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

[jamestyler]

No, the marketing persuaded some people to check it out. It did well because it was a great movie.

Having legs isn't down to advertising, its due to good reviews and good word of mouth. For being a good movie.

If that were the case Beyond and Suicide Squads opening numbers would be the other way around. There is absolutely no logical way you can downplay the need and the power of advertising and a good campaign.

Some people brought in by advertising is a ridiculous understatement.

 

[JeffinOakland]

If that were the case Beyond and Suicide Squads opening numbers would be the other way around. There is absolutely no logical way you can downplay the need and the power of advertising and a good campaign.

Some people brought in by advertising is a ridiculous understatement.

You are confused by the difference between opening numbers (initial impact) and "legs" (longevity). Advertising helps with initial impact but good reviews and word-of-mouth give the movie longevity.

 

[Roald]

I was finally able to see STB cause I spent my vacation in Norway (where I was A. In the middle of nowhere and B. The film opens later this month there...), and God I loved it..... The fact that the film underperforms is even more sour now... It deserves so much more... The kelvin universe has really become its own animal, and I love it.. Two years ago I hoped so much that the 2016 film would be the equivalent of Skyfall in terms of financial success.. Now, it won't even match Into Darkness' numbers.... I feel sad and to be honest I'm starting to worry if Trek 4 will ever get made....

 

[KGator]

You are confused by the difference between opening numbers (initial impact) and "legs" (longevity). Advertising helps with initial impact but good reviews and word-of-mouth give the movie longevity.

With there being so many more movies released these days, opening weekends are more important. You only have a about a 4 week window to make 85-90% of your total box office total. So the lower your opening, no matter how much better your drops, the less money you will end up with total. You can pretty much take the OW and apply the multiplier of similar films and get a good estimate of the total. STB's problem is not just that it will have the worst holds of any of the reboots but it had those holds on the worst opening weekend. The worst of both worlds.

Also, the fewer people seeing it on opening weekend, the fewer people talking about it to their friends. So even if the word of mouth is good it won't drive enough new viewers into the theater before a movie loses most of its screens. Especially with an older fan base like Star Trek who are less social media savvy and the word of mouth are actual WORDS that have to be spoken to others whenever the conversation comes up.

 

[Tribble puncher]

Personally, I think the marketing leading into the film wasn't great (Like most). The first trailer was lackluster, The second trailer was much better, but a little too late. And there wasn't much marketing or merch in movie theaters in the couple of months leading up to the movies, plus, they should have been sticking that 50 years of star trek logo in front of every commercial to remind folks trek has history. I think that little thing might have helped.

 

[JeffinOakland]

With there being so many more movies released these days, opening weekends are more important. You only have a about a 4 week window to make 85-90% of your total box office total. So the lower your opening, no matter how much better your drops, the less money you will end up with total. You can pretty much take the OW and apply the multiplier of similar films and get a good estimate of the total. STB's problem is not just that it will have the worst holds of any of the reboots but it had those holds on the worst opening weekend. The worst of both worlds.

Also, the fewer people seeing it on opening weekend, the fewer people talking about it to their friends. So even if the word of mouth is good it won't drive enough new viewers into the theater before a movie loses most of its screens. Especially with an older fan base like Star Trek who are less social media savvy and the word of mouth are actual WORDS that have to be spoken to others whenever the conversation comes up.

You speak the obvious. I'm not sure how this is a response to my post.

 

[jamestyler]

You are confused by the difference between opening numbers (initial impact) and "legs" (longevity). Advertising helps with initial impact but good reviews and word-of-mouth give the movie longevity.

In a thread titled "Why didnt Beyond do better at the box office" started only a week after it's release discussing the advertising and initial impact and not the untold future beyond that.... I don't think I'm the one getting confused.

And you're forgetting, or passing over your own logic. Beyond had both of what you say is the magic formula. you know what it didn't have? More than one poster in the city I live in.

If only there were a word to describe such kind of public awareness raising...

 

[JeffinOakland]

In a thread titled "Why didnt Beyond do better at the box office" started only a week after it's release discussing the advertising and initial impact and not the untold future beyond that.... I don't think I'm the one getting confused.

And you're forgetting, or passing over your own logic. Beyond had both of what you say is the magic formula. you know what it didn't have? More than one poster in the city I live in.

If only there were a word to describe such kind of public awareness raising...

I've never used the phrase "magic formula". At least not on this thread. Maybe you have me confused w another poster.

 

[Shadowknight1]

I wish I could understand why the film's foreign release is so staggered! That's something that makes so little sense to me.

 

[Relayer1]

If that were the case Beyond and Suicide Squads opening numbers would be the other way around. There is absolutely no logical way you can downplay the need and the power of advertising and a good campaign.

Some people brought in by advertising is a ridiculous understatement.

OK, readng it back, 'some' seems like I'm downplaying it, and I'm not. Try some people are attracted by the marketing, and some by word of mouth. Or marketing will get you an opening weekend, word of mouth will keep it in cinemas.

I'm firmly of the opinion that ONE of the reasons (not the ONLY one) Beyond hasn't done as well as expected is because it isn't a particularly good film. The enthusiasm for it on this site doesn't match with the opinions of the people I've spoken to, and I wasn't very impressed. That is small scale and anecdotal though.

The bottom line is that whether Beyond could have been better, or if it was good but didn't resonate with audiences there is something about it that's not that popular.

Could that be solved ? I don't know. If they make a properly old style Trek movie, chances are casual cinemagoers won't turn out, and there's not enough die hard fans to service the film. They might do better binning most of the fan service and going even more full on action movie.

Personally, I'll buy Beyond on Bluray to keep my collection up to date, but it'll probably stay on the shelf in its shrinkwrap...

 

[Ovation]

I wish I could understand why the film's foreign release is so staggered! That's something that makes so little sense to me.

Something to do with the Olympics, I recall reading somewhere. Apparently, in some countries, Olympic coverage results in a huge drop in other entertainment activity (museum attendance, movie-going, etc.).

 

[KGator]

You speak the obvious. I'm not sure how this is a response to my post.

Simply adding on that the growing importance of opening numbers and the reduced importance of legs shifts an even greater burden on an effective Studio marketing campaign to make modern films successful.

 

[KGator]

Something to do with the Olympics, I recall reading somewhere. Apparently, in some countries, Olympic coverage results in a huge drop in other entertainment activity (museum attendance, movie-going, etc.).

The Olympics and also other Hollywood competition that was being released in various countries at the time of and after the North American release date.

 

[johnjm22]

Yeah, I don't see that. $10-15 more from existing territories, 40-80 million from Latin America, France, Spain, South Korea and Japan and probably $80-120 million from China. Plus another $25-35m from domestic. I see the minimum worldwide being in the $340-350m range and ABSOLUTE worst case scenario being no lower than $325m. And if it performs as well or even improves in those non-China regions it could still push to $400m or beyond.

I think it's going to barely get to 300M.

Why do you think it will bring in 80-120M in China? That seems pretty optimistic considering STiD only did 57M there.

40-80M total in those other regions also seems like a high estimate IMO. I think STiD did about 50M in those regions.

Considering Beyond is underperforming in most markets, why would it over perform in these markets you mentioned?

 

[KGator]

I think it's going to barely get to 300M.

Why do you think it will bring in 80-120M in China? That seems pretty optimistic considering STiD only did 57M there.

40-80M total in those other regions also seems like a high estimate IMO. I think STiD did about 50M in those regions.

Considering Beyond is underperforming in most markets, why would it over perform in these markets you mentioned?

Because 2016 China is simply a different market than 2013 China. With China companies doing the distribution partnership I find it hard to believe the competition at that date would be too adverse. Just about any movie can make $40-50 million there and action movies are a preferred genre.

It is going to go to to finish at $210-215 at the low end of current markets. The absolute floor for China should be $50-60 million and it would have to pretty much crap the bed in every single major market left (35+% drops) to fall under $40 million combined.

So like I said, $340-350m is a fair estimate. I don't see it going below $325m and if we get some good news then $375m is on the table. If it breaks out in China then we could see low $400s.

JMHO

 

[gottacook]

damnit its starting to feel like Nemesis all over again!

Domestically, at least, Star Trek V is the better analogy, as it (like the current movie) was #1 for one week. I still regret having paid to see that one. I wonder how great a proportion of ticket-buyers for the current movie feel the same and have no wish to see it twice in the theater. (V was the only one of the first six movies that I didn't pay to see at least twice.) Without repeat business, Beyond will never be a huge hit in the manner of The Voyage Home or Back to the Future.

EDIT: Hey, I finally made captain!

 

[timtonruben359]

damnit its starting to feel like Nemesis all over again! (cmon China!)

Beyond hasn't been an outright bomb like Nemesis, but its now certain Beyond will be the second Trek movie in franchise history (Nemesis being the first) not to recoup its production costs at the domestic box office. Taking into account inflation, Beyond is doing similar business to Trek V and Insurrection. Trek V ultimately made a small profit for Paramount, while Insurrection broke even mostly. That won't be the case here as Beyond's achilles' heel is its $185 million budget.

With inflation, Trek V's 1989 budget of $35 million would be around $90 million in today's money and Insurrection's 1998 budget of $70 million would be around $125 million today. So on these budgets Beyond box office would make a small profit for Paramount.

Paramount will have to decide what it wants to do. There will be another ST movie there is no doubt about that even after Nemesis we knew there would be eventually but the question will come down to budget.

 

[donners22]

If only there were a word to describe such kind of public awareness raising...

Better yet, there are even measures of that awareness, and the efforts to expand it beyond the usual demographic were noted in advance of release.

2013’s Star Trek Into Darkness skewed the highest among older males, even more than the 2009 version: 64% to 60% guys and 73% to 65% over 25. And it comes as no surprise to hear that Star Trek Beyond is also tracking at an 83% total awareness in that demo. Hence, this past week, Paramount made a point to annex females and the under 25 bunch by roping in pop star Rihanna to its Star Trek Beyond campaign. A trailer dropped Monday that included her new song “Sledgehammer”. In a YouTube message (below), Rihanna revealed to fans that she’s a Trekkie; hence why she booked the singing job. And her music video for “Sledgehammer”, released yesterday, is currently clocking 3.3M views on YouTube. Tentpoles that have attached themselves to performance artists in this viral age have proven to work, read when Universal unveiled the first teaser for Fifty Shades of Grey, they did it through Beyonce’s social media in an effort to expand the property’s demo beyond its core book fans and access an entirely fresh, younger crowd. While iSpot.TV shows that the current TV spend for Star Trek Beyond has been heavily placed on such testosterone programs like the NBA final games and the Stanley Cup, Paramount has also shelled on such shows as NBC’s The Voice and AMC’s Fear of the Walking Dead which have their fair share of females too.

http://deadline.com/2016/07/star-tr...-ghostbusters-secret-life-of-pets-1201782223/

 

[urbandefault]

So much doom and gloom.

We have three new movies, and a new series on the way. This should be a time for Trekkies to be happy, not predicting the end of the franchise.

 

[Shadowknight1]

The unfortunate thing about this is that this could very adversely affect the budget of Trek 4, presuming Paramount doesn't decide to abandon Star Trek entirely. We already had a massive cut in effects budget in Beyond by not going with ILM. How best to reduce costs next time? Start looking at salaries. None of the Trek crew are massive celebrities, but Zoe Saldana's definitely on the cusp of being able to seek major money since she's going to be continually involved with the Avatar franchise. So far as I'm aware, the only actors under contract for movie 4 are Pine and Quinto. This means Paramount could, without caring about what it would do to the crew dynamics as well as annoying fans, drop Zoe Saldana. Or John Cho. Or Simon Pegg. Or, heaven forbid, Karl Urban. And that's not counting Sofia Boutella if she wishes to remain. To be honest, Paramount already locked themselves into pretty hefty spending on the next one by letting the film-makers introduce the 1701-A. That means an entirely new CGI model for the next one since the one at the end of the movie was likely a simplified version since it didn't need to get close up to the camera. More importantly, and expensively, it means entirely new set designs for the interior of the Enterprise. Studio cost wise, it almost would've been easier on them to have the saucer salvaged at the end of the movie and reattached to a new secondary hull.