• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
(By the way, what is it with Robert Orci? Why is he juxtaposing JFK with Lee Harvey Oswald?)

I don't know what specifically this is referencing, but the general answer is that Robert Orci is a conspiracy theorist nutbar. Hell, the entirety of Into Darkness was his attempt to legitimize his insane theories on Nibaru and 9/11 being an inside job (hence the opening sequence on Nibaru and the villian being a Starfleet admiral planning an executing a false flag operation).
 
Why didn't Beyond do better at the Box Office? It has done okay so far, but we have sci fi movies like Captain America Civil War and Star Wars: The Force Awakens have done way better. To be fair it did better then other Paramount films release this summer like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows.

Because movie audiences are children, this time of year. They are out-of-school and want to see the Fireworks display of a good, CGI gore-fest. "Ooh! Ahh!" They will find it hokey, not creative, that music played such a central role. They aren't going to see the character moments as anything other than fluff, surrounding the action scenes. They aren't going to look for growth in the characters, the dramatic structure, or be entertained by any of the elements surrounding the main characters. This movie will age well, but general audiences are resistant to having wonderment at the exploration of space. We aren't in the time of the Apollo missions, anymore. They are resistant to learning anything, because school is a drag, so what is dramatically interesting about this movie, is going to go over their head--that's if they ever get to the point they are taught such things in school.

Star Trek is a symptom of a larger disease. We do not value culture in our society--such things are seen as passe. Values. Morality. Hope. Vision and Dreams. Long talks about what is important. Listening to your elders talk about the past, what they have learned. Everything has to feel good. Everything is disposable, because we only value the new. No one wants to think, and studios are focused on making money, not having their films last beyond an expiration date--when they leave the movie theater--and rake in tremendous amounts of money as tent-poles for the studio's bottom-line. Why should such things matter? Because there is inherent worth in living a moral life, getting information and processing it from every aspect of your life, and having an attention span. We are living unfulfilled lives. We think what is superficial, trite, full of tropes, is good, what is original and creative, is boring, or ridiculous. Higher thought. Imagination. What is going away, what is disposed, is valuing history, lineage, honoring our past. We value ignorance, when it sounds powerful and certain, over what is intelligent, nuanced, and real.

I know each generation says "It wasn't like this in my day," but what is the aesthetic value of the song, "Work" by Rihanna? What is the aesthetic value of a song like "Sometimes" by Britney Spears? Do you see the difference? Irreverence, without purpose or satire, is just being vulgar.

So, they managed to straddle the line between spectacle and creativity, and lost their audience. Marketing aside, I see it as a symptom of things I see all over the culture. The abandonment of the Pontiac Silverdome, while the Coliseum still stands. The value in having Donald Trump as a candidate. And Star Trek being rewarded for its superficiality.
 
Also me and many of my fellow friends don't like the new Trek movies because of the forced PC jingoism they contain. I didn't see any of the new movies on the big screen because of that. I don't mind Trek being PC, but lately it's become some sort of religion that Trek HAS to contain PC because it's Star Trek. I prefered how it was before, they did things that felt realistic but it wasn't PC for the sake of being PC, it was PC for the sake of having a good futuristic show or movie.

Anyway that could also be a reason.
 
Also me and many of my fellow friends don't like the new Trek movies because of the forced PC jingoism they contain. I didn't see any of the new movies on the big screen because of that. I don't mind Trek being PC, but lately it's become some sort of religion that Trek HAS to contain PC because it's Star Trek. I prefered how it was before, they did things that felt realistic but it wasn't PC for the sake of being PC, it was PC for the sake of having a good futuristic show or movie.

Anyway that could also be a reason.
No. Not really. I actually cannot fathom there'd be enough people to reason in this fashion to have any effect on the overall box office. Would help if "forced PC jingoism" was clearly definable--otherwise, this line of argument makes very little sense.
 
Also me and many of my fellow friends don't like the new Trek movies because of the forced PC jingoism they contain. I didn't see any of the new movies on the big screen because of that. I don't mind Trek being PC, but lately it's become some sort of religion that Trek HAS to contain PC because it's Star Trek. I prefered how it was before, they did things that felt realistic but it wasn't PC for the sake of being PC, it was PC for the sake of having a good futuristic show or movie.

Anyway that could also be a reason.

Just be honest, this has to do with a there being exactly two gay guys out of trillions of people in the future. There was nothing else "forced". The character mix was exactly the same as TOS. Into Darkness was accused of whitewashing Khan, not exactly the definition of PC.

Are there white sheets involved when you and your friends get together?
 
Yes, yes really. Alot of the original Star Trek fans liked Star Trek for the Sci Fi, not for the brute PC forced upon us. It might come as a shock to you that alot of Sci Fi fans like non PC stories as well. We want a good Sci Fi story, not a PC propaganda piece disguised as Star Trek. While there might not be many people who actively think "oh I won't see the new Trek because it's PC", there will be a large number of Star Trek fans who feels that the Story and characters simply aren't good anymore and the forced PC is a huge part of it.

Forced PC has killed ALOT of movie franchises or good storys.
 
Also me and many of my fellow friends don't like the new Trek movies because of the forced PC jingoism they contain. I didn't see any of the new movies on the big screen because of that. I don't mind Trek being PC, but lately it's become some sort of religion that Trek HAS to contain PC because it's Star Trek. I prefered how it was before, they did things that felt realistic but it wasn't PC for the sake of being PC, it was PC for the sake of having a good futuristic show or movie.

Anyway that could also be a reason.

Absolutely. Makes a lot of sense. Same reason The Force Awakens was a huge failure, what with that horrible mistake of casting a coloured man and a woman as the leads. Down with PC. When will Hollywood learn nobody wants to see an interracial relationship between the second and third leads and a short scene showing a secondary asian characters gay husband and adopted child?
 
I know each generation says "It wasn't like this in my day," but what is the aesthetic value of the song, "Work" by Rihanna? What is the aesthetic value of a song like "Sometimes" by Britney Spears? Do you see the difference? Irreverence, without purpose or satire, is just being vulgar.

What is the aesthetic of a song like "Sweet Emotion" (1975) by Aerosmith?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
It might come as a shock to you that alot of Sci Fi fans like non PC stories as well.

What exactly was PC about the Abrams films? :guffaw:

It is really eating you up that there are a couple of gay dudes in the 23rd century.
 
Because movie audiences are children, this time of year. They are out-of-school and want to see the Fireworks display of a good, CGI gore-fest. "Ooh! Ahh!" They will find it hokey, not creative, that music played such a central role. They aren't going to see the character moments as anything other than fluff, surrounding the action scenes. They aren't going to look for growth in the characters, the dramatic structure, or be entertained by any of the elements surrounding the main characters. This movie will age well, but general audiences are resistant to having wonderment at the exploration of space. We aren't in the time of the Apollo missions, anymore. They are resistant to learning anything, because school is a drag, so what is dramatically interesting about this movie, is going to go over their head--that's if they ever get to the point they are taught such things in school.

FINZpwY.gif
 
Just be honest, this has to do with a there being exactly two gay guys out of trillions of people in the future. There was nothing else "forced". The character mix was exactly the same as TOS. Into Darkness was accused of whitewashing Khan, not exactly the definition of PC.

Are there white sheets involved when you and your friends get together?
This post was fine until the last sentence. Infraction for flaming. Comments to PM.
 
Star Trek Beyond's box office earnings is lower than I hoped it will be. I think it's partially due to the fact the marketing and contraversies made Beyond look like it will disrespect Star Trek for some Trekkers.

I put a lot of blame on Star Trek Beyond's marketing. The first trailer did not make me want to see the film, because in my opinion, I thought it didn't felt like Trek, as if it didn't want to be a Star Trek movie. To me, it was saying "Star Trek is lame, this radical change will make it cool!" I love Star Trek. It is not lame, and I felt this movie was going to be disrespectful to Trek. I was saying "just make a good Star Trek movie. Fans will come watch it, haters will stay away, others will watch it, if its good" Thankfully, from the reviews, I was wrong, as the movie is faithful Trek and I will watch it soon. But that first trailer was a bad first impression, and first impressions are important.

Also, Alice Eve's Carol Marcus is missing. I think her character is interesting and would be a great addition to the cast. In Star Trek Into Darkness, they made a big deal about Carol joining the crew, but in Beyond, they just decide to forget her. How about just reduce her role to a secondary character or have her leave the ship on that Star base. A simple one line explaination is preferable. Just don't simply ignore previous movies. Ignoring major plot points makes it appears the new director do not care about the franchise.

I think the contraversy with Takei hurted the movie. I am not against having a gay character in the franchise. As for the whole Sulu being gay, I honestly didn't care about it, but George Takei does. I didn't understand why. I thought he felt insulted because people will assume since Takei being gay, therefore it will automatically make Sulu gay as well. Meaning that a gay actor could not possibly play a straight character. We all know that is NOT true at all, as we see many gay actors sucessfully portraying straight characters many, many times. Unfortunatly, there are idiots in Hollywood who think otherwise, despite the numerous evidence. This kept many gay actors in the closet so it won't limit their work potential. Maybe Takei is reminded by this when they made new Sulu gay, implying he can only play gay characters. Later, I read Takei he felt the change disrespected Roddenberry's vision. For Takei, Gene made Sulu straight, and Takei played Sulu straight, therefore Sulu is straight. Again, for Takei, changing him will be like making Han Solo not shooting first. I think, out of respect for Takei, it would be better to make a new character gay, maybe Sulu's brother or a new officer. Takei saying that making Sulu disrespect Roddenberry, makes some fans feel the same way.

I believe if none or only one of these issues appear, Star Trek Beyond earn more. I think all these issues, an un-Trek like 1st trailer, ignoring Star Trek Into Darkness, and changing Roddenberry's vision, combined to give some people the false impression Star Trek Beyond will be disrespecting Star Trek.
 
As sort of bad as the first trailer was and how it didn't generate enough hype, it's pretty representative of the movie in my opinion. The only real difference is that the motorcycle scene is actually pretty clever in the movie, but the jump moment is still kind of cringeworthy as it is there.
 
I think, out of respect for Takei, it would be better to make a new character gay, maybe Sulu's brother or a new officer.

You mean someone they can simply quit using when fans complain? Like Carol Marcus?
 
Zachary Quinto.
Exactly. I could make a huge list, but that wouldn't change the attitudes back in the day.

Whatever else contributed to Beyond's box office haul, it certainly was not George Takei's influence or opinion. I doubt there was one person who said "Takei objects to gay Sulu, therefore I won't see this movie."
I believe if that's the only controversy, then it wouldn't have made a difference, but when thrown in with the other two issues, made many believe Star Trek Beyond disrespect the Star Trek franchise.
 
I think people simply weren't excited about Beyond. I don't think it had anything to do with gay Sulu or "Roddenberry's Vision" or motorcycles. They looked at the movie and decided to spend the money elsewhere.

Sometimes good movies don't make bank, for whatever reason. People are fickle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top