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

[Rahul]

Actually you need to read the post I made..I discuss the 2x myth as well as what Hollywood blockbusters actually make. Beyond will easily make money even if the immediate box office is not what was expected and is knne-jerked all over the media with overblown and spurious headlines with no basis in fact.

Also, from Box Office Mojo, this underlines the impressiveness of Beyond's achievement in China:

Internationally, Star Trek Beyond debuted in China on Friday and hauled in an estimated $31.3 million over the three-day. By comparison, 2013's Star Trek Into Darkness debuted on a Tuesday and brought in just $25.8 million in its first week of release.

I read your post. Just because you don't like the 2x-rule doesn't mean it does not apply.
Yes, in the larger scheme of things a movie makes more than it earns in cinema. That's why I was calling it it's theatrical run. But keep in mind: the money from home entertainment, merchandise and television comes in rather slowly, and in small doses. The theatrical run (of which a movie company earns about half -> the 2x rule) is the immediate profit, with which a company pays it's debts it had for making the movie itself (the production budget, aka paying the actors, filming the movie etc.). The long term profit from the smaller parts (DVDs, television) is there to keep the company itself - Paramount - alive. They also have bosses, marketing, accounting, creative departments, script hunters, a development department (where they decide wether or not to make a movie) and other running costs that aren't immediately tied to a single movie, but still need money to get payed for.

It really seems you don't really understand how box office works - and that's nothing to be ashamed of, I don't really either - and you really shouldn't be required to know, for as an audience member the only result that really matters is weather you liked the movie or not.

But your post seem to make the very strange argument that Beyond was a flaming success - even though it's horribly failing the breake-even point in a way even Insurrection did better. Again: The movie is not a bomb. The new Ben-Hur was a bomb. But It isn't necessarily a success either. It's at that strange point, where it made a loss short term, but will probably break even or turn in a profit in the long run. If Paramount had any other successfull franchises they would probably bury Star Trek for a while and return with a big reboot in a few years. Since they haven't, we're pretty likely to see a 4th movie. But there's definetely going to be a major re-tooling and budget cut, and the needed time to figure out how they will handle the franchise from now on will likely mean ST4 won't come very soon, but need another 3-4 years again before it comes to cinema.

 

[Visitor1982]

That's right. Star Trek Beyond hasn't bombed, but it hasn't set the box office alight either. I'm sure Paramount is disappointed by its lack of success in the US and Europe and I'm sure they're trying to figure out how to turn that around for the next movie.

Having a big success in China is great, but I think Paramounts rather wants a big succes in the States and Europe.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Box Office: China Can't Turn A Flop Into A Blockbuster

Great article! Many interesting points:

"It [Beyond] is the latest “big” movie to do big business in China and still not qualify as a worldwide hit. We all talk about how the Chinese marketplace is changing Hollywood for better or worse. It bears reminding again that, with a few exceptions, a robust performance in China cannot make a flop into a hit, especially when studios often get back just 25% of the ticket price."

"The films that become “hits thanks to China” tend to be the smaller scale action movies that can survive partially on big grosses in China. Think London Has Fallen ($52m in China, $195m worldwide on a $60m budget)…"

"And this year alone, two of the bigger global hits (Suicide Squad and Deadpool) has crossed or probably will pass $700m worldwide without playing in China."

"All of this is to say that every film is different, and every film becomes a hit or a flop (or something in the middle) for reasons not exclusively connected to how well in performs in China. To treat China as anything other than one piece of the puzzle is to do a disservice to all parties."

 

[Phily B]

That's right. Star Trek Beyond hasn't bombed, but it hasn't set the box office alight either. I'm sure Paramount is disappointed by its lack of success in the US and Europe and I'm sure they're trying to figure out how to turn that around for the next movie.

Having a big success in China is great, but I think Paramounts rather wants a big succes in the States and Europe.

They've lost 100m-150m domestically since the first one, all the good will from the first one evaporated in the four years it took them to make the next one. I'm hoping they put this down to their crappy marketing, because Paramount really don't have much else going for them anyway. The overwhelming image in the months leading to it was a YT video with a ton of dislikes and Simon Pegg being asked about it, looking embarrassed about the trailer and having to damage control. Not good.

 

[locutus101]

I am still optimistic about the future of the franchise.

 

[Rahul]

The future of the franchise looks fantastic
We have a new series coming out soon, and a very likely 4th Kelvin-timeline movie. Hell, the franchise now has disappeared two times (after the initial run, and after Nemesis), and both times made a successfull comeback and turned into a consistent money-maker again. Chances are, even if the powers-that-be run the franchise into the ground in 10 years again, the franchise will get another successfull revitalization after a pause after that. I think at this point, Star Trek will stay as long as the Bond-franchise, just on a smaller scale.

The immediate problem of the Kelvin-movies is waning audience interest. Something I attribute more to the long waiting periods between the movies, and the lack of bridging material, than necessarily the quality of the movies themselves. That they all are somewhat similar (about stopping a badguy who wants revenge), and indistinguishable from many current superhero-movies doesn't help, but is more my personal opinion than factual science.

They will continue to produce Pine/Quinto movies as long as they are mostly profitable, and I won't complain if I get a new television series that interests me in turn. I just firmly wish the Star Trek franchise as a whole would try to return to the sci-fi-niché market, (where I think it belongs, and where mainstream audiences already think it is), instead of trying to run after the big-budget action-blockbuster money, where it will always have trouble to compete in the long-run.

I think the Trek franchise in this regard is very unique, as I think it's the only world-wide brand that's first and foremost a television franchise, with additional movies, whereas with all other franchises it's usually the other way 'round.

 

[RAMA]

Actually no, I do know how it works, and I also put a link to HOW it works to explain the uselessness of the 2x "rule" as well as how and WHEN secondary income occurs.

As I pointed out already, even a few months after it ended it's box office run, ST09 added nearly $200 million to it's revenue, same with STID, $85 million from disc sales alone. I also put up figures on digital sales and the graph shows other secondary income. Most of these occur within a year. The graph also shows a $100 million+ blockbuster makes $400 million+ on avg from all these sources just 2 years after it's release. It keeps on making money 30 years after.

Yes, I spell out the numbers based on the best information available. I give a breakdown of Beyond based on the CFI projection of $105 million in China...and this is further reinforced by the Box Office Mojo numbers from today of $31.3 million over 3 days as opposed to STID's over almost a week.

So even if we do a 2x multiplier...mind you paramount did not pay $185 million, possibly even $150 million because of the Chiese investment deal, then beyond would need to make $370 million. My BO projection comes out to $370-380 million, just short of ST09. So we would be looking at $150-200 million in secondary income within a year or two. That's a take of up to $580 million. So as you see, the profit will be quite good in just that span of time.

Would Paramount have loved $600 million box office? Sure, then they'd have ben rolling in the secondary income, but that same secondary income assures it of profitability.

I read your post. Just because you don't like the 2x-rule doesn't mean it does not apply.
Yes, in the larger scheme of things a movie makes more than it earns in cinema. That's why I was calling it it's theatrical run. But keep in mind: the money from home entertainment, merchandise and television comes in rather slowly, and in small doses. The theatrical run (of which a movie company earns about half -> the 2x rule) is the immediate profit, with which a company pays it's debts it had for making the movie itself (the production budget, aka paying the actors, filming the movie etc.). The long term profit from the smaller parts (DVDs, television) is there to keep the company itself - Paramount - alive. They also have bosses, marketing, accounting, creative departments, script hunters, a development department (where they decide wether or not to make a movie) and other running costs that aren't immediately tied to a single movie, but still need money to get payed for.

It really seems you don't really understand how box office works - and that's nothing to be ashamed of, I don't really either - and you really shouldn't be required to know, for as an audience member the only result that really matters is weather you liked the movie or not.

But your post seem to make the very strange argument that Beyond was a flaming success - even though it's horribly failing the breake-even point in a way even Insurrection did better. Again: The movie is not a bomb. The new Ben-Hur was a bomb. But It isn't necessarily a success either. It's at that strange point, where it made a loss short term, but will probably break even or turn in a profit in the long run. If Paramount had any other successfull franchises they would probably bury Star Trek for a while and return with a big reboot in a few years. Since they haven't, we're pretty likely to see a 4th movie. But there's definetely going to be a major re-tooling and budget cut, and the needed time to figure out how they will handle the franchise from now on will likely mean ST4 won't come very soon, but need another 3-4 years again before it comes to cinema.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

…mind you paramount did not pay $185 million…

Of course Paramount didn't pay $185 million… because they paid more. $185 million is just Beyond's budget without marketing expenses. Paramount spend another $90 to $120 million for promotion. And if there's a Chinese investment deal that means that the Chinese will get their money back and more for their investment.

"It bears reminding again that, with a few exceptions, a robust performance in China cannot make a flop into a hit, especially when studios often get back just 25% of the ticket price".

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme...ce-china-cant-turn-a-flop-into-a-blockbuster/

 

[locutus101]

So I take it that the jury is still out on that one.

 

[Rahul]

Actually no, I do know how it works, and I also put a link to HOW it works to explain the uselessness of the 2x "rule" as well as how and WHEN secondary income occurs.

Ah. The "I know better than the experts" -rallying cry of the uninformed

Excuse me if I believe the people actually working in the industry more than an overenthusiastic fan on a message board, who wants to convince me that "Oh-yes-believe-me-that-movie-everybody-is-concerned-about-because-literally-every-serious-source-and-publication-as-well-as-easy-math-tells-me-is-loosing-at-the-box-office-TOTALLY-is-a-smashing-success-because-I-like-it-to-be"

 

[Rahul]

So I take it that the jury is still out on that one.

Yes, it is. And it will probably be for quite a long time. Again, it's certainly not a flop, but not a success either.

It's at this weird point. It will loose money in the short term. Which is a bad thing because the longer the costs from production aren't earned, the higher the interests get for the money originally used to produce the film. But in the long term (over several years) it's going to make a small profit. I certainly don't want to be in the skin of a Paramount executive, deciding what to do next. Maybe having opinions on the Internet will help...?

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

So I take it that the jury is still out on that one.

And it will be until Paramount announces and starts (pre-)production on Star Trek XIV.

 

[drt]

The immediate problem of the Kelvin-movies is waning audience interest. Something I attribute more to the long waiting periods between the movies, and the lack of bridging material, than necessarily the quality of the movies themselves.

I concur with this, Paramount totally missed striking while the iron was hot, and perhaps more importantly, striking during a time when there were no Star Wars movies, now that the big daddy of theatrical space adventure is back, Star Trek just isn't popular enough to compete.

 

[Rahul]

I concur with this, Paramount totally missed striking while the iron was hot, and perhaps more importantly, striking during a time when there were no Star Wars movies, now that the big daddy of theatrical space adventure is back, Star Trek just isn't popular enough to compete.

I can totally see why they did it though. They had a very successfull movie with Star Trek09 and wanted the same man - JJ. Abrams - to direct the sequel as well. But Abrams wanted the same deal as Christopher Nolan - who directed smaller movies inbetween his Batman movies (Batman Begins (2005) Prestige (2006), Dark Knight (2008), Inception(2010), Dark Knight Rises (2012)), to keep his artistic credebility between his blockbusters. So they let him make Super8 in 2011, and then he came back for Trek. A full 4 years later, in 2013. The problem is, Nolan is a much faster worker, so there were only three years between Batman Begins and Dark Knight (during which he directed the Prestige, and what was already deemed dangerously long), wheras Abrams needed four years until Into Darkness. Also, Batman had a much stronger screen presence, and both the Joker as well as the death of Heath Ledger were much stronger reasons draw audiences to see the sequel than Benedict Cumberbatch's Khan.

For the studio it came down to - either fire the guy who made the first successfull movie, - or wait 4 years for him. They waited. Even in retrospect I think it was a good choice. It wasn't Paramounts fault that Into Darkness turned out so bland (the writers strike certainly didn't help). Had it been a smash hit (domestically, internationally it did better), we would be in a completely different situation right now, and maybe even the new series would take place in the Kelvin timeline. But then things got worse, the studio waited again for Abrams, only for him to leave for Star Wars. Then they dropped the ball and gave the movie to Bob Orci (the guy who I think is the main reason why Into Darkness is so despised among some fans), and only after they learned he wasn't capable of directing (and he had already burned ~30 mio. dollars), they gave it to the Fast&Furious guy - who is a talented director, had already revitalized another franchise, and was actually capable of delivering a finished movie. But all this trouble still led to another 3 years waiting period, and people just weren't that interested anymore, especially since those movies didn't have much of an own voice and felt rather bland amont all the similar competition.

So yeah, there's really no good guy or bad guy here. It was just a pitty that Abrams apparently went out of ideas for the sequel, but didn't told Paramount about it and instead let them wait for his return, only to deliver at a time where he was already pretty much locked behind the doors to do Star Wars next. But to blame him would be to blame the same man who created the successfull reboot in the first place, so I can totally see why Paramount wanted to keep the same director.

 

[NewHorizon]

My understanding is that it wasn't JJ holding things up, it's that the writers were struggling to come up with how to follow up Trek 09. Pretty sure there is an interview or two online where Orci said this, or maybe he mentioned it in a post on Trek Movie.

 

[locutus101]

And it will be until Paramount announces and starts (pre-)production on Star Trek XIV.

Let's hope we will find out soon enough.

 

[donners22]

I concur with this, Paramount totally missed striking while the iron was hot, and perhaps more importantly, striking during a time when there were no Star Wars movies, now that the big daddy of theatrical space adventure is back, Star Trek just isn't popular enough to compete.

As I recall, much of the issue was with CBS rather than Paramount.

JJ and Bad Robot wanted a Kelvinverse blitz after the first film - TV, books, games, merchandise etc - but CBS didn't want to compromise its Prime revenue.

 

[locutus101]

As I recall, much of the issue was with CBS rather than Paramount.

JJ and Bad Robot wanted a Kelvinverse blitz after the first film - TV, books, games, merchandise etc - but CBS didn't want to compromise its Prime revenue.

You speak as if you expected the movie to be a financial fiasco.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

As I recall, much of the issue was with CBS rather than Paramount. JJ and Bad Robot wanted a Kelvinverse blitz after the first film - TV, books, games, merchandise etc - but CBS didn't want to compromise its Prime revenue.

What JJ and Bad Robot wanted was 100% control of all marketing/merchandise. That meant no TOS merchandising, no TNG merchandising, no DS9/VOY/ENT merchandising, nothing else. Only Abramsverse stuff on the market. Of course CBS wouldn't agree to that!

 

[M'Sharak]

^ Source?

You speak as if you expected the movie to be a financial fiasco.

I don't see any way you could possibly get that from what @donners22 posted.