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)

[–] hp-303-973831 8 years ago

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?

[–] TrevorAclea 8 years ago

Massive reshoots.

"Security - release the badgers."

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bozo_500 8 years ago

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

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bozo_500 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 flop...and 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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

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.)

[–] bozo_500 8 years ago

Now $342.9

Domestic wasn't too bad (when you take into account the other summer movies) but Beyond could've done with STIDs overseas box office - would've made it to 400 then..😞

[–] fctiger 8 years ago

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 8 years ago

yes when you taking into account this was supposed to be Treks 'Skyfall' then its quite troubling indeed. especially for the 4th movie

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bozo_500 8 years ago

Beyond - a 'flop' say Forbes man

Star Trek Beyond earned some of the best blockbuster reviews of the summer but couldn’t 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) wasn’t 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: Winter’s 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 8 years ago

*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 8 years ago

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 Federation...again.

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 8 years ago

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.

[–] JoanCallas 8 years ago

I don't think it was promoted well. The trailers didn't look that exciting.

[–] HannahLee_3 8 years ago

Agreed. The first trailer was really off-putting. And the subsequent trailer didn't make up for it.

In addition, I think there was something basic missing from the film itself: wonder and the thrill of exploration and adventure.

The Forbes article mentions that Star Wars sort of fills the "space adventure at the movies" place, but Star Wars typically shows a world that is well-lived in, and aside from the Force, pretty well understood by the main characters. Star Trek could have still carved out unique place as a "space exploration adventure film". But instead they gave us a film with Kirk and Spock both burned out by space travel, with no joy for "seeking out new lives and new civilizations". And the fact that the writers resorted to blowing up the Enterprise and another human Federation officer as villain made it seem that they too had lost of the spark of adventure*. All that came through in the marketing IMO. If the crew of the Enterprise isn't excited about their mission, even in the face of great danger, it is going to be really hard to get audiences thrilled about it.

The first trailer was a non-Trek F & F in Space disaster. But the 2nd trailer made things worse. It's one thing to have Bones playing the reluctant space adventurer; that's his thing. But having Kirk with no spark for exploration and adventure and Spock with no energy for discovery/scientific curiosity, and 2nd trailer with tonal shifts ranging from weary to dismayed, along with destruction of the Enterprise, just made the whole thing a downer.

Some folks who have loved ST for years, like me, went to see the film anyway, in the hopes it would be better than its trailers. But obviously those trailers and other marketing failed to bring in a wider audience. And then a film that was OK with some high points and some disappointing low points failed to build the WOM needed for box office momentum. (As folks have said here, the trailers were a pretty good representation of the film. Unfortunately.) So of course they wound up with disappointing box office results.

* And it may extend beyond the writers; see CBS/Paramount's almost complete lack of effort or enthusiasm around the 50th anniversary of the franchise.

Have a lovely day - John Finnemore

[–] HannahLee_3 8 years ago

bump - because of the similar thread

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bozo_500 8 years ago

[–] TMC-4 (19803) 4 years ago

I don't know if this is a good enough of an argument but I wonder if Anton Yelchin's untimely death shortly before Beyond's release played at least a small factor in it underperforming. What I mean is that having a recently deceased actor apart of your major movie is inevitably going to make it challenging from a marketing perspective. I immediately think of what happened with Poltergeist III, which came out shortly after Heather O'Rourke's untimely passing at such a young age.

Then again, you on the contrary, have Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight and Brandon Lee in The Crow, which arguably wouldn't have done as huge of numbers at the box office, if it weren't for the morbid curiosity and intrigue behind seeing one of their final performances. And as unfortunate and tragic as Yelchin's passing was, Chekov wasn't as "vital" to the Kelvin movies as say, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, or Karl Urban (the "Big 3" of the classic Star Trek series) were.