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

[CuriousCaitian]

If you'll permit a newbie some ramblings, I think two things contributed most to STB's underperformance thus far, one under Paramount's control, the other not.

The one under their control was marketing. Releasing a divisive trailer, then staying all but silent for five months was a mistake - you've soured people's expectations and impressions of the movie, then given ample room for your competition to steal a march on you. In such a cluttered summer that's going to cost you. In fairness, though, I struggle to think of any film campaign that's really stood out this year.

The one not under Paramount's control was, as already alluded to, the almost stupidly over-saturated market this summer. It's felt like there's been a new mega-budget tentpole dropping every weekend, and there's no way they won't be stepping on each other's toes. Most films not animated or Deadpool have suffered to one degree or another; even Cap fell a little short of Marvel's hopes.

So many films not really managing to distinguish themselves enough in their marketing - how many people here were surprised at how STB turned out? - while jostling for breathing room benefits no-one, especially with how front-loaded blockbusters tend to be (BvS made almost half its global haul in the first weekend, as an extreme example). Frankly, STB could have been the Greatest Sci-Fi Ever and still struggled to make a real mark.

Sadly, I don't see things improving in terms of marketing or the numbing blockbuster barrage any time soon. It's not about who's the most interesting, it's about who can shout the loudest.

 

[Kelthaz]

Um...your point? I missed it.

Yes, I suppose I should have posted the old_man_yells_at_cloud.gif instead.

Your post was insane. Crazy old guy ramblings about the decline of modern society and how people these days are too stupid to appreciate quality film making and are entertained by little more than dangling keys. It was insulting, arrogant, delusional, and condescending.

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

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.

Seriously, you post this crap with a straight face? I hope this is some bad joke that's going over my head.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Yes, I suppose I should have posted the old_man_yells_at_cloud.gif instead.

Your post was insane. Crazy old guy ramblings about the decline of modern society and how people these days are too stupid to appreciate quality film making and are entertained by little more than dangling keys. It was insulting, arrogant, delusional, and condescending.

"Insulting," I agree with. This "crazy, old guy" remembers what it was like to be 13. This "crazy, old guy" is someone who will have deep conversations about the qualities of life, but they are with people 20 years his senior (I'm only 32, by the way). The United States ranks 17th, in an evaluation of 40 countries, in overall education performance.

This "crazy, old guy" spent some time in college not-too-long-ago (2009-2013), and heard such questions, during class time, as "What do you want us to do with this paper?" as if they needed information spoon-fed to them about what the professor was looking for, instead of using their creativity and engaging the material. They have it written down in the syllabus, the professor says nothing but what is in the syllabus. The professor would have to write an example, in order for this line of questioning to not overtake their classroom. It wasn't one class. It wasn't one student. They would eat up the time we had to discuss the material, to the point professors would try to ward this off at the beginning of the semester, through a lecture. These are people who had been doing this at-least 20 years. Participation points and points given for attendance in college.

I have had conversations with students, outside of the classroom, and realized, if it wasn't rote-memorization of a definition, they usually weren't getting the material. They could quote the book, but if they were asked what they thought about it, what the next logical step is in what we are learning, to put themselves in the positions of a person of history or a society, or a character in a piece of literature, I would get blank stares, and I would be asked, "Is that on the test?" Do you know what my goal was in college? It wasn't to get good grades, although, I did, it was to be able to converse on the topic at-hand. It was application of those concepts in a conversational setting. Was I always successful? No. But I don't find it haughty to point out, that, people are not engaging the material. Someone has to say it.

You honestly believe, with education standards going down, in the United States, with redefining SAT scores to inflate the numbers, that it doesn't have an affect on art? That's an "insane" concept?

Watch a movie with a 13-year-old sometime. Babysit, and ask them questions--open-ended--about what they value in a movie. Then, ask them to apply a concept from school. "I'm not in school! This isn't homework!" Or use a word they don't comprehend. Do they pull out a dictionary or their phone? No. Do they ask you the definition? No. They will let it go over their heads. But I'm the arrogant one.

The "older" Star Trek movies are boring. "They talk a lot." That's what someone said to me about the movies. That's your general audience member talking to me about "Star Trek Beyond." And that wasn't from a 13-year-old, it was from a "man," in his 20s.

 

[Disco]

I think, although it's not clear, that your point is that people want action films now and not intellectual films? And this is because of a drop in education in the US?

You would have a point if it weren't for the fact that action films, from Westerns to gangsters to Star Wars have consistently been the most popular over time.

 

[HaventGotALife]

I think, although it's not clear, that your point is that people want action films now and not intellectual films? And this is because of a drop in education in the US?

You would have a point if it weren't for the fact that action films, from Westerns to gangsters to Star Wars have consistently been the most popular over time.

No, action films can have characterization and a plot and themes, as Westerns and Gangster movies did, but is it appreciated? Is the audience appreciating, in the formula, the "talking" portions of the movie?

 

[Trekkin]

You have literally interrupted a thread so that you can shit upon a random bunch of people, to a group of strangers on the Internet.

And what did these fiends do that warranted becoming a target of your ire?

1) They're your age or younger
2) They had the misfortune to catch your attention
3) They like some pieces of entertainment that you don't (and vice versa)​

The stupid, uneducated, and uncultured arseholes.

They sure are the ones who embody everything wrong with modern society.

 

[Disco]

No, action films can have characterization and a plot and themes, as Westerns and Gangster movies did, but is it appreciated? Is the audience appreciating, in the formula, the "talking" portions of the movie?

You'd have to ask each person individually or look at sales which are strong....

 

[Jedi_Master]

Denial, denial...

YEP!

Some see "denial" others see "acknowledging the facts instead of indulging in useless nostalgic yearnings."

But I am with @Kruezerman - I need to know: Are we screwed?

 

[HaventGotALife]

You have literally interrupted a thread so that you can shit upon a random bunch of people, to a group of strangers on the Internet.

What did these fiends do to become a target of your ire?
1) They're your age or younger
2) They had the misfortune to catch your attention
3) They like some pieces of entertainment that you don't (and vice versa)

Sure. They're the ones who embody everything wrong with modern society.

What did these people do to become a target of your post?
1.) I was challenged as "crazy, arrogant, delusional, and insulting." I gave examples, left names of the school, the professors, the students, out of the equation. It was not an attempt to hijack the thread to "shit on" a bunch of people who "caught my attention." It was an attempt to give depth to what I said, earlier.
2.) I cannot enjoy a movie, without fear it will not be commercially successful, and, therefore, I will not see a sequel, have it valued when I talk about it, because of their attitudes.
3.) My education--15 weeks at 4 hours a week per semester--was cut-short by them not valuing class time. By engaging the material, chancing they may be wrong, introducing new ideas in the classroom setting, it improves the quality of everyone's education, including mine.
4.) I want interaction--conversations--that stimulate me. If that is in the form of entertainment, fine. If that is in the form of education, fine. My life is devoid of such conversations with anyone under the age of 40. Are my values the same as those over the age of 40? Not always.
5.) I have to see these movies when "hanging out" with others. I have to listen to this music, because it plays all the time at work, people "like to read," but I have to discuss "Twilight" or "The Hunger Games," instead of the books I am reading. I am subject to this environment.
6.) I watched a community die over losing the Lions at the Silverdome. The new building is beautiful and a "modern facility," the old building hosted Pope John Paul II, the 1988 NBA Finals, the Superbowl, the 1994 World Cup, and tax breaks were given, the building built with public funds, and ruined the finances of a community, for valuing "dangling keys."

Just a few examples of how it affects my life.

 

[fireproof78]

As a friend of mine who works in Hollywood said about ST ID-nobody at Paramount is going to lose their job over it.

I think BEY will perform similarly, Paramount's response in making ST4 will be the determination. We simply don't have all the economic information to decide if BEY is a "success" or not.

This feels like the same doom and gloom I saw posted about ST ID.

 

[Trekkin]

What did these people do to become a target of your post?
1.) I was challenged as "crazy, arrogant, delusional, and insulting." I gave examples, left names of the school, the professors, the students, out of the equation. It was not an attempt to hijack the thread to "shit on" a bunch of people who "caught my attention." It was an attempt to give depth to what I said, earlier.
2.) I cannot enjoy a movie, without fear it will not be commercially successful, and, therefore, I will not see a sequel, have it valued when I talk about it, because of their attitudes.
3.) My education--15 weeks at 4 hours a week per semester--was cut-short by them not valuing class time. By engaging the material, chancing they may be wrong, introducing new ideas in the classroom setting, it improves the quality of everyone's education, including mine.
4.) I want interaction--conversations--that stimulate me. If that is in the form of entertainment, fine. If that is in the form of education, fine. My life is devoid of such conversations with anyone under the age of 40. Are my values the same as those over the age of 40? Not always.
5.) I have to see these movies when "hanging out" with others. I have to listen to this music, because it plays all the time at work, people "like to read," but I have to discuss "Twilight" or "The Hunger Games," instead of the books I am reading. I am subject to this environment.
6.) I watched a community die over losing the Lions at the Silverdome. The new building is beautiful and a "modern facility," the old building hosted Pope John Paul II, the 1988 NBA Finals, the Superbowl, the 1994 World Cup, and tax breaks were given, the building built with public funds, and ruined the finances of a community, for valuing "dangling keys."

Just a few examples of how it affects my life.

None of this is disproving 'crazy, arrogant, delusional, and insulting.' It's just more of what prompted that reply in the first place.

And you're still trying to get us invested in your personal grudges against other individuals, by regaling us with tales of what they've supposably done wrong in life. In a forum where you know they won't have the opportunity to defend themselves, allowing you to basically represent them however you like.

aka 'Shitting on them.'

I wonder if all these terrible people go on to their message boards, and try to convince strangers about what a terrible and stupid person you are?

 

[HaventGotALife]

None of this is disproving 'crazy, arrogant, delusional, and insulting.'

And you're still trying to get us invested in your personal grudges against other individuals. I wonder if all these terrible people go on to their message boards, and try to convince strangers about what a terrible person you are?

No, I am trying to say this is a symptom of a larger disease. I named examples from my life, from what I see, what I have heard, what I have experienced. I am not trying to get you "emotionally invested" in anything but the idea that this speaks of our society at-large, not a personal vendetta (that I don't have, by the way). It is what it is. Saying something about it, might change some attitudes, but I am not haughty enough to think that one post on the internet is going to change everyone's mind. It was an observation, not a popular one, but one I know is true. Learning can be fun, application can be fun. If people compartmentalize their lives, and check their brain at the door, they won't know that. And with that, I am done. My point has been made, I have cited my examples, and going back-and-forth is just going to get us both worked up to the point we are lashing out for no reason other than wanting to be right. So, thank you for the discussion.

 

[Trekkin]

No, I am trying to say this is a symptom of a larger disease. I named examples from my life, from what I see, what I have heard, what I have experienced. I am not trying to get you "emotionally invested" in anything but the idea that this speaks of our society at-large, not a personal vendetta (that I don't have, by the way). It is what it is.

And somewhere on the other side of the continent, my old Social Studies professor just randomly started to cry...

Seriously, this is a line of argument that is used a lot by people trying to justify being dicks to entire social/cultural/etc groups. It leads to nothing that resembles 'good' or 'constructive.'

 

[ralph]

OK, It´s completely insane.

 

[Kruezerman]

Denial, denial...

YEP!

It's math. The movie made more than it's budget and the previous films. It is, therefore, successful.

 

[Jedi_Master]

It's math. The movie made more than it's budget and the previous films. It is, therefore, successful.

Bingo. This arm chair executive stuff is incredibly self-serving, to say the least, especially when we have so little knowledge of the entire "profit" picture.

 

[KGator]

Once again I'd like to remind everyone that Paramount was very cautious and filmed in Canada which refunds part of the money spent on the movie there, it also had a partnership with Alibaba to co-finance the film, as well as another partner. It also got rebates from filming in Dubai. I don't know how much Alibaba actually covered, but it could be anywhere from $20 to 75 million. So Paramount's actual cost was not $185 million...that's just the overall budget. I'm willing to bet the grosses have already surpassed what paramount paid...which might be in the $115-165 million range.

British Columbia and Canada rebates 49% and Dubai rebates 30%.

Only the studio knows actual profits & losses.

The same debate happened after STiD.

Safe to say another will be made once we factor in the cash-flow from TV screenings, DVD/Blue Ray sales etc.

Motion picture budgets are treated as closely guarded secrets by the movie industry (basically for purposes of tax evasion).

The $185m budget cited probably includes tax rebates. Rebates are usually limited to certain expenditures and NOT ALL film costs (like cast salaries, pre and post production, etc). So you can save a good chunk of change by you aren't shaving 30-40% of your budget. Previously, STB's budget was being quotes around $200 million. Then it was announced as $185m. My guess is the difference involves the local rebates.

Also keep in mind what I said about knowing the TRUE budget. I saw a study that compared the announced budgets to actual budgets as typically being underestimated by 5-15%. The actual budget usually only being disclosed because of a lawsuit involving the film and royalties or because they filmed in a place where they had to submit the actual budget to receive rebates. In cases like this (very common in UK filming), the film production will actually incorporate and keep their budget separately. This way they don't have to include any Studio financial information in the rebate submittal. They want to avoid creating any IRS curiosity about their creative bookkeeping as much as possible (for obvious reasons).

 

[BillJ]

Watch a movie with a 13-year-old sometime. Babysit, and ask them questions--open-ended--about what they value in a movie. Then, ask them to apply a concept from school. "I'm not in school! This isn't homework!" Or use a word they don't comprehend. Do they pull out a dictionary or their phone? No. Do they ask you the definition? No. They will let it go over their heads. But I'm the arrogant one.

My kids ask questions all the damned time.

 

[Noname Given]

If Ghostbusters ends up doing better than Beyond....UGH.

It hasn't been (not even close) - and it won't.

STB made more money worldwide in 11 days: $165,959,414
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek2016.htm

then GB has made worldwide in 18 days: $159,587,152
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ghostbusters2016.htm

Seems appropriate to drop this here...

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/

Yep - Nothing new in Hollywood. Here's an example of the same type of thing from Paramount.

The Film? Forrest Gump (1994)

A financial success: $55 million to make. Brought in $678 million (ronded up )
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=forrestgump.htm

Yet:
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/25/movies/gump-a-huge-hit-still-isn-t-raking-in-huge-profits-hmm.html
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Gump#Author_controversy

Yep - Hollywood. Acording to most studios the film business is for the 'love of film making' because NO ONE really makes any profit from these things.

 

[Visitor1982]

It's math. The movie made more than it's budget and the previous films. It is, therefore, successful.

That's just nonsense. Usually the budget , in this case 185 million, does not include marketing and other stuff. Also, not all the money a movie makes goes to the studio.

So if a film costs 185 million and it earns 250 million or even 300 million, it doesn't mean the film makes any profit for the studio.