MovieChat Forums > Star Trek Beyond (2016) Discussion > various reasons for the underperforming ...

various reasons for the underperforming box office

posted 8 years ago by bozo_500
48 replies | jump to latest

-its the 3rd movie (not all franchises go ballistic Skyfall style) Not the anticipated first movie or the sequel..

-3 year wait coming after the 4 years between ID/09 therefore trek losing its sheen/momentum from the big success of 2009 (same can be said for most sequels of recent times, but now post MCU everything seems only a couple of years from last one even less, and theres so many new 'blockbusters' coming out that stuff that takes its time like was the norm get lost in it all)

-STID – trekkies no seem to like it so like the way VI and Nem did less BO due to the previous installments?? (but general audiences didnt mind it/thought was a decent space action film? Also at the time I remember a general feeling that the publicity of Abrams being revealed as the Star Wars director would overshadow STID/make it less of an event, but it probably helped with the non Trek audience!) but basically maybe its a case of everyone loved ST09 so STID did better. Not so many liked STID so STB suffered?

-Not following up the STID threads? - war with Klingons (the klingons center stage in the 3rd movies after cameoing in the first two as in the orginal films), khan and the augments on ice etc (maybe that's what audiences were wanting/expecting?)

-Good reviews for STB? - when it was revealed as being a good 'star trek' movie and an improvement over STID 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)

-Little promotion of the 50th ann (like there was for the 25th with VI). In fact didnt seem that much promotion until the fan event. Maybe a teaser celebrating the 50th (like VI did for the 25th) would've been a positive thing and a better way to go than the Beastie Boys one. (On the opposite side maybe the 50th anniversary actually turned off some of the general audience. Like the saw/heard remembered all the previous Trek TOS etc in the media and were like 'eww star trek. That's really for nerds.' Where as with the previous 2 maybe there was less emphasis on recalling past Trek and were more cool space action movies snot so connected to trek?)

-no familiar Trek villain? (Klingons/Borg) - part of the fun of remakes/reboots is to see new versions of original iconic villains/the foreshadowing to them before the revelation etc like a "greatest hits done bigger' thing (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?)

-That early Beastie Boys trailer with the bike, proudly proclaiming its the F&F guy directing.. as if to say 'hey we got the FF guy doing this one! Cos that what we know you want! look how cool the F&F style action is! Its the F&F in Space everyone!'(think that was quite damaging esp in front of the huge TFA). Ironically the music does make sense when you see the movie!

-The John Carter effect? – perhaps Trek and esp STB is suffering abit of John Carter syndrome? - its 'the original' SF saga of this decade pretty much but since STID theres been Guardians and Star Wars:TFA (two huge SF events - esp the return of the original SW) which have maybe taken the sheen off 'the original' SF saga of the decade (in that Trek was 2009). can imagine some kids/people seeing trailers for STB and just thinking its a knock off/imitation of Wars/GOTG(esp since STB was made to be more 'Guardiansy', and of course the idea behind bringing Trek back in 2009 was to 'Star Warsize' it. funnily enough whats happening to Wars now is the same as Trek in 09 - bringing back the original characters/trading on nostalgia after a long stretch of less popular spin off stuff and becoming more popular than ever. its just Trek didnt capitalize on it). funnily enough the Rhianna score in trailer #3 sounded similar to the song used in the John Carter trailer

-end of summer July release over start of summer May

-audience burned out by earlier summer movie sequels that weren't that great (ID:R, XM:A, GB, TMNT2 etc) making STB (being yet another sequel/reboot) less of an attractive prospect for film goers

-the international floating head poster while attempting to homage previous Trek film posters was quite underwhelming. As was the domestic big blocky BEYOND with no 'star trek' (which was strange in that the enterprise is in pieces falling from the sky in the film. Maybe it was a response to the STID 'Enterprise down' poster in that heres the ENT now soaring in a sunny sky for the 50th! but it made little sense for STB.) maybe the retro TMP style one should've been the main one to use everywhere or better still the two fantastic Korean ones.

-no Shatner (the general media loves shatner so no having him there somehow in at least a decent cameo was a mistake) The fact that Shatner would be returning to the movie series after 22 years for the 50th anniversary. Almost a Harrison Ford/TFA type thing (imagine the 'Spock..we're home' type thing at the end of the trailer!) (Generations was only a couple of years after VI so wasn't that much of a big deal for shatner to be in another ST movie even if it was the 1st TNG film).

--no solid 'hook' for Trek fans in the build up to the movie beyond its a new trek movie and the ship gets destroyed (again. Wed already almost seen that at end of STID - a sequence that was very reminiscent of the opening STB Enterprise destruction/chaos) and a vengeful villain (again)..(and maybe the NX style ship was something of a hook for fans?) aside from that it looked abit Insurrection/Avatary (directed by F&F dude with F&F style action and bike stunts). whereas the previous 2 had great trailers and 'hooks' - STID had the mystery/question of Khan/Klingons and whos going to die (although maybe if it'd been revealed it was khan in the build up it'd have been an even bigger draw) plus the TNG looking Vengeance was pretty intriguing.. ST09 had all kinds of hooks - return of TOS era/characters, huge budget biggest since TMP, new take from new creative team/jj, prequel/sequel/reboot, time travel/alt universe, Nimoy returning as Spock for the first time since 1991, Shatner cameo?!. (Turns out of course there were a few 'hooks' beyond the enterprise destroyed..not that we could know about them - Spock primes death, the Enterprise A (ok it was obvious theyd get another Ent but still cool. Although it shouldve looked more like the original movie Ent). Also the NX 'Enterprise' style ship and Krall being an 'Enterprise' era captain with references to MACO/Xindi etc (seen in trailers but no one really knew about it until saw the film). And the photo of the original crew from Trek V was a mindblowing surprise )

-while the movie turned out surprisingly good there didnt seem to be anything 'anniversary' (like VI) or that eventful about it (beyond the Enterprise destroyed which wed see already twice, and almost at the end of STID) - perhaps Orcis more Shatcentric Days of Future Past/City on The Edge/Yesterdays Ent/All Good Things sounding Kelvin/Prime crossover movie wouldve created more of an event and wouldve been the way to go for the 50th ? probably would've brought in more money/been a bigger success. i.e. less budget 150m, more hooks for the audience/more of an event for the 50th – shatner/timetravel/prime timeline stuff, possible May release, no Fast&Furious in Space early trailer! Instead could've had something involving a returning Shatner TFA style! Almost an MCU style team up or Generations done right. Look at the much celebrated Dr Who 50th special (2 Doctors team up, John Hurt as a never seen before Doctor, Tom Baker, previous Doctors and Capaldi cameo, even revealing what happened to the McGann Doctor) Beyond could've done something similar to all that or alternatively something like this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2660888/board/nest/264709190?d=264709190#264709190

-Also compared to ST09/ID its a relatively all new adventure with the nucrew (like FC was for TNG at the movies), the first time its really been about them and the nu timeline with little connection to Trek 'Prime' - for the 50th Ann movie (when it perhaps should be calling back to Treks history the most). where ST09 had Nimoy and the plot revolved around the changing the timeline/alternate universe etc. STID had khan and all the call backs to TWOK (& even Nimoy again) and it was all about the inevitability of the prime timeline coming to pass in the new one but with certain changes.(if there is to ST4 maybe they will go back to heavily referencing Trek Prime - i.e. adapting Orcis 3)

[–] I_Guard_Tanelorn 8 years ago

All valid reasons. At the end of the day though, it's the same thing it always is. It just wasn't that good. The first Star Trek got a lot of hype for being fresh and new. JJ was at the peak of his popularity. And everybody just wanted to see what they hell they were gonna do with it. The second movie probably would have had a big drop off, but they very wisely casted Cumberbatch, who's star is still rocketing to new heights, and that's mostly what people showed up to that movie for. Now it's the third movie, the thrill is gone, and no epic guest star is here to mug for the camera. What we're left with is a very middle of the road uneven film that doen't quite appeal to die hard Trekkies and doesn't quite appeal to casual film goers. It's not really made for anybody.

"I said no camels, that's five camels, can't you count?"

[–] larosat 8 years ago

It could be a number of things but I'm betting that trailer did the most massive damage of all. And then a few with no taste like the one above me.

[–] bozo_500 8 years ago

interesting article http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/09/08/star-trek-beyond-should-have-opened-in-theaters-today/#575d6e421679

If at least 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.

[–] gss2 8 years ago

I agree whole heartedly about the 3-4 year wait. There are two Marvel films each year, and now a Star Wars film every Christmas for the foreseeable future. LOTR and Hobbit films come out with one year waits between installments in each trilogy. There should be no more than two years between Star Trek films. There is just too much competition out there to maintain interest in a franchise when episodes are strung out too long a wait.

[–] BB-15 8 years ago

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 - 🌈

[–] mech_warrior 8 years ago

In one sentence, it was the "Fast & Furious in Space" marketing campaign that killed the buzz.

[–] AmigaWolf 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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."