various reasons for the underperforming box office
-
BB-15 — 9 years ago(September 12, 2016 12:11 PM)
by bozo_500;
maybe some of the general audience were abit turned off by it being too 'star trek' too nerdy/big bang theory (like 'oh in that case its not for me' unlike the previous 2 which were considered less 'trekkie' more mainstream)
no familiar Trek villain? (Klingons/Borg) - part of the fun of remakes/reboots is to see the original iconic villains/the foreshadowing to them before the revelation etc (perhaps one of the reasons STID did the highest box office for Trek? - maybe it'd have done even more had khan being revealed in trailers etc?)"
some of the excitement of the new Star Trek reboots was that it delivered the kind of swashbuckling sci-fi adventure that audiences craved from the Star Wars prequels, then that card is now defunct with Walt Disney releasing actual Star Wars films.
Why did Beyond fail with general audiences (except in China)?
I agree with all of those points that you wrote and quoted.
Beyond is a fine hard core Star Trek story which appeals to hard core fans like me.
But for the general audiences (outside of China) it was not exciting enough. It felt for them like a TV episode.
Why?- General audiences like super villains like Nero, the Klingons or Khan.
Beyond did not have that. The villain is just some unhappy Starfleet captain. - General audiences like huge things getting destroyed.
Star Trek 09 had Vulcan destroyed (as well as Romulus in the original timeline/reality).
Into Darkness had a giant ship crash into San Francisco destroying lots of buildings on earth.
Beyond just has a threat to an unknown space station with no major damage.
As for Star Wars The Force Awakens; in that film several planets are destroyed, and a giant power facility is blown up and finally a killer planet bigger than the Death Star is destroyed.
General audiences like that.
Beyond has nothing close to that.
BB
it is just in my opinion - imo -
- General audiences like super villains like Nero, the Klingons or Khan.
-
AmigaWolf — 9 years ago(September 12, 2016 04:37 PM)
Justin Lin was the reason it did not do so good, why did they used a Fast & Furious director to direct a Sci-Fi Star Trek movie????
Why couldn't they waited one or two years longer so that J.J. Abrams could direct the third movie, or use Christopher Nolan who made Interstellar (a fantastic Sci-Fi movie) to direct This Movie? -
Bneidl — 9 years ago(September 13, 2016 01:09 AM)
I think it comes down to this: the movie was only ok and the marketing and trailers basically gave you the sense that it was only going to be ok.
The mass market doesn't love this Star Trek reboot series they can take it or leave it. To bring them out to the theater for this cast, this version, you've got to convince the audience that this is going to be a "good one" that they don't want to wait around for the DVD/cable/streaming. This movie just didn't crack that problem, either in story quality or marketing. The trailers suggested that this looked like a smallish entry where most of the action was going to be chases and fights on an unremarkable foresty planet, and that's exactly what it was. I think the casual moviegoer figured he/she could wait to watch this one at home, if ever.
I'm not really knocking this franchise. I generally like most of the Star Trek movies, including the reboot ones, but for me BEYOND was one of the least exciting and it looked that way from the get go. -
AmigaWolf — 9 years ago(September 13, 2016 01:29 PM)
The mass market doesn't love this Star Trek reboot series they can take it or leave it. To bring them out to the theater for this cast, this version.
What are you talking about, NON and i mean NON of the Star Trek movies made so much money as the last 3 Star Trek reboots.
And they do great on DVD/Blu-ray, the first Star Trek (2009) made $198 million with DVD/Blu-ray sales, and the second Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) made $84 million, and that's only in the US.
http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Star-Trek#tab=summary
http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness#tab=summary
So yes Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness 2013 was/is doing just fine. -
Bneidl — 9 years ago(September 24, 2016 09:27 PM)
What I'm talking about is that none of these movies have been the smash hits Paramount was looking for when they rebooted. ANd the grosses are declining each time out. The 2009 movie made $257 million, Into Darkness made $228m, and so far Beyond has made only $157m domestic. This franchise simply hasn't emerged as sure-fire moneymaker like the Marvel, Star Wars or 007 franchises.
My point in all this is that the current Star Trek can't rely on brand alone to get people in the theaters they've got to make and promote movies with some spark,the kind that makes the consumer say, "Ooh that looks good, I want to go see that this weekend." ST Beyond didn't do that at all. There was nothing very interesting in the trailers and ads and really the whole film was the weakest of the three by far, in my opinion. -
Classics-Movie-Fan — 9 years ago(September 25, 2016 07:34 AM)
Beastie Boys themed trailer was a disaster
STID bad word of mouth lingering.
Weak global marketing campaign & no 50th anniversary tie-in (Shatner mainly).
All of that combined is why the box office is way lower than it should be despite Beyond being way better than STID!! -
bozo_500 — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 01:39 AM)
can't help but wonder about Shatner and of how a golden opportunity may have been missed.. In UK the media have been going a bit nuts over Shatner being at the Destination Europe convention. TV interviews etc. I'm just thinking of all the publicity Beyond could've gotten had he been in it (even just a cameo) leading to extra $$$s (surely it'd have reached 400m).. I think Orci had the right idea for Trek '3'
-
fctiger — 9 years ago(October 10, 2016 02:41 AM)
Beastie Boys themed trailer was a disaster
STID bad word of mouth lingering.
Weak global marketing campaign & no 50th anniversary tie-in (Shatner mainly).
All of that combined is why the box office is way lower than it should be despite Beyond being way better than STID!!
Agreed with all of this although I think Shatner is not a big effect as others but yes some. I will also add the story line in general was probably a bit too bland. No real stakes outside of the usual villain wants to destroy the Federation. But the story itself felt a bit small IMO although I generally liked it.
But yes, the first trailer just really did it in IMO and it never recovered. Paramount took WAY too long to put out a second trailer and while better it just didn't really get fans excited. I predicted that Beyond would make around $400 million and that was LOW territory to me. I never would've thought it wouldn't even make it to $350 million but here we are sadly.
Marvel 2016: Agents of Shield, Agent Carter, Daredevil, Civil War, Dr. Strange, Luke Cage! -
fredwhite-87744 — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 05:40 AM)
I am a hardcore fan and I finally saw it at the $3 theater (I was in no hurry since I did not like the first two all that much), but I was pleasantly surprised by this one. While it's action was dizzying at times, I thought the action was smarter than the other two. As silly as the motorcycle scene seemed in the trailers, I thought it worked in the film.
Anyway, I think that it did not do well at the box office because for some reason, the general audience rarely cares about things going on that does not have "the fate of Earth at stake." I really don't understand it myself, but you see the same in the Kirk and Picard movies as well.
Fred -
bozo_500 — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 07:20 AM)
Regarding "earth at stake" - TMP was and did great box office but that was more to do with it being the first movie . Trek II, III weren't exactly earth at stake movies and were box office/critical hits (although genesis in the wrong hands would have no doubt posed at threat to earth at some point. Plus both films had earth scenes), IV was pure earth in peril/set on earth and was the biggest hit. V wasn't really earth in peril but had the opening there, VI was sort of save earth from war/earth set opening (all TOS movies had openings on or around earth). Then Generations nothing to do with earth at all (aside a few nexus scenes). FC full on earth. INS no earth. then NEM and the 2 JJ films all earth in peril (with loads of the JJ films set on earth).
-
TrevorAclea — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 08:49 AM)
If anything, the Earth at stake thing has fizzled at the box-office this year because apocalypse overkill become the default setting for almost every big scifi or superhero film and lost all novelty: the Independence day sequel and the new X-Men both performed well below expectations. This year it's generally been films with lower, more personal stakes that have done better.
It's also worth noting that while STMP did big numbers, the film's cost was so massive - anywhere from $46-52m, unprecedented in 1979 and then the most expensive US film ever made - because Paramount planned the film so badly and rushed it into theaters that it was considered a big disappointment at the time and destroyed the career of director Robert Wise, who unfairly took the blame for the studio's mistakes. Paramount initially weren't even going to make a theatrical sequel and were looking at another TV series until they were convinced that Star Trek II could be made much, much, much more cheaply - and even then only went ahead without Roddenberry.
"Security - release the badgers." -
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/