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

[Ovation]

General lack of public enthusiasm for Star Trek outside of its fanbase, particularly in the US.

Possibly.

Lack of interest in the reboots amongst a not insignificany portion of the fanbase.

Insignificant relative to general audience.

No TOS reboot TV show with the actors in the roles to generate interest in the movies.

Irrelevant.

Protest against CBS/Paramount effectively shutting down fan productions.

Ah, no.

Gay Sulu. Don't discount right wing & christian countries across the world, especially America. You can't make a $185m movie, stick a big sign on it pre release that says "we're playing to the gay lobby", and then complain when the film tanks.

Oh wait. You're serious. No.

The awful first trailer.

Unlikely.

Pegg opening his foul heterophobic pie hole in public and managing to demonise George Takei at the same time. Quite an achievement.

Must have occurred in a parallel universe. Nothing I've seen in this one matches these sentiments.

Total lack of marketing.

Too late to get the best effect but hardly "total lack".

Guess I'll have to explore other responses to gain insight on this topic.

 

[Dales]

Possibly.


Insignificant relative to general audience.


Irrelevant.


Ah, no.


Oh wait. You're serious. No.


Unlikely.


Must have occurred in a parallel universe. Nothing I've seen in this one matches these sentiments.


Too late to get the best effect but hardly "total lack".

Guess I'll have to explore other responses to gain insight on this topic.

I would not rule out the gay sulu thing, I also had that fear it may hurt the BO.

 

[Ovation]

I would not rule out the gay sulu thing, I also had that fear it may hurt the BO.

The bulk of the releases have been in western countries and I seriously doubt it's having a measurable effect on box office. Perhaps in other markets later, but it's hardly going to be the main or even a major factor (far likelier the scene will be, sadly, censored and thus have no impact at all).

 

[M-Red]

It's an interesting question, but like I said in the other thread devoted to STB's box office performance. Two things really stand out in my mind when thinking about this:

1. I'm extremely happy BEYOND was made the way it was despite the box office numbers. It is, in my opinion, the best reboot movie yet and it's one of the best pieces of Star Trek in a really long time. I'm proud of this one.

2. If it doesn't kill the nuTrek film franchise, ultimately I don't care about the box office numbers. I wish it would have great commercial success because I think those involved in creating it actually deserve the rewards and accolades this time. But if we get Star Trek 4, it's alright.

STB was the film I had been hoping to get from the reimagined version of the classic crew.

 

[Khan 2.0]

while I wouldnt break out the bagpipes and play Amazing Grace just yet here some views on why its not doing as well as the previous 2 (basically reiterating what others have said) -

-its the 3rd movie (not all franchises go ballistic Skyfall style)
-STID – trekkies no seem to like it (but general audiences didnt mind it/thought was a decent space action film?)
-Good reviews for STB? - when it was revealed as being a good 'star trek' movie and an improvement over STID maybe some of the general audience were abit turned off (like 'oh in that case its not for me')
-That early F&F type trailer with the bike (think that was quite damaging esp in front of TFA)
-The John Carter effect? – perhaps Trek and esp STB is suffering abit of John Carter syndrome? - its 'the original' SF saga but since STID theres been Guardians and Star Wars:TFA (two huge SF events) which have maybe taken the sheen off 'the original' (so to speak).(can imagine some kids/people seeing trailers and just thinking its a knock off of Wars/GOTG)
-2016 summer box office blues – see IDR, XM:A, GB etc
-July release over May
-Little promotion of the 50th ann (like there was for the 25th with VI).
-the floating head poster (international) was quite underwhelming? (in comparison to the fantastic Korean ones)
--no solid 'hook' for Trek fans in the build up to the movie beyond its a new trek movie and the ship gets destroyed (again). aside from that it looked abit Insurrection/Avatary and directed by F&F dude with cray--zee action and bike stunts. (the previous 2 had great trailers and 'hooks' - STID had the question of Khan/Klingons and whos going to die. ST09 had all kinds of hooks - return of TOS era/characters, huge budget biggest since TMP, new take from new creative team/jj, prequel/sequel/reboot, time travel/alt universe, Nimoy returning as Spock for the first time since 1991, Shatner cameo?!). (-Turns out there were a few 'hooks' beyond the enterprise destroyed..not that we could know about them - Spock primes death, the Enterprise A (ok it was obvious theyd get another Ent but still cool. Although it shouldve looked more like the original movie Ent). Also the NX 'Enterprise' style ship and Krall being an 'Enterprise' era captain with references to MACO/Xindi etc (seen in trailers but no one really knew about it until saw the film). And the photo of the original crew from Trek V was a mindblowing surprise )
--while the movie turned out surprisingly good there didnt seem to be anything 'anniversary' about it - perhaps Orcis more Shatcentric Days of Future Past/City on The Edge/Yesterdays Ent/All Good Things sounding movie wouldve created more of an event and wouldve been the way to go for the 50th ?

(Not sure about Gay Sulu having much of an effect either way. The George Takei thing was most 'unfortunate' though)

 

[Relayer1]

Why didn't Beyond do better at the Box Office? It has done okay so far, but we have sci fi movies like Captain America Civil War and Star Wars: The Force Awakens have done way better.

In fairness, Civil War was a much better film, so was Deadpool, and Star Wars was....Star Wars.

I really didn't think Beyond was any better than the other two previous films, but that may not be the whole story. I thought this years X-Men movie was good, but it too struggled. It's a tough year.

The Trek audience is dwindling and what there is left doesn't unanimously support the new movies. There's limited appeal to the general public, and a third average movie just doesn't excite the casual moviegoer.

Edit - oh, and possibly the countries biggest movie critic said it wasn't as good as 2009 and STID.

 

[timtonruben359]

I don't think there is one single reason why Beyond is performing lower than wished for.

It has a trouble production to start with (the original script was thrown out, the original director was let go etc. That didn't help assure confidence amongst fans.

The original trailer was controversial and not well received and even Simon Pegg and Justin Lin complained about it. After that Paramount did advertise the movie at all until about 6 weeks out. The marketing campaign wasn't as effective as it could have been and there was no real buzz around the movie - outside of the fandom I know a number of casual fans who didn't even realize there was a new movie coming out.

The late July release date likely affected box office as big blockbuster movies do better with May and June openings (like the first two movie)

Beyond was a good movie, but was it the right story for the 50th anniversary of Star Trek and why didn't Paramount maximize the publicity around the 50th anniversary.

It's been a bad summer in general for movies.

Paramount has been terrible in keeping the franchise alive between movies.

That being said, Beyond is the highest grossing Paramount movie this year. It's likely Star Trek 4 will happen but with a lower budget and perhaps fewer of the cast.

 

[Tomalak]

I think the main reason is the disastrous and cack-handed way Paramount have made and marketed these films. The first one did really well, but the four year gap until the next one was inexcusable. STID did well, largely I think due to a good marketing campaign - and a big name guest star. Again a three year gap, this time apparently in order to hit the 50th, but then zero marketing to tie in with this!

I don't know who the hell is in charge of this stuff, but they need to get fired. If Disney or Marvel owned Star Trek, we'd have had some kind of film every year to 18 months - it builds momentum and wins new fans. These films never got that opportunity because with so much competition in the market, three films in seven years is not enough to make an impact. There should have been a relaunched TV series years ago to cover the gaps between film releases.

Look at the buzz Doctor Who got from its 50th in 2013 - and it's not as widely known in the US as Star Trek. In the UK, Doctor Who got blanket coverage for months, and The Day of the Doctor special was huge event TV. I just don't know what Paramount think they are playing at. I know it's a studio with some problems, but they'd be better off selling the property to CBS and let them find a distributer. Bring the whole franchise back together again.

 

[Galileo7]

I think the main reason is the disastrous and cack-handed way Paramount have made and marketed these films. The first one did really well, but the four year gap until the next one was inexcusable. STID did well, largely I think due to a good marketing campaign - and a big name guest star. Again a three year gap, this time apparently in order to hit the 50th, but then zero marketing to tie in with this!

I don't know who the hell is in charge of this stuff, but they need to get fired. If Disney or Marvel owned Star Trek, we'd have had some kind of film every year to 18 months - it builds momentum and wins new fans. These films never got that opportunity because with so much competition in the market, three films in seven years is not enough to make an impact. There should have been a relaunched TV series years ago to cover the gaps between film releases.
...

Agree. Disney does keep the momentum of interest in both it's Marvel films and now Star Wars films. Paramount has not replicated that for Star Trek.

 

[Harvey]

Agree. Disney does keep the momentum of interest in both it's Marvel films and now Star Wars films. Paramount has not replicated that for Star Trek.

I'd rather Paramount take their time with Star Trek than follow the Marvel method and pump them out like sausages.

 

[Khan 2.0]

revealing the Krall twist in a tv spot (that autoplayed on FB/twit) days before release was inexcusable (similar to the John Conner TGEN trailer - also Paramount)

 

[Tomalak]

I'd rather Paramount take their time with Star Trek than follow the Marvel method and pump them out like sausages.

They don't have to be "pumped out". The delay between ST09 and STID was due to Abrams' availability wasn't it? They didn't need to be hitched to him alone. A new director and writing team did a good job in very little time in STB.

 

[Ovation]

I do think later July rather than May (or early June) is likely a factor. This year at the box office, though, has been an unusual one. "Franchise fatigue" (generally, not Trek per se) is probably also a factor. Moreover, movies are expensive. I can afford it, but a family night at the movies (not seeking "half-price Tuesday" or matinee prices)--four tickets, two popcorn and four drinks (not necessary, but typical) easily pushes 85$ (or over 100$ if IMAX 3D). As a student years ago, I routinely saw 3-4 movies a week (no TV in my apartment for 2 years). Even accounting for inflation (of my available money then), there's no way I could have done that today.

The issue of marketing is tricky. I think it was crammed too late to be fully effective, but there are a few factors to consider. One--very tight production schedule (not quite as catastrophic as the pressure for TMP, but probably the second most problematic of all Trek films). Two--cost of massive, lengthy marketing campaigns. Paramount is not facing MGM style financial problems but it's also not Disney or Universal, or Warner Bros. for that matter. The late production makes less material available for marketing and, if the studio is bleeding money elsewhere (as appears to be the case), perhaps it adopted a "penny-wise, pound-foolish" mindset to the marketing campaign.

The one thing I feel pretty confident about is the irrelevance of "fan" (as opposed to general audience) attitude towards the reboot Trek. The number of fans who truly refused to see the film(s) pales into insignificance vs the general audience. Also, the latter doesn't care--at all--about what hardcore fans think of the movies. The studio is pursuing the general audience, not the fans (fair or not, they simply--correctly in the aggregate--presume the fans will see it anyway, likely more than once). So Paramount will be trying to figure out why the general public didn't turn out as much as for the previous two, not worrying about "the fans".

I also think home video (in all formats--disc and streaming/downloads) will matter more than for previous releases (this is a general trend anyway). I recently read an article (can't remember the movie) that talked about a movie from six or so months ago that was rather a flop (Beyond is already a bigger moneymaker relative to cost than the film in question) at the box office but home media sales/rentals/streaming have made it a rather profitable project overall and may well earn it a sequel. So, unless Beyond actually loses money at the box office (highly doubtful), I think home media will boost it enough to warrant at least one more kick at the can. After that, I doubt the cast will stick around, so there'll be some other Trek at the cinema later on.

 

[Tomalak]

I also think home video (in all formats--disc and streaming/downloads) will matter more than for previous releases (this is a general trend anyway). I recently read an article (can't remember the movie) that talked about a movie from six or so months ago that was rather a flop (Beyond is already a bigger moneymaker relative to cost than the film in question) at the box office but home media sales/rentals/streaming have made it a rather profitable project overall and may well earn it a sequel. So, unless Beyond actually loses money at the box office (highly doubtful), I think home media will boost it enough to warrant at least one more kick at the can. After that, I doubt the cast will stick around, so there'll be some other Trek at the cinema later on.

All films eventually turn a profit - even notorious flops like John Carter or Heaven's Gate. And, er, Star Trek: Nemesis. That's not really the point though.

 

[donners22]

Geez, that Sulu thing has revealed a really unpleasant side of the fanbase.

As for the topic, from an Australian perspective, I don't think the issue was marketing. They did a good job of promoting it here, with a well-publicised tour from four cast members and the world premiere, yet it was down over 20% on ID.

I can think of a couple of reasons:

1) The reviews could be off-putting to non-fans. In addition to being a bit less positive overall (and every newspaper review I saw here was mediocre at best, and weaker than the last two films), those positive ones often contain lines that it is more fan-focused and like an extended episode.

2) The novelty of having Trek back has worn off a bit. There was excitement over the first and curiosity over how they would follow it up with the second, but by the third it's just another franchise. What's more, the other Star franchise is now back, with a far greater level of hype and anticipation.

 

[Tomalak]

There's also the more general point that aside from a couple of exceptions, Star Trek has never been blockbuster at the box office. It just isn't. The films usually do well, but it depends what Paramount expects.

 

[JeffinOakland]

Abrams has done an admirable job of "blockbustering" ST without horrifying most of the fanbase but there's only so far you can go off the rez. At the end of the day, their still "just" ST films.

 

[Ovation]

All films eventually turn a profit - even notorious flops like John Carter or Heaven's Gate. And, er, Star Trek: Nemesis. That's not really the point though.

They don't all turn a sufficient profit to warrant a follow up project though (see Nemesis and John Carter--Heaven's Gate not really "sequel material"). I think Beyond, with an assist from home media, will warrant a sequel, though likely the last of this gang. But really, who knows? I thought the Philip Pullman books would get their trilogy made into films (I quite liked The Golden Compass). I was wrong.

 

[Tomalak]

They don't all turn a sufficient profit to warrant a follow up project though (see Nemesis and John Carter--Heaven's Gate not really "sequel material"). I think Beyond, with an assist from home media, will warrant a sequel, though likely the last of this gang. But really, who knows? I thought the Philip Pullman books would get their trilogy made into films (I quite liked The Golden Compass). I was wrong.

Yeah, I think they have to at least break even at the box office to get a sequel. STB likely will, so I still think ST4 will happen in some form.

 

[timtonruben359]

I think Star Trek has lost a chunk of the 'general audience' from franchise/sequel fatigue and I also think the new Star War films have taken a lot of the buzz away from Trek.

Beyond will squeak out a profit and I think Star Trek 4 will happen albeit with a smaller budget. Paramount has been having a terrible year and Beyond is their most successful movie of the year financially.