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

[johnjm22]

Most people, aside from hardcore nerds, don't engage a franchise because they have holodecks and replicators or whatever. That's interesting, but not what keeps people tuned in.

I'm not saying they do. I am saying that that's part of the forward looking aspect of the show, and that forward looking aspect made it feel fresh, new, progressive, exciting. Trek has lost that because it's retro.

I think for people to get excited about something, especially in sci-fi, it has to feel new.

I feel like adults these days have higher expectations for science fiction in certain areas.

 

[Vger23]

I'm not saying they do. I am saying that that's part of the forward looking aspect of the show, and that forward looking aspect made it feel fresh, new, progressive, exciting. Trek has lost that because it's retro.

I think for people to get excited about something, especially in sci-fi, it has to feel new.

I feel like adults these days have higher expectations for science fiction in certain areas.

The point you were challenged on, I believe is that IN SPITE of these things, TNG was not "forward looking or progressive." It was derivative, static, and safe.

Don't misunderstand, I like TNG, but there was nothing about it that "felt new" at its core. It was a spin-off, albeit a great one, but a spin-off nonetheless. Holodecks and padds and other periphrial plot devices don't help or change that.

 

[johnjm22]

The point you were challenged on, I believe is that IN SPITE of these things, TNG was not "forward looking or progressive." It was derivative, static, and safe.

Don't misunderstand, I like TNG, but there was nothing about it that "felt new" at its core. It was a spin-off, albeit a great one, but a spin-off nonetheless. Holodecks and padds and other periphrial plot devices don't help or change that.

My opinion of TNG being forward isn't based solely on those technologies, I was using them as an example.

I might feel this way about TNG because I was exposed to it at a young age. Seeing the cool future of Star Trek is a large part of what made it compelling. I think a younger viewer being exposed to Trek today wouldn't be impressed by its vision of the future like I was because it's too retro; younger viewers of today live in a much more technology advanced world than what you or I grew up in so ST relatively speaking isn't as impressive.

 

[photon70]

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.

Paramount should take note of Disney's marketing of Star Wars Rogue One.

The first trailer had a simple direct message that made me want to see it.

 

[photon70]

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)

Give away Krall's raison d'etre . . . well done

If the same people were in charge of marketing the Empire Strikes Back, I'm sure they'd have let slip Vader was Luke's father too.

 

[Cyrus]

Here is my take on the lower than expected boxoffice:

- In one article a rival executive said that trailers made this movie look like same old, same old. I have to agree with that. It seems like most Trek trailers since TWOK (TVH being a big exception) are about Enterprise fighting some bad guy, with some space fight scenes, other action scenes and explosions.

- The reviews, while mostly positive, were not glowing.I skimmed through the reviews at RT, reading short versions to avoid spoilers, and most of the positive reviews were tepid. The comment by LA Times reviewer was kind of typical: The fact that the result is serviceable, delivering enough value to be worth a fan's time, is about as good as one could reasonably expect.

- tt may not be getting the good word of mouth we were expecting. Cinamescore and IMDB ratings are below the previous 2 Trek movies

So neither the trailer nor the reviews were the kind that would cause undecided voters to want to see the movie. And those that saw it may not be generating good enough WOM.

 

[Orange Crusher]

NuTrek is losing steam because they've alienated the original Trek fans. They wanted to sit at the cool kids table. Unfortunately, they threw the baby out with the bathwater. They felt the need to reboot the continuity and that has left the original Trekkies confused and frustrated.

Hollywood doesn't make big budget films for anyone over the age of 34. 90% of Trekkies were over or near that age in 2009. So they made a remake. However, they didn't sell it as a remake. They pulled a bait and switch! Look, they said, we got Leonard Nimoy to play Spock! So the old people were interested and the kids were happy because the film was really a remake with a new hipster millennial cast with six packs, modern style haircuts and didn't feature all those old farts with old fashioned hair, liver spots and flabby physiques.

I think as the series progressed, Trekkies realized this was just another mindless remake and the kids moved on to other action movie franchises that featured buff actors with cool haircuts and blowed things up in an even cooler way than NuTrek.

The TOS movies amped up the action and adventure, while style remaining narrative driven and true to the themes of TOS. Both the movies and Next Gen/ DS9 respected the established continuity. NuTrek isn't respectful at all of Trek's past or it's fans. 1980s/90s Trek proved you can reboot the franchise and gain new young fans without throwing away the continuity and the themes that made the original popular.

 

[Devon]

NuTrek is losing steam because they've alienated the original Trek fans. They wanted to sit at the cool kids table. Unfortunately, they threw the baby out with the bathwater. They felt the need to reboot the continuity and that has left the original Trekkies confused and frustrated.

Hollywood doesn't make big budget films for anyone over the age of 34. 90% of Trekkies were over or near that age in 2009. So they made a remake. However, they didn't sell it as a remake. They pulled a bait and switch! Look, they said, we got Leonard Nimoy to play Spock! So the old people were interested and the kids were happy because the film was really a remake with a new hipster millennial cast with six packs, modern style haircuts and didn't feature all those old farts with old fashioned hair, liver spots and flabby physiques.

I think as the series progressed, Trekkies realized this was just another mindless remake and the kids moved on to other action movie franchises that featured buff actors with cool haircuts and blowed things up in an even cooler way than NuTrek.

The TOS movies amped up the action and adventure, while style remaining narrative driven and true to the themes of TOS. Both the movies and Next Gen/ DS9 respected the established continuity. NuTrek isn't respectful at all of Trek's past or it's fans. 1980s/90s Trek proved you can reboot the franchise and gain new young fans without throwing away the continuity and the themes that made the original popular.

Nope.

 

[fireproof78]

Nope.

Seconded.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Thirded.

They alienated a couple of hundred super-die-hards. 500,000 people saw Beyond on July 21st alone.

 

[Yminale]

Trek will be fine. Sometimes re-imagining works like Sherlock or Captain America and sometimes they don't. What needs to be remembered is that Trek has passed the test of time. Eventually someone will figure it out.
As for STB, it's a good movie. Chris PIne still sucks as Kirk but they made him act like a grown up which improved the movie immensely and I finally figured out why the Enterprise looks fugly. It looks good in 3D, especially in those new wide angle shots they are using.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

It had to be more than a hundred super die-hards, as the trend I have seen on the Internet has the first film at $75 million, the second film at $70 million, and the third film at $60 million for the first weekend.

 

[Trekkin]

"Tis not unreasonable for me to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.”

'Trek fans' couldn't keep the series going by themselves. We demanded more of the same, until we smothered the franchise into a coma with it. We'd become so insular (in a way) that we were actively alienating everybody else.

Like with the introduction of TNG, shit had to change.

God, it's been a bad year for blockbusters. Is Civil War the only one that hasn't had 'financial disappointment' slapped on it?

 

[donners22]

The comment by LA Times reviewer was kind of typical: The fact that the result is serviceable, delivering enough value to be worth a fan's time, is about as good as one could reasonably expect.

Yep, that's the overwhelming sense coming out of them - that it's a decent, fan-oriented film which

For those who are not fans - and that's the vast majority of the potential audience - that's not much of an incentive to go see it.

Much as I liked Beyond, I can definitely see how it would fall flat with casual fans compared to the last two.

 

[F. King Daniel]

God, it's been a bad year for blockbusters. Is Civil War the only one that hasn't had 'financial disappointment' slapped on it?

That and Deadpool.

 

[Therin of Andor]

It's always been that way. The belief must be there's no money in trying to start Trek fans off young.

The Trek 8" Mego figures of the 70s coincided with Filmation's TAS in the 70s. Saturday morning TV. TOS reuns were in early-evening syndicated rotation, stripped five-nights-per week. (ie. Kids' viewing.)

Playmates' TNG figures (in 5" and 9" sizes) in the late 80s/early 90s were quite dominant in the toy aisles of the day. TNG was airing in prime time, first-run syndication. (ie. Kids' viewing.)

1996 was a fairly big TOS anniversary celebration for merchandise.

Once DS9, VGR and ENT started airing in later and later timeslots, the kids and families watching together began to fall away.

I'd suggest this: Star Trek does not have an inclusive fan base. We're not fun to be around, we're generally miserable about everything in the franchise, we're not welcoming, and (in many cases) we're just downright mean-spirited to each other, the PTB, and especially to newbies. Why would anyone be excited to jump on that train?

After discovering TMP in 1979, some of my first research included the books "World of Star Trek", "Star Trek Lives!" and "The Making of the Trek Conventions", plus Susan Sackett's, David Gerrold's and Bjo Trimble's columns in "Starlog". These provided compelling evidence that fan gatherings were inclusive and fun... and they were! With a few provisos. Like all social clubs, there were still cliques and in-crowds, but overall, way more accepting than many other groups. IDIC was actually practised.

Star Trek isn't going to be driven forward by casual audiences. It will be driven by engaging a new and younger fanbase. Casual audiences don't give a shit and probably never will...

It was interesting when TNG was at its peak. Many members of the general public would identify themselves as Trek fans, but most were ready to move on to the next new, shiny thing when TNG ended its TV run. Keep in mind that, about the same time as TNG's US popularity, "Doctor Who" went into a long hiatus. Our Australian Trek club got overrun with brand new TNG fans (many despondent DW fans looking for a SF media fix) who had no inclination to find out about TOS. The UK magazine, "Doctor Who Bulletin" became "DWB", then "Dream Watch Bulletin", with the same old logo lettering but gradually full of TNG content.

... the existing fanbase is too fractured and too miserable to be a viable source of sustainability.

There are certainly some very negative fans out there these days. But we often forget that TAS, TMP, ST II, ST IV ("the dumbing down of Star Trek for the masses") and TNG all had their very loud detractors in their day. Some eventually relented, but many wandered away from Trek forever. I still like to look at each new Trek through my IDIC glasses. And I'm usually quite content.

 

[mlk]

Trek didn't do better because Star Trek was never about being awesome, cool, action, it was about the connection of characters and in many ways the actors with eachother. That's what made Star Trek into Star Trek. Star Trek will never work as stand alone movies, it needs a good solid tv show to explore the characters.

Current NuTrek needs to die

 

[Trekkin]

Hmmm.

Lasers, Sexy BDSM Zombies, 'Save the whales', cleavage, blowing up the ship twice, WWF, shirtless Kirk and Archer, monsters, cat suits, space battles, Joe Piscopo, 2001 cash-ins, sex viruses, 'die hard on the Enterprise', ass-cracks, Wesley, hippies, short skirts, dune buggies, sword fights, side-boobs...and a frigging Anne Rice cash-in episode at the height of her popularity.

Nope. No attempts to be 'cool' there.

Of course, 'attempt' and 'success' are often two very different things.

 

[Relayer1]

In one article a rival executive said that trailers made this movie look like same old, same old.

And it is.

As much as I had hoped Pegg writing it would have made a difference, it didn't. It was stylistically indistinguishable from the previous two movies.

 

[jamestyler]

NuTrek is losing steam because they've alienated the original Trek fans.

No.

That pocket of 'Original Trek fans' alienated themselves and a large chunk of them seem to want to alienate everyone else too.

This elitist fandom circle is the single most crippling thing to Star Trek. It always has been, but now we live in a social media world where opinion is law and outrage is standard procedure, the voice of the should be voiceless never shuts up to rain on any parade.