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

[jamestyler]

I enjoy the Hobbit movies (the first two, anyway) more than the LOTR trilogy. It may have something to do with the fact that I never bothered to watch the LOTR films until after I saw the Hobbit. And I like the feel of the small group quest more than all the epic army battles of LOTR.

The Hobbit movies really, really annoyed me. I prefer the small quest over epic adventures most of the time and always thought it'd be better as a mini-series or a one off movie at a stretch and all they did was prove me right (to me anyway, personal opinion and all). It all just felt very wanked out for the sake of a trilogy - the ending of the first movie was incredibly frustrating.

There was wall-to-wall TV advertising the two weeks running up to the premiere. But one thing did surprise me, when I went to see Independence Day: Resurgence and Ghostbusters, neither had a Beyond trailer in front of them. This was at the local AMC theater we go to.

Thats peculiar.

I don't go to the cinema often and don't have TV (Netflix only in this house) so I assumed all was well as I'd seen a lot of internet advertising. But then, I work with a Trek club and so was always looking out for it, and I'd have various people getting in touch with me about stuff and various projects asking for an extra voice etc.

Thinking about it - between me and my wife we only saw one ad on a bus shelter. I thought they'd at least have showed the promo in front of every genre film they could.

 

[Kemaiku]

And it wouldn't explain say the UK or Australia, two countries where it has been released and saw sharp decreases.

Largely because, if all my local cinemas are anything to go by, they only had it for a week, drastically reduced the number of showings to 1-2 very late in the day and kicked it and other movies out in favour of showing Finding Dory 12 times day.

 

[Noname Given]

Movies have been greenlit before that have never seen the light of day. Rick Berman had to have some kind of go-ahead post-Nemesis, to hire a writer and begin work on Star Trek: The Beginning.

It's because Rick Berman had an iron clad 5 year contract (via Enterprise) that allowed him to continue Star Trek project development EVEN AFTER the ENT series was cancelled. He had two years on his contract remaining, so instead of buying him out, CBS/Pramount went the cheaper route of pain g him the salary contracted for - letting him keep his office space, and allowing him to hire ONE writer to develop a script both he and the studio knew that - baring an act of God, would never be made.

Again, STB isn't a breakout hit, but it IS doing respectable business at box office. It's a little below what the studio projected, yes; but it's nowhere near the lackluster box office ST:INS had - and nowhere near the box office bomb that was ST:NEM (In case anyone forgot ST:NEM opened at #2 BEHIND the Jennifer Lopez film "Maid in Manhattan" - and SHE was on the decline herself before that film came out.)

STB is not doing anywhere as bad as that and with all the tax breaks, etc. that Paramount is said to have gotten, they'll see a decent enough ROI to finish and release "Nu Star Trek 4".

 

[BillJ]

...and release "Nu Star Trek 4".

Since I've enjoyed all three Abramsverse films, I hope you are right.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I would think all Trek fans hope for more Trek films in the theater - of course we can disagree as to what the content of those would be but we all want more.

 

[KGator]

Largely because, if all my local cinemas are anything to go by, they only had it for a week, drastically reduced the number of showings to 1-2 very late in the day and kicked it and other movies out in favour of showing Finding Dory 12 times day.

And in that first week it placed second to BFG . . . with Finding Dory and Jason Bourne (two major Releases) coming out the following week. If it wanted to hold onto more theaters then it needed to show that it was attracting viewers. It simply wasn't. Theaters have to make decisions on how many screens to allocate to what movies, they also have agreements with distributors, etc. This could partially be blamed on a poor release date (Paramount) but also the fact that people didn't really show up when it was released is on the fans . . . or the lack thereof.

 

[CaptainMurdock]

It's only been out for a week. It's not over yet.

 

[TheSubCommander]

I wonder if the announcement of Discovery could have softened the box office? No need to go to the theater when Trek will be back on TV later.

I would think if anything, it would only have helped.

The thought of NOT seeing STB just because of Star Trek Discovery never even entered my mind, and I do think that was the same for MANY Star Trek fans.

I think if anything did hurt STB, it would have been the first trailer. I know I was disappointed with it.

 

[BillJ]

The thought of NOT seeing STB just because of Star Trek Discovery never even entered my mind, and I do think that was the same for MANY Star Trek fans.

I wasn't really thinking about fans, more about casual viewers.

I think if anything did hurt STB, it would have been the first trailer. I know I was disappointed with it.

I know I'm an oddball, but I loved the first trailer.

 

[Ovation]

I did too. Maybe it was meant for the old-timers like us.

 

[Jax]

$185 milliion is the cost of production after any tax rebates etc are counted according to most sources and no way they spent 200+ on marketing because if so where the hell has the marketing been.

 

[BillJ]

...and no way they spent 200+ on marketing because if so where the hell has the marketing been.

That's worldwide. With big gala premieres in Australia, London and San Diego.

 

[TheSubCommander]

You do realize that Studios don't receive that entire $160 million don't you? They will get about half of the $106m you mention and about 35% of the $55m. In addition to the $185m production budget there is probably another $150-200 million of additional costs for P&A that have to be taken into account. Now there will be revenue on the other side of the theatrical release but they will need to recoup around $335-385 million before they actually start making money.

So right now there is a LONG way to go before Paramount sees any form of "profit".

And you do realize that movies don't make all the money back at once, right? It may take a couple years for some movies. Movies don't stop making money 2 weeks after their release. Even Nemesis made a profit. Took a while, but it did. I don't see STB having a problem making one.

 

[TheSubCommander]

I wasn't really thinking about fans, more about casual viewers.

Yeah, hard to say about casual viewers. My guess would still be no, because if they are casual viewers, they probably aren't concerned one way or the other about Star Trek Discovery. Many probably aren't even aware of the upcoming show at all. Gotta remember, it's not regular syndication. It's an online only show, after the pilot.

I know I'm an oddball, but I loved the first trailer

To each their own.

 

[lordsofelsewhen]

maybe if they open star films in December instead of July?

 

[KGator]

And you do realize that movies don't make all the money back at once, right? It may take a couple years for some movies. Movies don't stop making money 2 weeks after their release. Even Nemesis made a profit. Took a while, but it did. I don't see STB having a problem making one.

Yes, I understand that movies basically have a 3 year revenue stream. That doesn't mean money magically falls from the sky in that time though to make up any shortfalls.

See a previous post where I went into some more detail. There's no way Nemesis made a profit. It would have needed to earn almost $70 million dollars from merchandising, home video and the various tiered television rights. A film that could barely clear $32 million in revenue for the studio from the box office is suddenly going to make more than TWICE that from DVDs and Television deals? You do realize the television fees are directly proportional to your box office success (as DVD sales are usually related to box office popularity). That kind of thing just doesn't happen. There is a reason it put the franchise on hiatus. And don't forget that borrowing a million dollars today and finally earning a million dollars 10 years later doesn't make everything even. There are these little items of interest and inflation to take into consideration when doing the books.

 

[Jedi_Master]

An insightful conversation I recently had with self-proclaimed "casual" Star Trek fans.

"Hey, you guys want to go see the new Star Trek? I saw it last week and its cool!"

"Yeah, that sounds nice! Let's do that!"

"Ok! Let's go this weekend."

"Sure... oh wait that new Jason Bourne movie is out, you want to see that?"

"Yessss, but I thought you wanted to see Star Trek?"

"Oh, sure, but its Star Trek - we can see that when it comes out on video... but Jason Bourne is Jason Bourne! We can't miss that come back!"

 

[Franklin]

I'm only making this generalization for fun, but maybe the overwhelming positive feeling for this movie on these boards and the comparatively poorer box office showing than either ST09 and STID reveals just how many of us geeks are still out there to support Trek in theaters.

Looking at it that way, we're not dead yet! Here's to the core. Stay relevant, my friends.

 

[Smellmet]

When I told my workmates I was off to see it I was met with jibes like 'ooh are you going to go in a uniform' and such like. That says it all doesn’t it.

 

[Ovation]

I'm only making this generalization for fun, but maybe the overwhelming positive feeling for this movie on these boards and the comparatively poorer box office showing than either ST09 and STID reveals just how many of us geeks are still out there to support Trek in theaters.

Looking at it that way, we're not dead yet! Here's to the core. Stay relevant, my friends.

A pessimist (or a Paramount shareholder) might respond that making "the fans" happy is not the best way to ensure further productions, given the equation you've just made.

It ultimately comes down to money--Paramount is not a charity and the primary purpose of any mainstream form of entertainment is to make money (not news, of course, but worth remembering nonetheless). As I've noted elsewhere, I've liked all Trek so far. I'll likely watch whatever comes in the future regardless of its budget, etc. But I've liked the newest Trek most, in the aggregate, and would like to see more with this cast. It's unrealistic to expect them to return with a 50% lower budget, so I hope that's not the outcome going forth. If it is, I suspect a complete reboot (a la Sony and Spider-Man)--and while that might make some people happy--be careful of what you wish for. There's no guarantee a reboot would not entail a BIGGER, COSTLIER production than the Bad Robot movies. Rather than scale back, Paramount might want to go "double or nothing" with a new direction (maybe get Michael Bay ).