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

[wayoung]

One thing that should be pointed out, the box office is not where all the profit from a movie is made - the ancillary sales are a big factor. Everytime there is a Trek movie released they also sell more copies of the old movies plus the merchandise. I dunno who owns what when it comes to stuff like that, Paramount or CBS, but those numbers will also factor into whether or not Paramount views this as a success and we don't have access to them. If Beyond loses $50 mil but makes Paramount $150 mil (number are purely for an example in both cases) in people buying digital copies, streaming rights, blue rays of the past films, and Enterprise toys them the movie will still be a financial success.

 

[BillJ]

This "negative reaction" to the first trailer is becoming a self-sustaining myth. There was comments on the Internet (you -tube, facebook, places like this site) that were negative, but the "negatives" were not a majority, there were plenty of fans who loved the first trailer, and there has never been ANY objective proof that the first trailer caused a "backlash." NONE.

It bothers me how knee-jerk Paramount has been in reaction to a small, loud group of internet fans. Seemingly ignoring that the first two films were well received and sold the most tickets in the history of the franchise.

 

[Jedi_Master]

It bothers me how knee-jerk Paramount has been in reaction to a small, loud group of internet fans. Seemingly ignoring that the first two films were well received and sold the most tickets in the history of the franchise.

This sadly, is true. Their marketing department is hyper-reactive, and apparently insecure. The turmoil at the top of the food chain is making all the baby krill nervous.
What they don't realize is that the folks doing the bulk of the complaining are impossible to please, and will continue to kick and scream until Trek is exactly like they want - even though they don't know what they want - or dead.

 

[KGator]

Who exactly are the "core fans" who allegedly were so "negatively affected" by the first trailer that the studio had to "win them back" with subsequent marketing?

This is anecdotal of course but I was very blase about the movie after the first Trailer. I started to gain more excitement with the subsequent trailers. I literally thought they had made some kind of Fast and Furious action flick with Star Trek characters. I was pissed. Yet the movie turned out nothing like my impressions from that trailer. It just goes to show how a movie trailer can give a perception of a film (good or bad) that is simply false.

 

[KGator]

ST09 was ST09. STID had Sherlock (as khan?). STB had...a crazy bike jump trailer and Idris Elba under a load of make up? (that mustve been why they showed him in those spoiler trailers a few days before release)

I agree. I prefer Idris Elba as an actor (I think he was somewhat wasted in STB based on what he CAN do) but Cumberbatch seems to have a much bigger "overseas" following. He was probably more responsible for the big uptick in foreign tickets than we gave him credit for.

 

[BillJ]

This is anecdotal of course but I was very blase about the movie after the first Trailer. I started to gain more excitement with the subsequent trailers. I literally thought they had made some kind of Fast and Furious action flick with Star Trek characters. I was pissed. Yet the movie turned out nothing like my impressions from that trailer. It just goes to show how a movie trailer can give a perception of a film (good or bad) that is simply false.

But, shouldn't Star Trek fans have been smarter about that trailer? Knowing that it was designed for general audiences?

I loved the first trailer, and like most trailers, knew that those ninety seconds wouldn't be the whole of a two hour movie. On reflection, the third trailer was very sedate (I liked it, but not as much as the first one) and there was no way it was going to draw in younger audiences.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Personally I was excited when I saw the first trailer... because it was Star Trek. I sorta get excited for Star Trek.

 

[jamestyler]

But, shouldn't Star Trek fans have been smarter about that trailer? Knowing that it was designed for general audiences?

I don't want to make us all sound like a bunch of morons, but.... Star Trek fans aren't any more clever or insightful than any other fanbase. I spent 13 years working in the pro wrestling industry and the fanbase is identical in how they react to things. And I'm sure most people here see wrestling fans as the lowest of the low.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Correction: it was Star Trek with Beasties. I sorta get excited for Star Trek and Beasties.

 

[BillJ]

I don't want to make us all sound like a bunch of morons, but.... Star Trek fans aren't any more clever or insightful than any other fanbase. I spent 13 years working in the pro wrestling industry and the fanbase is identical in how they react to things. And I'm sure most people here see wrestling fans as the lowest of the low.

I agree. But you have Star Trek fans consistently acting like they are a gifted child and know everything there is to know about movies and marketing.

"Nemesis would've done better with Denise Crosby instead of Tom Hardy!!!"

 

[BillJ]

In my uneducated mind, Paramount simply needs to make up their mind on which audience they are going after. Either they are chasing aging Trek fans, or they are chasing the 18-34 crowd. I don't see a lot of overlap between those two types of audiences.

 

[CorporalClegg]

"Nemesis would've done better with Denise Crosby instead of Tom Hardy!!!"

It's true.

Also, Beltran would have made a great Bane.

 

[Relayer1]

I only saw one trailer and I don't think it was the first one. I did see Simon Pegg's response on the net, saying the film really is 'Trekkier' than that. Cool I thought, it'll be rather different from the last two...

No.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Correction: it was Star Trek with Beasties. I sorta get excited for Star Trek and Beasties.

I was going to say that, but someone Sabotaged my post.

 

[Mojochi]

Should it it have done better? Speaking from a purely mass appeal perspective, Is it really any better or different than all the other cookie cutter, big budget franchises? The market is absolutely saturated with movies like these now. Fast paced, flashy, weakly substantive, rebooted, or otherwise rehashed pop action flicks.

I'm not trying to bad mouth it. I was entertained, but just like many titles these days, it's just flash. We may already be looking at the back end of this era.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I may not agree with the notion that the summer marketplace is full of films equally lacking in substance, but I do feel that we are reaching the end the appeal of sequels and franchises. People are getting weary, and they might still go, but aren't all that excited.

 

[BillJ]

I think I would've left Kirk's midlife malaise out of the trailers. Both trailers two and three open with those and are very sedate trailers. It was like Paramount changed what audience they were chasing midstream.

 

[urbandefault]

In general I enjoyed all three movies with Beyond being my hands down favorite. I don't usually nitpick Trek because nothing in this universe is perfect--especially Trek movies.

But there are a few (very few) things that bug me about each of them, and they're mainly just production decisions.

1. In 2009 it bugged me a little how very young some of the actors looked on screen. Sure, it's an origin story but baby-faced Kirk and Spock throw me off.
2. The casting of Benedict Cumberbatch (aka Engelbert Humperdinck in my house) as Khan in STID. The so-called "white-washing" didn't bother me at all, just the overall choice. He's a good actor, but some of the over-enunciation reminded me of the joke about the Big Mouth Frog. Also, the weird haircuts for Kirk and McCoy were . . . weird. And the scream. Bad writing choice, badly executed.
3. In Beyond, why in the world would they put Quinto in a wig, when his own hair worked well in the previous two films? Did they think no one would notice? It looks like a leftover from 90s TV Trek, but even more obvious on the big screen in high definition.

Other than these minor things, K-verse Trek stands right beside the best of the original movies. The only reason I can imagine for any lack of turnout is the general movie-going climate.

That's the way I see it, YMMV.

 

[jamestyler]

I agree. But you have Star Trek fans consistently acting like they are a gifted child and know everything there is to know about movies and marketing.

"Nemesis would've done better with Denise Crosby instead of Tom Hardy!!!"

You know, it';s got that bad that I read a thread in the Classic/TNG forum ready to bash yet another stupid idea.... and ended up surprised as I thought it was actually good There's reasons we're fans - and why they don't let fans (who arent highly qualified for the job!) write the show. And I think we're all thankful for that

In my uneducated mind, Paramount simply needs to make up their mind on which audience they are going after. Either they are chasing aging Trek fans, or they are chasing the 18-34 crowd. I don't see a lot of overlap between those two types of audiences.

I think they did fairly well in appeal when it comes to content. I'm in my 30's and part of a Trek club. I've talked about it with others in their 40's up to 50's and they've all came out loving it. In contrast, the kids I went with (teenagers) really enjoyed themselves.

Meanwhile the trailers fell flat on most people older than me (in my circle, not in general) whilst the kids were fascinated. The Sabotage got a better reaction overall from both groups. Yet..... thats the one that drummed up 'fear' if the 'core fans' are to be believed.

To be honest - I don't know how to market a movie of this scale. But I think they're trying too hard to please a specific niche market within a specific niche market that, quite frankly, cannot be pleased. As if they're listening to Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons instead of all the positive praise and end up trying to speak to that minority and forget about the rest. In a way the pro=Trek praise seems really isolating.

There's no need to send your people out there to say "This is more Trek than ever before!" Just say it's a bloody good film and loads of fun and games and shift tickets - any Trekness we'll see? Let us see it along with the rest of the world.

 

[drt]

I think I would've left Kirk's midlife malaise out of the trailers. Both trailers two and three open with those and are very sedate trailers. It was like Paramount changed what audience they were chasing midstream.

I concur, and the audience they did focus on isn't the the one that turns out to summer movies in droves.