Erm. . .There's that franchise starring a certain Mr O Prime, the last film of which garnered $1.1bn worldwide.
Why didn't Beyond do better at the Box Office?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
- Status
Erm. . .There's that franchise starring a certain Mr O Prime, the last film of which garnered $1.1bn worldwide.
Try $100m. There's no reason it can't be done. Take TWOK and break it down in to what it physically is in terms of sets, models, number of actors etc. The TOS crew, Montalban, Judson Scott, Paul Winfield, a few cheap actors for Montalban's crew, Reliant bridge crew, Enterprise engineering extras, Enterprise, Reliant bridge sets, Celti Alpha planet set, Kirk's quarters, sickbay, Genesis tunnel, and the Genesis cave which was a matt painting.
Would it not be cheaper to go back to physical models than all this excessive CGI? Trek was always content over flashy visuals, not that there was any flashy visual technology in the 80s when the TOS films were made. I'd rather watch the slow suspense of the Mutara Nebula chase than any of the visually overbearing CGI sequences in the Abrams reboots.
You might like it. A few others might also. Such a film would tank and put the movie division of the franchise on ice, likely for a decade. And the next reboot will be far LESS like your proposal than any of the Bad Robot ones.
I think all the references are a double-edged sword as far as Box Office goes because I went to see the film a second time with a group of friends who were interested, but not really 'Star Trek fans' - and they caught that there were probably many references in the film that they missed (and which they asked me to explain after the film) - but overall they felt it detracted from the film and it was another film where you had to be 'into Trek' to get everything, and that made them feel 'out of the loop' watching it.
^^^
So yeah, for good or bad, a more 'general' film would probably have done better overall in Box Office receipts - and have been more decried as 'not really Trek' by Star Trek fans. It's also probably why, out of the three JJ Abrams films ST:2009 did the best domestically.
^^^
So yeah, for good or bad, a more 'general' film would probably have done better overall in Box Office receipts - and have been more decried as 'not really Trek' by Star Trek fans. It's also probably why, out of the three JJ Abrams films ST:2009 did the best domestically.
Domestically, as of today, Aug 1, 2016, Star Trek Beyond has made $105,720,378 since July 22nd. Since, July 8th, another $54,800,000 in the foreign segment. I wasn't aware $160,520,378 was considered a failure, especially since most of that profit is only in the last week and a half.
It might be less than the last two Star Trek movies, but jeeze, I wouldn't call it a flop! Another 2-3 weeks in the theaters, STB will turn nothing but profit.
It might be less than the last two Star Trek movies, but jeeze, I wouldn't call it a flop! Another 2-3 weeks in the theaters, STB will turn nothing but profit.
"Hey I know what - let's have them make a cheaper film so that we can get a thrill in our phasers when the box office receipts equal more than the budget because to us amateurs that equals SUCCESS!"
Same mentality that suggests BvS was a financial failure because it didn't crack 1 BILLION DOLLARS at the box office.
But Paramount has likely spent close to $400 million overall on Beyond, and close to half of that box office total ends up going into the theaters pockets.
It may have a rough road to profitability.
It's ONLY a success if you can IMMEDIATELY use the box office numbers in an online dick-waving contest with fans of some other franchise.
NuTrek fans have a hard time accepting Star Trek Beyond isn't doing well...
I, like many, am not surprised it isn't doing well. It's not a flop either, but I think the studio expected more. Outside the US the figures are rather bleak as well.
Star Trek will always be a moderately successful film franchise. You have to adjust your budget to that as a studio.
I, like many, am not surprised it isn't doing well. It's not a flop either, but I think the studio expected more. Outside the US the figures are rather bleak as well.
Star Trek will always be a moderately successful film franchise. You have to adjust your budget to that as a studio.
I really do wonder if nostalgia hurts more than it helps.
ST09 was a reboot that was saying it was keeping the best and most recognizable elements of the franchise while moving it into the contemporary world of popular culture and story telling. The consensus seemed to be it succeeded grandly (reviews, box office, lots of fans) in reintroducing Trek to a new and contemporary audience while keeping it recognizable enough that older fans accepted it, too (well, most of them -- enough of them).
Marketing STB in conjunction with the 50th anniversary, and a story that many say smacked too much of TOS, was in conflict with the "this is not your father's 'Star Trek'," that may have helped draw curious movie-goers into ST09 and even STID in the first place.
Damn millennials have no appreciation for what went before them, anyway. Everyone knows that.
(We kid because we love.)
Edited to add: I'm waiting for 2019 to see what they do to commemorate the tenth anniversary of "Star Trek".
ST09 was a reboot that was saying it was keeping the best and most recognizable elements of the franchise while moving it into the contemporary world of popular culture and story telling. The consensus seemed to be it succeeded grandly (reviews, box office, lots of fans) in reintroducing Trek to a new and contemporary audience while keeping it recognizable enough that older fans accepted it, too (well, most of them -- enough of them).
Marketing STB in conjunction with the 50th anniversary, and a story that many say smacked too much of TOS, was in conflict with the "this is not your father's 'Star Trek'," that may have helped draw curious movie-goers into ST09 and even STID in the first place.
Damn millennials have no appreciation for what went before them, anyway. Everyone knows that.
(We kid because we love.)Edited to add: I'm waiting for 2019 to see what they do to commemorate the tenth anniversary of "Star Trek".
Last edited:
Chuckle. "I prefer Star Trek to be a niche product just as long as it is respects my tastes."
That's not elitism... nope, not at all.
Not exactly...
I am surprised to a degree, but have no problem "accepting" it. Life will go on somehow.
There was no 50th Anniversary marketing at all!
One thing I do know: if they had brought some previous Star Trek actors in from the series, the movie would have been a lot more successful. It should have been a real 50th anniversary movie with all the captains or something and it should have been promoted as hell. Instead, we got this story with a few vague Enterprise links and another 'vilain of the week'. It had nothing unique about it. Not for the fans and not for the general audience.
One thing I do know: if they had brought some previous Star Trek actors in from the series, the movie would have been a lot more successful. It should have been a real 50th anniversary movie with all the captains or something and it should have been promoted as hell. Instead, we got this story with a few vague Enterprise links and another 'vilain of the week'. It had nothing unique about it. Not for the fans and not for the general audience.
I have no idea what was spent on marketing, but still too early to tell, if you ask me. Then there is always the secondary market, once STB goes to BluRay and streaming. When all that is factored in, STB will turn a profit. Maybe not as much as the last two, but still should be in the black.
Yeah, and I dislike that mentality. Star Trek Beyond was the best reboot film to me, and among the best Star Trek films overall. And just as a film, it was good. Not every film is an Avengers 1 or The Force Awakens level of money making. Money doesn't indicate a movie is good, necessarily. The Transformers films prove that!
Elitism? I call it realism. For all I care they change the whole Star Trek movie franchise into My Little Pony. The point I'm trying to make is that 185 million is too big a budget for Star Trek. The proof is in the pudding if you look at the results of the last thirteen (!) Star Trek movies.
That would've depressed the Hell out of me.
Yep. Those films are assault on the eyes, ears, and mind - yet we line up to throw gobs of money at them on the regular.
- Status
Similar threads
