various reasons for the underperforming box office
-
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/ -
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!
