Someone has already tried something like that. We'll see how the lawsuit turns out.
Yeah, but he didn't try to buy Star Trek from CBS. Also, I would never make garbage like Axanar.
Why didn't Beyond do better at the Box Office?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, but he didn't try to buy Star Trek from CBS. Also, I would never make garbage like Axanar.
Someone has already tried something like that. We'll see how the lawsuit turns out.
He said insanely rich, not just insane
There's a bit more too it than just a "yea" or "nay" based on Beyond's performance. There's likely money already being spent on pre-production of a sequel, play-or-pay contracts for some of the actors, commitments to Bad Robot whether they go forward or not.
Those dollars will play a part as well, in any decision to go forward.
Buy, steal, tomayto, tomahto.Yeah, but he didn't try to buy Star Trek from CBS. Also, I would never make garbage like Axanar.
That, my friend, is often a distinction without a difference.He said insanely rich, not just insane
We'll get a fourth JJ-verse movie, I think. I also think heads will roll in Paramount's marketing department. And CBS... What the hell?
To quote voice actor Scott McNeil, "The difference between crazy and eccentric is how much money you have."That, my friend, is often a distinction without a difference.
Agreed.
Cough, cough e.g Donald Trump
The advertising people did everything in their possibilities. Beyond might be a good movie. But it has nothing to stand out, or differentiate it from other blockbusters. The trailers were a pretty good representation of the final product.
The only way they could have built "anticipation" would have been marketing the movie as something it wasn't. AKA marketing it as "a nod to 50 years of Trek", or plastering the trailers with pop-songs like Suicide Squad/Guardians of the Galaxy. That would have only led to even more disappointment, as the final product would have been nothing like advertised, or even worse, the studio stepping in and recutting the film to be more like the trailers (again, Suicide Squad).
Beyond didn't fail because of the marketing. It didn't even fail for a lack of quality. It simply failed for being rather bland, in an already overcrowded summer with many other much more anticipated event movies. People only watch 2-4 movies a year. If that year has Deadpool, Civil War, Ghostbuster, X-Men, Jason Bourne, Suicide Squad, a new Star Wars and what else not, people just don't have the time and money to spent on a movie that is simply just another Star Trek sequel.
A valid point, especially in London where tickets can cost £12 each before you buy expensive snacks and drinks. Its a lot for a family of four.
I'll have to disagree here. There have been plenty of good movies with bad advertising campaigns, and vice versa. There's a reason why studios will spend so much money on marketing. Driving anticipation and excitement is important, an effective marketing campaign will get those regular movie goers interested in a movie at the very least. Example, with Star Wars people were asking me "it comes out in December, right? I can't wait to see it" With Star Trek people were saying, "wait there's a new Star Trek movie coming out?" The 2009 Star Trek movie built anticipation very well, and it didn't rely on pop songs to do it.
You DO realize that when a disproportionate amount of people state that the first trailer was bad (including literally dozens of people on this very thread) that it's not really up for debate anymore. Your obsession with "likes" and "dislikes" makes it seem like the Star Trek fanbase is mainly comprised of 13 year old girls. "Ohhhhh Jenna, that new Star Trek trailer is totes mgotes!!! #AWESOME And Chris Pine is so dreamy!"
If you want to know how unenthusiastic people were with the fast and furious version of a Star Trek trailer then get off the internet and ask them. Seriously, you believing that middle aged men are going bonkers liking and disliking movie trailers online puts you completely out of touch with the demographic that goes to watch these movies. I've watched hundreds of trailers online and never liked or unliked a single one (whether I liked it or not) . . . . and swear I never will! I mean . . . honest to God . . . . what's the point?
And if you refuse to believe anything not found on the internet just search that trailer and see how many articles and posts there are criticizing it. Then try and find some articles saying anything positive. Even the writer and director publicly expressed their disappointment with Paramount over it.
Bitching on the internet does not a majority make.
Well, (A) the majority of this thread didn't like the teaser trailer, (B) the majority of the Internet didn't care for it and (C) the movie's attendance is off more than a third from the previous film.
The math seems pretty straightforward. Either you think the movie was simply bad and the word of mouth was toxic or no one felt compelled to go see it which means the marketing was poor and ineffective. And you know what was the first impression to audiences? Yep, the trailer that no one seemed to like. Just read the posts on this thread about the teaser trailer.
But feel free to believe otherwise. "That trailer was great and built so much early momentum and excitement that new Trek fans are literally just falling from the sky."
It didn't help that Simon Pegg almost immediately said that he didn't like the trailer and told fans to hang in there and be patient.
Why would he say this if the trailer was well done?
He said including. He also listed examples from real life. Read the full post before you post a reply.
Daniel Starkey, a writer for Geek.com, wrote an article about the why of Star Trek Beyond's performance at the box office. He believes the reason for why the film is not doing better is because,
It’s simple — Star Trek Beyond took the franchise back to its political, utopian roots and nobody want that kind of movie anymore. (http://www.geek.com/news/star-trek-beyond-was-great-so-why-is-no-one-seeing-it-1665249/)
If I understand the article, the author is saying that the film is in opposition to the current zeitgeist. People are not receptive to something that says there is a better way. So, they are not watching the film. (Well, that's my interpretation of his words.)
The comments to this article are mirroring what many are saying here. I especially liked this comment by Lugh.
It was visual chewing gum, wholly unoriginal and like all of these new treks, aimed at teens with no attention span. It's the kind of movie that's ten a penny at the moment. Is it any wonder the marginalised original fans have stayed away and the short attention spans have moved on.
It’s simple — Star Trek Beyond took the franchise back to its political, utopian roots and nobody want that kind of movie anymore. (http://www.geek.com/news/star-trek-beyond-was-great-so-why-is-no-one-seeing-it-1665249/)
If I understand the article, the author is saying that the film is in opposition to the current zeitgeist. People are not receptive to something that says there is a better way. So, they are not watching the film. (Well, that's my interpretation of his words.)
The comments to this article are mirroring what many are saying here. I especially liked this comment by Lugh.
It was visual chewing gum, wholly unoriginal and like all of these new treks, aimed at teens with no attention span. It's the kind of movie that's ten a penny at the moment. Is it any wonder the marginalised original fans have stayed away and the short attention spans have moved on.
While I do think the movie went back to the utopian roots...I don't think that has anything to do with why the movie isn't doing better.
Here's something I personally would've done to improve the movie, and this is only a small thing, but hey, it's something I think might've been cool. They should've left the swarm as the big, monstrous ship for a little while. Had a starship battle, a REAL one. The Enterprise swooping around this monstrosity, pelting it with phaser blasts and torpedos. They seem to be doing well, then Spock reports, "Captain, scans indicate that our weapons are having no effect!" Kirk orders the Enterprise to back off, then the large ship explodes into the swarm and the scene continues as we saw it. Then I would've cut the trailers so we never saw the swarm, just parts of the battle with the big ship, some of the damage to the Enterprise, then cut to the crew stranded. Left it unknown if the Enterprise was destroyed or simply taken over.
Here's something I personally would've done to improve the movie, and this is only a small thing, but hey, it's something I think might've been cool. They should've left the swarm as the big, monstrous ship for a little while. Had a starship battle, a REAL one. The Enterprise swooping around this monstrosity, pelting it with phaser blasts and torpedos. They seem to be doing well, then Spock reports, "Captain, scans indicate that our weapons are having no effect!" Kirk orders the Enterprise to back off, then the large ship explodes into the swarm and the scene continues as we saw it. Then I would've cut the trailers so we never saw the swarm, just parts of the battle with the big ship, some of the damage to the Enterprise, then cut to the crew stranded. Left it unknown if the Enterprise was destroyed or simply taken over.
This completely contradicts the rest of your post. The author of the article is basically saying BEY was 'too good' (meaning 'Too Trekkie') and doesn't fit the status quo. That comment is saying the movie is rightfully being ignored, because it's generic and bad.
Both 'explanations' reek of the same old 'blaming the stupid unwashed masses', but they're coming from completely opposite directions.
Considering the most successful previous Trek movie was a comedy set in the (then) present day (with a set-up that included the 'utopian' future nearly being wiped out because the 'more enlightened' Trek humans had hunted humpbacks to extinction), I don't think the General audience gives a crap about how 'Utopian' the movies are.
Last edited:
From what I understand, Paramount decided not to push for the 50th anniversary thing because they didn't want to potentially scare away younger audiences. Remember, their advertising of the 2009 film was "Not Your Father's Star Trek", which to me has always suggested something of the studio not being proud of their earlier films. Maybe that's a cynical viewpoint, but since they didn't push for the 50th anniversary angle...
Meanwhile, Star Wars will proudly celebrate its 40th anniversary, as Disney loves celebrating anniversaries and making their stuff look like legacies that generations love, not just catering to one demographic.
- Status
Similar threads
