once, it's comment, twice, it's a curiosity, 3 times a trend.

Your commentary is not required super-genius.

RAMA

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Pegg gets a free pass after saying all straight people are gay.

When the hell did he ever say that?

 

[Trekfan12]

I found Beyond had some unnecessary action sequences too. For example the whole Kirk/Chekov/McGuffin alien returning to the saucer action sequence was totally needless and the two plot points that came from that could have been added to another scene with very little action. Beyond had fantastic character moments I thought, and I would love a movie with more of that.

I also wish they had more character moments and less CGI. That was the great appeal of the original show/movies

 

[M'Sharak]

It was a question, wasn't it?

In fact, at read the post and swore it was a previous post from over a month ago...I had to make sure I hadn't accidentally clicked on the wrong post. So once, it's comment, twice, it's a curiosity, 3 times a trend.

Your commentary is not required super-genius.

RAMA

That wasn't very smart of you.

The question was unnecessarily personal, as I'm sure you were already aware. The forum moderator was advising you that such a question is better left unasked. He wasn't asking for an explanation, and the dismissive response will earn you a warning. So awarded. Comments to PM.

 

[Trekfan12]

Has anyone thought of the release date as being an issue?
Both '09 and Into Darkness were released in May, at the beginning of the summer season. Perhaps what is happening is that the movie-going public are getting weary of the big bang zoom films by mid-summer.
Perhaps Star Trek 4 should be released earlier in the year.

I'm curious, do movies do better in May at the start of the summer, or around the holiday times in Nov or Dec?

 

[johnjm22]

For CBS, there's nothing riding on the show itself per se. CBS has already stated this deal paid for itself with all the outside territory broadcast rights deals they've made for the 13 episodes. They HOPE this will spur interest in the "All-Access" subscription streaming service here in the U.S.; and they chose 'Star Trek' because IF it doesn't they still know that if they then either make a deal to air the series in the U.S. on pay cable channel or premium pay cable like Showtime (which CBS still controls); and release Blu-Ray DVDs and Star Trek fans will complain like they always do; but a significant will watch/buy; and they'll still see a decent overall ROI while they move on to their next attempt to promote CBS All Access.

I'm talking about the fate of Star Trek. CBS ordered 13 episodes. They'll order more if it's a "hit." If they don't order more I would consider that a flop, and if it is a flop, what happens to Star Trek? It could end up going dormant again. That's why I say there's a lot riding on this show, for Star Trek, not necessarily CBS.

 

[eyeresist]

In fact, at read the post and swore it was a previous post from over a month ago...I had to make sure I hadn't accidentally clicked on the wrong post. So once, it's comment, twice, it's a curiosity, 3 times a trend.

I tried to send you a pm but settings wouldn't allow it.