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

[timtonruben359]

According to Boxofficemojo, Paramount has three Transformers movies coming out for the next 3 consecutive summers 2017-2019. Assuming they each cost around $220m, and gross a minimum of $1bn each, as per Age of Extinction, Paramount's financial situation shouldn't become any wose in the next few years.

However, the Star Trek franchise is most definitely in murky waters.

Paramount has been the lowest performing of the major Hollywood studios for years now. Their revenue from 2015 was down $2.5 billion from 2014. Paramount is not in MGM kind of trouble but it does have a cash flow problem.

The only murky waters Star Trek movies are in are what type of movies Paramount should do going forward. Should they continue with the big blockbuster Trek movies trying to appeal to a large audience, or go back to the old model of lower budget story based Trek films that play to a niche market.

 

[Admiral Bear]

The only murky waters Star Trek movies are in are what type of movies Paramount should do going forward. Should they continue with the big blockbuster Trek movies trying to appeal to a large audience, or go back to the old model of lower budget story based Trek films that play to a niche market.

For me, that's a no brainer, considering the big budget reboots have made less money in relation to their budgets than the original films up to and including First Contact.

Only the Paramount bean counters can tell us if they'd rather risk $180m for $300m box office receipts, or risk $70-80m for $200m box office receipts.

Adjusted for inflation: Star Trek First Contact - Budget $69m. Global box office $224m. Receipts 3.25 x budget.

Star Trek Into Darkness - Budget $196m. Global box office $483.5m. Receipts 2.46 x budget.

I doubt Beyond will make double its budget.

 

[Griffeytrek]

Clearly Paramount is going to have to take a step back and try and figure out what happened and how to go foward. I think a critical question is has the general audience lost interest in the Trek reboot in terms of it being a tentpole blockbuster franchise or were there other factors at play.

This one isn't rocket science. Beyond actually has not been a bad performer as a Star Trek movie. It's well within the expectations of the franchise. Yes it's a bit below 2009 and Into Darkness. But that's more an effect of the years densely crowded release calendar. Beyond's release weekend did see a large box office total. It was just well balanced between a number of offerings. In a summer with too many Tentpole and not enough breathing room you see results like we saw this summer. And heck it could be worse for Paramount. They could be Sony.

But really the key answer to the question of "what went wrong?" They spent way too much money. It's that simple. On $100-120 million production this would have been a rousing hit. On $185 mil? Yeah, no. Somebody at Paramount went nuts and started playing "keep up with the Joneses" with their Tentpole movie costs. "Well Disney is spending xxx so we should!" Without using proper controls. Part of the secret to the Star Trek franchises success has long been its frugality. The fact that they have always delivered good results on a budget. That they stressed shared and constantly recycled production resources. That they weren't building it all from scratch each time. This frugality is what brought the franchise back from extinction. Brought it to the big screen. Gave us 5 tv series. And yet it all got thrown away for nuTrek. We forget the common aesthic from TMP onwards through the TNG -> Voyager era was not simply a look. It was a huge cost saver, for both good and ill. (The ill being highlighted by the seemingly random uniforming of Generations.)

If they can do ST 4 as a tight character driven story, with only one or two set pieces, and keep the costs to ~ $90-120 million they will have a hit. If they can't they and we are screwed.

 

[BillJ]

But really the key answer to the question of "what went wrong?" They spent way too much money. It's that simple. On $100-120 million production this would have been a rousing hit.

But you don't know if the same people show up for a $120 million dollar movie that is pretty much all talk. You aren't making First Contact for $69 million in the current market.

 

[Mudd]

For me, that's a no brainer,...

I don't doubt it.

...considering the big budget reboots have made less money in relation to their budgets than the original films up to and including First Contact.

What a fascinating and useless metric you've made up. It's another way of admitting that the nuTrek movies make a lot more money in first-run than oldTrek could manage.

Next you'll want to play "adjusted for inflation."

Paramount won't be contemplating making space movies for under 100 million dollars.

 

[ralph]

Roberto Orci on twitter.
https://twitter.com/realboborci/status/760600550601728002

 

[johnjm22]

Trying to turn Star Trek into a big, sexy, cool, massive action summer blockbuster is like McDonalds trying to rebrand itself by selling healthier food and gourmet burgers. Even if they're good, people will always associate McDonalds with cheap greasy food, and when people want salads or specialty burgers they'll go somewhere else.

Once you've become known for one thing, it's hard to change peoples perception.

 

[wayoung]

Spectre

Roberto Orci on twitter.
https://twitter.com/realboborci/status/760600550601728002

I'm surprised he didn't blame it on a Reptilian conspiracy yet.

 

[Griffeytrek]

But you don't know if the same people show up for a $120 million dollar movie that is pretty much all talk. You aren't making First Contact for $69 million in the current market.

You hear that a lot. But strangely it rarely actually gets challenged. I mean look at what they spent on Batman v Superman? $200 million. Was it necessary? Would people have turned out to see it for less? I think Deadpool at a cost of $50 million answers that. It isn't how much you spend. It's what you do with it that counts. I honestly doubt that pouring an extra $65 million into STB increased viewership by 1 person. Past a certain minimum required threshold ROI on more money seems rather poor. Even for big showstoppers like the Marvel movies and Star Wars. I suspect that for these large Tentpole movies, past roughly $100-$120 million, it is likely that the chances of a ROI for each $10 million spent past that likely halves. And this is just pure speculation on my part. Eyeballing and some rough back of the envelope figuring.

And what did that extra $65 million spent bring? This seems to be the theme for this summers movies. Nobody seemed to be looking at production budgets and asking "do we really need this? Does this really drive the story?" Instead it was pure "but everybody else is doing it so we need it!" Meanwhile a bunch of $20 million low budget horror films are cleaning their clocks.

 

[johnjm22]

Most people don't even know what the budget is of the movies they're going see, and they don't care.

 

[Mudd]

I think Deadpool at a cost of $50 million answers that.

You might as well say "I think Sleepless In Seattle answers that" - it would be about as relevant.

You can have Star Trek on TV for modest budgets. You cannot have it in the movies now for less than $150 million dollars. That's the business.

 

[johnjm22]

You can have Star Trek on TV for modest budgets. You cannot have it in the movies now for less than $150 million dollars. That's the business.

Why?

 

[BillJ]

I think Deadpool at a cost of $50 million answers that.

No starships, no space shots, you don't have to come up with completely new wardrobe for everyone, no futuristic sets. I don't think Deadpool answers that at all. Nor was it the third in a series. Deadpool 2 will cost quite a bit more than the first one.

 

[KGator]

Paramount has been the lowest performing of the major Hollywood studios for years now. Their revenue from 2015 was down $2.5 billion from 2014. Paramount is not in MGM kind of trouble but it does have a cash flow problem.

The only murky waters Star Trek movies are in are what type of movies Paramount should do going forward. Should they continue with the big blockbuster Trek movies trying to appeal to a large audience, or go back to the old model of lower budget story based Trek films that play to a niche market.

You just made the biggest point, Paramount needs big box office success. If Star Trek isn't bringing in tentpole kind of money . . . . They don't need it! There are plenty if mid level types of genres and existing scripts out there that can be made for way less.

If they can do ST 4 as a tight character driven story, with only one or two set pieces, and keep the costs to ~ $90-120 million they will have a hit. If they can't they and we are screwed.

Even the budgets of Insurection and Nemesis would be over $100 million in today's dollars. And unless you expect Paramount to simply slash most marketing and turn their backs on overseas markets (you know, actually try and grow the value of the franchise) the you can expect another $150-225 million in P&A costs with your $100-120 million budget. So Paramount needs to bring in $260-400m worldwide to cover costs even for a Star Trek film made on the cheap.

If you treat Star Trek like a mid level domestic film you may get away with a combined budget in the $180 range and do fine with a domestic box office in the $140-160 range. But let me ask you, can just Star Trek fans showing up at the theater really guarantee that? And does making $10-20m after 3 years really interest Paramount? Hell, a comedy or horror movie that makes it big can easily hit a 5-8 multiplier. Just take that Star Trek budget and use it to green-light 5-7 lower budget films.

Your plan works great for you because you are a fan and you just want to see more Star Trek movies made. However that approach would be a big waste of time for a major movie studio.

 

[KGator]

Why?

Because TV has basically replaced the mid level movie these days. You need to either be a low level budget film (comedy, romance, drama, horror) or big budget (sci-fi, superhero, disaster, animated).

That is what the industry has boiled down to because of market forces. People just don't want to pay to see mid level films anymore. If that's the level you want then just wait for Star Trek Discovery.

 

[Ovation]

Because TV has basically replaced the mid level movie these days. You need to either be a low level budget film (comedy, romance, drama, horror) or big budget (sci-fi, superhero, disaster, animated).

That is what the industry has boiled down to because of market forces. People just don't want to pay to see mid level films anymore. If that's the level you want then just wait for Star Trek Discovery.

Pretty much.

 

[Kruezerman]

So are we screwed, again? I'm having difficulty keeping up.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

Maybe not. Star Trek may get a reprieve. It is one of the better blockbuster films this summer.

I am reading an article on the reviews for Suicide Squad at WhatCulture. Wow...just wow. The hilarious reviews are lambasting this film as one of the worst comic book movies ever made.

(By the way, what is it with Robert Orci? Why is he juxtaposing JFK with Lee Harvey Oswald?)

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

No starships, no space shots, you don't have to come up with completely new wardrobe for everyone, no futuristic sets. I don't think Deadpool answers that at all. Nor was it the third in a series. Deadpool 2 will cost quite a bit more than the first one.

Conversely, for the 3rd movie in a franchise, you SHOULDN'T have to have a completely new wardrobe for everyone (does that make it a better story?), the starship model was already built (they didn't need to spend money tweaking it, though they wasted time on that for little return on their investment), space shots can cost next to nothing with everything already built and set-up. There are lots of corners that are easy to cut, yet they insisted on spending the money regardless.

(And Deadpool does NOT have to cost more. They already have the costume and effects figured out on that alone). Sequels only cost more because small minds think more money means more profits. But the people made up their minds to go already because of the enjoyment of the first movie, not the budget of the second.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

Star Trek IV was a film largely devoid of starships and space shots. The film was set largely in San Francisco. So, Star Trek can be done with less.