various reasons for the underperforming box office
-
fctiger — 9 years ago(October 10, 2016 02:32 AM)
Its true about TMP. It WAS the costliest film at the time, beating Star Wars by 10s of millions of dollars and while it did OK but for the budget it was a big disappointment. Its like if Titanic only made $400 million instead of $1.8 billion when it came out.
And its always funny until the JJ Abrams films came that TMP was the most expensive Trek film to this day but its sequel TWOK was the CHEAPEST Trek film to this day lol. Its funny how that happened. To go from one of the costliest films ever made at the time to the next one basically an independent film told you how much confidence the studio had in the franchise before and after TMP.
I still kind of doubt we'll get a fourth film now with Beyond flopping but my GUESS is if we do get one it will be a similar repeat with TMP/TWOK and the next film being on a much lower budget end, even less than $100 million. Who knows they may still try for another big budget film but I doubt it. I think Paramount figured out (ONCE again) Star Trek just can't play very big like Marvel, Harry Potter, Star Wars etc and may limit their budgets again assuming another film is even made with this cast. Its just not a big franchise internationally and thats where it needs to thrive to be big but its just not happening after three films. Terminator 5 made MUCH more money than this film and that was crap.
Marvel 2016: Agents of Shield, Agent Carter, Daredevil, Civil War, Dr. Strange, Luke Cage! -
TrevorAclea — 9 years ago(October 10, 2016 02:44 PM)
And to add to the irony, after Wrath of Khan was made for between a quarter to a fifth of the budget of ST-TMP, the remake of Wrath of Khan became the most expensive Star Trek movie. Which pretty much sums up the reverse trajectory of the series. As Logan said on the box-office board, the problem is that it's gone from being a niche franchise that at its best looked like it cost more than it did to one that costs far more than it should.
"Security - release the badgers." -
hp-303-973831 — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 10:58 AM)
The best was the first. The second was abit worst. The 3rd was not very good at all. Pity, as I usually love sci-fi movies.
The effects looked cheap compared to the first one. I was shocked seeing the production budget at $185million. Guess salary went up? -
bozo_500 — 9 years ago(November 02, 2016 04:19 AM)
interesting article regarding the box office
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/11/01/box-office-star-trek-beyond-was-caught-between-its-fans-and-its-budget/#671e78db7ac5 -
bozo_500 — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 09:13 AM)
interesting article on the underperformance of STB and the disappointment of the 50th anniversary
https://steveoreviewsmovies.wordpress.com/2016/11/06/a-disappointing-trek-the-failure-of-star-trek-beyond-and-paramounts-botched-opportunity-with-treks-50th-anniversary/ -
fctiger — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 11:08 AM)
Wow great article!
And yes it says it all. I don't know WHAT the hell happened? I mean I do but I mean why didn't Paramount do a better job??? Its the 50th anniversary this thing shouldve been HUGE. People who kept spinning and excusing the poor box office (most who now left awhile ago) are missing the point and that is this film had NO buzz, I been saying that forever and if it was just another run in the mill film like another Marvel movie thats one thing but this was a landmark year for Trek this thing shouldve been everywhere. It shouldve gotten Trek fans far and wide breaking the doors down to want to see it. It shouldve created interest in even non fans that sparked their interest that oddly the first film in in 09 did but then all of that has just withered away.
And I blame nearly all of it on Paramount. I mean I don't understand they were SO determined to get this film made for the 50th anniversary but not ONCE did they ever market it as a film for the 50th anniversary?
I remember the 25th anniversary year when TUC and that was actually a big year. True TNG was on the air by then and it was a pretty big hit by the time the 25th anniversary came around but Paramount made it a big deal. They had specials about it on TV, a big 2 hour special in particular, there were fan stuff happening all year, it was talked about in papers and magazines and so on. Even the first teaser trailer for TUC they made this amazing teaser about it being the 25th anniversary. In other words they MARKETED as a 25th anniversary year. Now granted its a big difference I guess in the sense the film was about the swan song of the original actors themselves but this shouldve been a bigger deal in so many way.
The first trailer from Beyond basically sealed its doom and it just never recovered. Why did they not tie in to the 50th anniversary instead of trying to look like a mix between Fast and Furious and GOTG I will never know. No I guess I do they were trying to make it 'cool' and boy did that back fire in a major way.
Beyond shouldve been a big deal. They shouldve had a special about it on TV, even if its just a half hour special on CBS. They shouldve incorporated all the previous shows and actors in interviews and retrospectives. The oddest thing to me was they had a comic con event celebrating the 50th anniversary where they had an actor from each of the shows come but yet not a SINGLE cast member from the new films were on the panel. And oddly they had a huge premiere of the film in comic con that same weekend but there was zero cross over.
Its like the people who are making these movies seem to want to distance themselves from old Trek, going as far as placing it in another universe but now its cost them big, in their pocket books.
Absolutely no one cared about this film except the hard core fans like us who is still spending time on a dead board now, which was never that active to begin with. As I been saying that was always a bad sign this film was in trouble and boy did I turn out to be right. I thought at WORST the film would make around $400 million which was still pretty bad given its budget but I didn't think it would outright flop.
I always thought it would do 'bad' in terms of expectations mostly. I thought it would flop in the sense it would make the lowest of return of the three films but for it to actually FLOP on the 50th anniversary year says it all, especially while not a huge hit STID was the biggest Trek film just three years ago. This wont be the lowest obviously but yes it IS only the second film in the franchise history to flop at the box office.a film that got 84% on Rotten Tomatoes. That boggles the mind. Nemesis flopped but it flopped mostly for just being a bad film. This one wasnt amazing but it was at least decent enough NOT to flopand yet it did.
And people have to stop kidding themselves although most look like reality has now hit since its out of the theaters with a pathetic $340 million total but this film shouldve gone over $500 million easily. The fact it didn't even break even doesnt bode well for long term at all.You can spin it and try to convince yourself thats OK but if they are 10s of millions in the hole then no its far from good.
I hope they make another one but I really dont see it happening now and honestly its their own fault and why this was such a big disappointment.
Marvel 2016: Agents of Shield, Agent Carter, Daredevil, Civil War, Dr. Strange, Luke Cage! -
mayflowers8 — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 03:24 PM)
There was no buzz, trailers were poorly edited, no merchandising, and marketing overall was non-existent. I blame Paramount mostly. This movie had 84% Rotten Tomatoes and this is the 50th Anniversary of Star Trek so it's just disappointing that it did the worst out of the three. However, I do think this movie was just not as good as the first two in the franchise due to JJ Abrams leaving.
-
TrevorAclea — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 03:45 PM)
The marketing wasn't non-existent, it was worse: it was just plain bad. Like John Carter, they spent a lot of money on marketing the film (trailers, TV spots, billboards and print ads were all out there on a fairly large scale), but they spent it badly, mostly on materials that people would see and instantly forget because there was nothing about them to really register (the Times Square 'Beyond' billboard is a classic example: it cost Paramount around $350,000 or more but the word Beyond flying through the sky could just as easily have been a soft drink ad). Nothing about the marketing campaign really made any lasting impression.
"Security - release the badgers." -
bozo_500 — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 04:13 PM)
Yes they'd have been better off with the TMP style one everywhere (or better still the Korean ones) instead of the big BEYOND
http://i1.wp.com/iheartbillboards.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Star-Trek-Beyond-Times-Square.jpg
At least slap STAR TREK on there!! - like previous ones:
http://iheartbillboards.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Star-Trek-2009-Times-Square.jpg
http://scifanatic.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/stid-timesquare.jpg
http://iheartbillboards.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Star-Trek-The-Motion-Picture.jpg
(its a strange one to use anyway in that the enterprise is in pieces falling from the sky in the film. Maybe it was a response to the STID falling Enterprise poster but it made little sense.) -
fctiger — 9 years ago(November 09, 2016 06:14 AM)
Weren't you the one who kept saying Americans needed to see it more than anyone else? So basically its the rest of the world where it ultimately failed. It wasnt great in America but yes decent, just not as great as the last two. But it must be worrying for Paramount the domestic keep falling with every film so while OK the fact it keeps falling is still a problem.
I dont think Paramount is happy at all to be honest. The film didn't seem to perform really well anywhere and that spells trouble long term.
Marvel 2016: Agents of Shield, Agent Carter, Daredevil, Civil War, Dr. Strange, Luke Cage! -
bozo_500 — 9 years ago(November 30, 2016 02:04 PM)
Beyond - a 'flop' say Forbes man
Star Trek Beyond earned some of the best blockbuster reviews of the summer but couldnt break the Star Trek global glass ceiling. With a $185 million budget, $158m domestic (compared the $256m and $228m North American grosses of the first two reboot offerings) and $343m worldwide (versus $385m and $467m) wasnt nearly enough. Paramount and Skydance must confront that reality that Star Trek is never going to be a top-tier blockbuster franchise.
Flops (8):
Zoolander, No. 2 ($50m/$28m/$55m)
Divergent Series: Allegiant ($110m/$66m/$179m)
The Huntsman: Winters War ($115m/$48m/$164m)
Alice Through the Looking Glass ($170m/$77m/$299m)
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows ($135m/$82m/$245m)
Independence Day: Resurgence ($165m/$103m/$389m)
Star Trek Beyond ($185m/$158m/$343m)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/11/30/box-office-shocker-most-sequels-in-2016-didnt-flop/#6768f5137d6d -
bozo_500 — 9 years ago(December 04, 2016 01:15 AM)
*it is no secret that Paramount's rebooted Star Trek, one which filtered the Kirk/Spock adventures through a Star Wars prism, became noticeably less "essential" once the original article came back on the scene,
and I can't imagine that helped Independence Day: Resurgence. I don't expect a similar fate for Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2, if only because audiences absolutely loved the first film, it has the earned Marvel seal of goodwill and we have a rooting interest in the characters.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/12/03/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2-gets-a-hilarious-trailer-why-it-could-be-summers-biggest-hit/#676676b57661 -
fctiger — 9 years ago(December 04, 2016 01:26 AM)
Interesting. He's suggesting Beyond failed because it was already too much like Star Wars and once SW came back less people didn't need Trek again. I don't know I think thats a bit simplistic. I think it mostly failed because the first trailer was bad, film had no hook and a lot of fans were put off by STID. And the PR behind the scenes didn't make it sound too great although I doubt that any effect on the masses.
I think Beyond just had a problem of getting anyone to care sadly where as TFA everyone was intrigued how the story was going to go down and see what became of Han, Luke and Leia. There was nothing like that in Beyond, it was just another mission gone wrong by a supervilain who wanted revenge on the Federationagain.
As for GOTG 2 trailer wow that was really good. It worked because it clearly brings back nostalgia of the first one but still a very different film from the first one. Beyond second trailer brought back the spirit of Star Trek but it was way too late by then for hard core fans. -
Jade_The_Messenger — 9 years ago(December 05, 2016 11:50 PM)
I think it mostly failed because the first trailer was bad, film had no hook and a lot of fans were put off by STID. And the PR behind the scenes didn't make it sound too great although I doubt that any effect on the masses.
Yeah. Simon Pegg going off on fans and Chris Pine's supposed "who cares?" response were really disappointing.
Just because someone does something good for you, that doesn't mean they're good for you.
