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

[Jedi_Master]

Stay relevant, my friends.

His fan edit of Star Trek: The Motion Picture was so well received that Paramount replaced the master copies.
He taught George Takei how to fence... with a bat'leth.
He once used the Vulcan salute to gain entry to Studio 54... twice.

He is... the most Interesting Fan in the world.

 

[Franklin]

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 ).

But, but, they've GOT to make movies I'll like! They gotta!

People want to see the Enterprise blown up? Michael Bay will do it for them real good. You haven't seen the Enterprise be destroyed until Michael Bay destroys it.

It will be interesting if any news gets out about Paramount's analysis or opinions about the STB. Just a bad year? Not a broad enough appeal? A combination? What kind of combination?

 

[JeffinOakland]

But, but, they've GOT to make movies I'll like! They gotta!

People want to see the Enterprise blown up? Michael Bay will do it for them real good. You haven't seen the Enterprise be destroyed until Michael Bay destroys it.

It will be interesting if any news gets out about Paramount's analysis or opinions about the STB. Just a bad year? Not a broad enough appeal? A combination? What kind of combination?

The Enterprise Transformer.
http://boingboing.net/2013/04/29/incredible-star-trektransform.html

 

[ConRefit79]

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

I think Disney has December wrapped up for years to come with Star Wars and its spin offs. Maybe Thanksgiving week

 

[Franklin]

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.

People still do that (I mean the snarky question)? When we were ready to leave to go to see the movie, I thought of coming downstairs in my command uniform just to scare my daughters. I really wouldn't have gone through with it, though. I mean, I'm a Trek geek and all, but that baby's just for Halloween.

 

[Ovation]

I live in a place where Trek is mostly ignored (not disliked, really, but simply not on the radar). Telling people you're going to the new Trek movie is a bit like saying you're going to the new sci-fi movie of whatever title. Trek gets a bit more attention in Montreal itself (largely owing to its bigger anglo population) but, off-island, it is barely a blip.

 

[donners22]

And these are in countries with some of the largest Star Trek fanbases in them too (Australia, UK, Germany)!!!

Australia has a solid hardcore fanbase but little mainstream support.

First run episodes of DS9, Voyager and Enterprise aired around midnight, years behind the US. There was not much to grow a fanbase through the '90s and '00s.

As such, the performance of Trek films relies on advertising, reviews and word of mouth. The advertising for Beyond was good, but reviews were mediocre and word of mouth is mixed.

 

[Amasov]

It's just one theater, but a local theater that I frequent here (it's not 3D or IMAX-equipped) is showing Beyond. I went in today to ask if they were going to do anything with the Beyond poster they had hanging in their window once the film was done. It's a 27x40 version of the TMP-style artwork. They told me they'd give it to me, but they're keeping the film around longer in the theater because they said, "It's doing really well here!"

That made me feel good.

 

[The Wormhole]

I will disagree with that. It wasn't the level of say a Disney production (which covers about everything else released this summer) but Paramount doesn't own the world's largest entertainment company and therefore can't spread the costs around.
Also this wasn't going to be a billion dollar film... period... so the whole slow rollout of teasers and teasers of teasers and etc would be a waste of time... and the amount of marketing that was done was deep and varied, just shorter in duration.

Finally, what good does endless commercials do if they don't drive people to the theater? Marketing folks are pretty good at knowing the size and composition of their target audience, and they don't get bonuses for splashing a bunch of money in an attempt to pull in another tenth of a percent of new viewers.

The fact of the matter is Paramount didn't even try to promote this film. Outside of Trek circles, no one was talking about this film at all until Anton Yelchin died. It is sad that it takes the death of one of the stars before anyone talks about the movie. And what if Yelchin hadn't died? What would have become the impetus to talk about the movie?

Hell, up until the last few weeks prior to release, the film didn't even have an official plot description. IMDB just said "Plot is unknown." The lesson Paramount should have learned from the secret Cumberbatch fiasco in STID is that you don't get people interested in the movie by saying nothing. Just like saying "the Enterprise fights Khan" or "the Enterprise fights a renegade Starfleet officer" would have gotten more people interested in STID than a poorly edited blurb about fleet detonations did, saying something as simple as " a crazed alien threatens the Enterprise" would have worked better than six months of saying "unknown plot."

Just because Paramount doesn't have the resources of Disney is no excuse to not do any kind of promotion work at all.

 

[Dukhat]

The fact of the matter is Paramount didn't even try to promote this film...The lesson Paramount should have learned from the secret Cumberbatch fiasco in STID is that you don't get people interested in the movie by saying nothing.

While I agree that Beyond could have used far more promotion than what it got, I don't agree that there was any Cumberbatch "fiasco" for ID, or at least anything that would have changed the box office results at all.

 

[BillJ]

While I agree that Beyond could have used far more promotion than what it got, I don't agree that there was any Cumberbatch "fiasco" for ID, or at least anything that would have changed the box office results at all.

I felt like I knew the movie before the first preview played the first time I saw it.

 

[The Wormhole]

While I agree that Beyond could have used far more promotion than what it got, I don't agree that there was any Cumberbatch "fiasco" for ID, or at least anything that would have changed the box office results at all.

I just don't understand the point of casting a rising star and not revealing his role in the movie for nearly a year, which is how long they waited before announcing he was "John Harrison." Nor do I understand the point of having a character in the movie who some consider "Captain Kirk's Moriarty/Joker" and then keeping that a secret. Even Abrams, a man with a constant hard-on for mystery boxes has admitted that was a mistake.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

There still is DVD/digital and word of mouth. So even if the boxoffice numbers aren't fully there, the film can recuperate their costs (and attention from the general public) over time.

Not too mention, time always tells whether or not a film has feet. (I think general and casual fans of the franchise, and this particular series, will point to Beyond as one of the better films).

 

[I am not Spock]

Australia has a solid hardcore fanbase but little mainstream support.

First run episodes of DS9, Voyager and Enterprise aired around midnight, years behind the US. There was not much to grow a fanbase through the '90s and '00s.

As such, the performance of Trek films relies on advertising, reviews and word of mouth. The advertising for Beyond was good, but reviews were mediocre and word of mouth is mixed.

Yeah. I never got the impression Trek was that big a name here in Australia. The shows used to air in the graveyard slot, amongst the adult chat line advertisements at 12 midnight. I used to have to set the video recorder.

Which is odd, because they seem to have the reboot Trek premieres down here in Sydney

 

[I am not Spock]

with all due respect to Anton (RIP) I would have thought his tragic death would have had a Paul Walker/Heath Ledger effect on STB. Made people more curious to see it.

 

[BillJ]

with all due respect to Anton (RIP) I would have thought his tragic death would have had a Paul Walker/Heath Ledger effect on STB. Made people more curious to see it.

Yelchin simply wasn't that big of a star, nor an irreplaceable piece.

 

[fireproof78]

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.

Someday there will be a realization that trailers are terrible and reflect nothing on the actual quality of the film.

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.

Depends on how the profit is calculated. Some actors have not receive of royalties because their films have been reported as not "in the black" or profitable.

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 ).

I don't think catering to fans is the best business model, but neither is wholehearted ignorance. In my opinion, Paramount has struggled to find that healthy balance between the two. ST 09 was, in my opinion, very close to the right balance, and it's financial earning certainly speak to its success.

I'm not a Hollywood exec, by far, but I think that Paramount operates with a different mindset, and will be final determinant of Beyond's success or failure. If there is no ST 4, then I would say they considered it not worth pursing.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Entertainment Weekly hits it on the head with the box office expectations and interpretations in their BEYOND review:

Beyond opened last week with a $59.6 million opening. Here’s a fun game: Try to see how many different opposing interpretations you can create out of that information. Like:

1. That’s an impressive opening. It was a crowded weekend at the box office – the top five films all grossed more than $20 million – and the culture was dominated by extra-cinematic events like the RNC and Comic-Con. $59.6 million is also more than Nemesis grossed in its entire run – proof that this new Star Trek franchise has ascended into the modern blockbuster echelon.

2. It’s a problematic opening. That’s a significant decline from Trek ’09(which made $75 million in its opening weekend) and continues a downward trend already present with Into Darkness. Maybe people didn’t like Trek ’09 as much as Paramount thought they did – and Into Darkness surely didn’t help matters.

3. It’s a healthy opening for a series that has been, and maybe always will be, a middle-class financial earner. No sequel number means anything anymore, but consider that the third Captain America movie (actually the 13th Avengers movie) grossed more in its opening weekend than this third Star Trek movie (actually the 13th Star Trekmovie) will likely gross in its entire domestic run. This would be helpful information if Hollywood was equipped to make mid-budget blockbusters – if, say, Paramount were interested in making a $50 million Star Trek film with only one or two action scenes, a latter-dayVoyage Home. But the latest reports are that Beyond cost $185 million. By comparison: The Conjuring 2 cost $40 million, and its opening weekend was just a bit less than the Beyond debut.

4. But the film’s opening clearly proves that the fan base is strong. Paramount spent the last couple months repositioning this rebooted series toward forever Trekkers, with a fan event in May and a fan-friendly Comic-Con world premiere. After Into Darkness, the fandom was upset; now, they are happy.

5. But that doesn’t matter, because the whole point of Trek ’09 andInto Darkness was to pivot Star Trek forward from the fandom-clogged Next Generation era – to create a global blockbuster franchise. Maybe Beyond will open big in China in September – and maybe “Hoping for a big Chinese box office” is just a trendy euphemism for “box office disappointment.”

6. No matter how hard it tries, Star Trek will never beat Star Wars. Not even close; not in this generation, nor in the next one.

Source: http://www.ew.com/article/2016/07/29/star-trek-beyond-rihanna-geekly

 

[VOODOOXI]

I for one loved that Beyond's approach to celebrating the 50th was simply be like a really big-budget episode of TOS, albeit through the lens of what JJ has wrought.

I just don't see it as a

1- 1st trailer was BAD.... just slapped together & put out there....
2 - Nothing for 6 MONTHS............
3 - No cinema con footage or PR
4 - Orchi's scripted sucked, fired, then 6 months to get script and start filming. I felt movie was VERY GOOD, but another draft or 2 on the script could've took the movie to greatness
5 - no 50th anniversary of ST tie in like others said to make it an "event"

I loved the movie, but I'm a ST ho LOL

I agree with most of your points, the one thing I can't agree with is your statement that "Orci's script sucked"? How do you know Orci's script sucked? From the general outline he mentioned, it sounded far more interesting than the mediocre film that we got.

I don't think the issue was that Orci's script wasn't good enough. I think the issue was that it was "too Trekkie" and "not enough Guardians of the Galaxy" for the bean counters at the studio...I'd bet some real money that Orci's script would have made for a more interesting film that the film the action packed/confusing film that Lin delivered.

P.S. I don't hate Beyond, but I was a little disappointed in it. Too much action for my taste. I would have preferred a little more "Trekkie" and a little less Public Enemy + Beastie Boys...I thought Simon Pegg and his co-writer did a good job of creating some really effective character moments.

 

[Visitor1982]

I just don't see it as a


I agree with most of your points, the one thing I can't agree with is your statement that "Orci's script sucked"? How do you know Orci's script sucked? From the general outline he mentioned, it sounded far more interesting than the mediocre film that we got.

I must have missed that. What was the outline?