Shop The Official Star Trek Shop Now!

“Star Trek Beyond” Box Office Earnings Disappoint During Second Week of Release

Rihanna Sledgehammer Star Trek Beyond 1

A long and profitable run for Star Trek Beyond at the domestic box office is in question as the film only took in $24.7 million in its second week in release, second to Jason Bourne’s $59.2 million, according to Box Office MojoBeyond barely edged out newly-released Bad Moms to secure the second place spot, but saw its earnings drop 58.2% from its opening weekend.

By comparison, Star Trek Into Darkness‘s earnings dropped 46.9% to $37.2 million during its second weekend in release, while 2009’s Star Trek earned $43 million and only dropped off 42.8% from its debut weekend. Both films easily climbed over $146 million in domestic earnings by their second weekend in release.

Beyond has only grossed $106.4 million domestically and $54.8 million internationally (Box Office Mojo’s international numbers are usually delayed), for a combined $161.2 million at the box office. The film should surpass its $185 million budget during its third week in release, but Paramount will likely expect a far greater haul to consider the film a box office success. On average, studios earn only 55% of a film’s final gross, according to Box Office Mojo. Paramount and Skydance also invested heavily in Beyond’s marketing, but the exact figure is not known.

Even with Jason Bourne’s release, Beyond will remain in 3D theatres for its second full week in release. The latest installment in the Trek franchise faces even more difficult competition next weekend as Suicide Squad opens in standard and 3D theatres with advance screenings on August 4th and its full release the following day.

Box Office Mojo rightly points out that the franchise’s fading success at the box office could portend Star Trek 4 being made on a smaller budget. However, history suggests that some of the best films in the Star Trek franchise have been made on thin budgets. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, for instance, had a budget of $12 million dollars and earned nearly 8 times that at the box office. Paramount, unfortunately, views the Kelvin Universe films as tentpole blockbusters that carry budgets of $150 million plus and are supposed to bring in a massive haul at the box office.

What this means for the future of Star Trek 4 will be played out over the coming weeks and months, as Beyond faces stiff domestic competition, but also opens in several large overseas markets.

Sort by:   newest | oldest

The release date combined with waning interest from casual fans was not helpful. Sure, they had little competition opening weekend, but with films like Bourne and Suicide Squad on the horizon, it had little time to breathe before big movies came out and crushed 2nd and 3rd week box office numbers for STB. It’s extremely difficult to find an open spot in a crowded summer schedule, but I wonder if it would’ve found more space with an early June release, post-X-Men, before the even bigger box office failure, ID4.

I Khan Believe It An\'t Butter

And ironically Star Trek Beyond is a much better film then what one would expect.
I hadn’t high hopes with Lin as director, but the blend was actually very very good.
Even the more criticizing obsessive fans should give the film the credit that it deserves.
I plan on seeing it at least one more time, maybe in 3D which I am not a fan of.

Absolutely agree, am planning a repeat viewing on Friday as a double bill with Suicide Squad.

True, this is the only Kelvin universe movie that feels like Star Trek. Sadly Lin, along with Pegg and Jung will be the scapegoats and the genuine Trek elements that they introduced will be substituted for more stunts, bigger explosions and yet another one dimensional villain hellbent on destroying Earth.

And Krall was multi-dimensional? Krall was by far the weakest and least motivated villain in the Kelvin timeline movies. But the interplay among out main characters was actually the best.

Krall had to appear mysterious and two-dimensional at first, until the last act where his motives and background was revealed. His origin which is actually his distorted Darwinian humanity showed the dark side of people who strive on wars and conflicts.

Nathanfraix-
Brilliant Summery- I think people missed the Point of Krull & the subversive genius of his origins in the current political climate.

great movie, seen it twice already and will see it again. well done good story line. love the characters. far better than star wars etc.

agree with you

It wouldn’t help much for me to see this film in a theater two more times upon the twice I’ve already seen it – but the film is that damn good. It was great the first time in 2d and stunning the 2nd time in 3D!

RIP Star Trek feature film franchise

Most of fans who post here, a little fickle and nit pick too much. so called die hard star trek fans predicting the demise of Star Trek franchise. Its been around 50 years and will continue. There will be a fourth film in the Kelvin Universe. Possibly more. Star Trek fans comprise only a portion of the movie attending public, they determine the fate of the Star Trek film franchise not the die hards..

@jim,

“Possibly more. Star Trek fans comprise only a portion of the movie attending public”

Well, looking at the box office numbers it seems that the general public is losing interest in the Kelvin movies as well.

Jim has it all figured out, folks. “Its been around 50 years and will continue. [. . .] Star Trek fans comprise only a portion of the movie attending public, they determine the fate of the Star Trek film franchise not the die hards” – and tell us too, in your infinite wisdom, who has kept that franchise alive for fifty years?

The Die Hard fans supported the JJ films, the myth of them getting the Non Trek movie goers was BS- Into Darkness & the marketing for this film alienated the real Die Hard fans & thats the difference we see in the box office & I guess a few new fans who wanted to see that “Star Trak” TV show do a movie but just got some earth based terrorism action movie etc etc

That’s a bit premature. Abrams may not get his 4th film, but Trek will go on.

Nope

“RIP Star Trek feature film franchise”

:::facepalm:::

Oh, for crying out loud. The melodrama, it burns.

This is a thirteen film series for crying out loud. Any number of things could be contributing to this film’s lower numbers, not the least of which is that EVERY movie this summer has disappointed. Clearly something in the air is pointing to lower numbers. The franchise as a whole tends to cycle as public interest probably does. Star Trek II made less than the motion picture (even though it was better), three made even less, but four surpassed all except the Motion Picture. Five again dropped – Six went up. You can’t see it so narrowly when so many variables are involved. One thing is for sure, this movie was SOLID Trek. I wish it was doing better numbers, and I hope it still holds on really well. It deserves to be seen as a success.

I sort of thought this would happen. I was very peeved about the Sulu thing and said so. I don’t think I was the only one who was unhappy. You can forget about a lot of repeat business from many longtime Trek fans.

How could the ‘Sulu thing’ upset anyone? It lasts barely 20 seconds of screen time.

I actually kind of liked the movie. It was the controversy that turned a lot of people off. Also most people still are not as tolerant (respectful) as Hollywood thinks. In too much on Middle America, a “gay Star Trek film” (which it isn’t at all!) just won’t sell.

Star Trek is such a great franchise. I am saddened.

^^of not on.

uhhh literally you and maybe two other people were upset by the Sulu thing. the only “controversy” came from the actors themselves…pretty much everyone else was on board with it or really didn’t care, because really why would you

Respect for the original actor and Roddenberry’s vision for the character are two reasons to care. It doesn’t matter Roddenberry might have wanted to make Sulu gay. He didn’t, and that’s the point. He could have made Chekov German, or a female, but he didn’t. We respect these decisions. We don’t reverse them if we want to keep the integrity of Star Trek.

Dumb. He didn’t make Sulu straight either. He didn’t make him anything. They have every right to add onto Sulu’s character and backstory. Besides, Roddenberry hadn’t owned those characters in decades.

Sulu was never NOT gay. He was never anything defined at all. So….yeah.

Actually in Star Trek 6, he had a wife and daughter.

Oh, please. You really think Midwest audiences care one fig about Roddenberry’s opinions, let alone his legacy? Or that people were turned off from even seeing this film once by a revelation about a minor character’s sexuality that most of them were unaware of?

I’d love to see citations supporting any of that. In the meantime, I find it far more likely that BEYOND is reaping mediocre box office because, well, it’s a mediocre film. It’s got some nice character moments (meaning they’re truer to their original selves than in the previous Abrams films, which is really mostly of interest to longtime fans), and Yorktown is quite spectacular. But it’s also got the same paint-by-the-numbers plotting and cardboard villains that have stifled Trek at the movies for two decades now. I’ve loved this franchise for going on the last fifty years, and if I didn’t see much need for a repeat viewing of STB, why would the unwashed masses?

Maybe someday Paramount will roll the dice–’cause it’s always a gamble–on something that honors Trek’s legacy while managing to take it in some bold new directions. I trust they will reap a decent ROI if they do.

His supporting evidence for Roddenberry saying Sulu was straight comes in the form of hearsay from George Takei. Nobody knows what Gene would have said when presented with the idea in a climate where gay marriage is not only accepted, but the law of the land, not even George Takei.

Sulu was presented as interested in women, not men. And I would take the word of Takei over revisionists any day of the week. Takei himself is gay — why would he lie?

This is well-trod territory, however. The box office speaks for itself. The Sulu controversy turned off significant numbers of fans.

The movie was decent and for example Jayla was a wonderful breakout character. I’m happy her character was invited to join Starfleet Academy. She stole the movie, in my opinion. I think the wounds to the movie were self-inflicted vs Middle America and longtime fans, and apart from issues of character or plot.

Hat Rick,

The only common factor responsible for this year’s TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES’ equally dismal performance is Paramount and NOT some gay character.

Hat Rick,

Gay men ARE interested in women, Judy Garland, Barbara Streisand, etc. ;-)

Besides, if what you claim is canonically true for the Sulu character you’d be able to put a name to at least one of the female characters that he dated just as we can put names to women characters that Kirk, Scotty, McCoy, Chekov and even Spock dated. But you can’t put a name to one of the females you claim as signs of Sulu’s heterosexual dating interest, and that’s because of how insignificant those extras were to both the story and the Sulu character’s on screen life development.

Ilia.

Hat Rick

Re:Ilia

How in heaven’s name could Sulu have any possible hope or aim of engaging in a normal heterosexual relationship, which by definition would require a human female, i.e. one whose genetic lineage stems from Earth antecedants, with a female who was not only totally alien to Earth, but, when he first laid eyes on her, let it be known that she was sworn to a Starfleet oath of celibacy?

Also, I have reviewed THE MOTION PICTURE’s transcript:

http://www.chakoteya.net/movies/movie1.html

Please quote the dialogue were Sulu risks his and hers careers asking her out on a date?

@Hat Rick – you’re wrong. Turned off significant number of fans? You’re grasping at straws. Completely wrong. But no one here is going to change your warped views.

Hat Rick
When was Sulu given any sexuality or presented as interested in Women?
Aside from fan fiction & non Canon Novels?

In Star Trek The Original TV Series. I believe it was in “The Naked Now”. He is shirtless with a fencing sword and abducts Uhura whom he lusts for and speaks openly about her beauty but she denies him. There is no hint or sign of any homosexuality of his character Sulu ever in the TV series or movies. The only gay person was George Takei himself which was not revealed openly or known by a few until years later after all these movies were done.

Is there tracking for middle america movie goers? That would be the proof. If Beyond was seen more in other parts of the country than in the midwest as a percent vs other JJ Kelvin Universe Trek films. I’d like to know

OK now if they were turning prime sulu gay then yeah problem but this is another timeline all together

I am wondering if this was done for George Takei’s benefit to possibly have him cameo in the next film. However if they wanted Reboot Sulu to be gay why they didn’t do it in the first film? Kirk is shown bedding as many women as he can in the first film. It seems that Sulu scene was intentionally done as if to make a statement without showing anything fully sexual or an actual greeting kiss. The strange lingering camera focus on the hand of Sulu caressing the back of the other male. Sulu could be implied gay or could it be a close relative or brother who looked after his daughter and Sulu was being a bit affectionate and showing thanks which came off as looking gay. If he was gay it would imply the little girl is adopted by them or some firm of in vitro fertilization technique without female eggs in the future was used. I have a hard time believing they gave Sulu a gay Asian partner and they end up also having an Asian girl. It would make more sense script wise if he were openly gay to have some sort of inter species homosexual offspring. A gay Asian male with another gay Asian male just seems a bit stereotypical and just another Hollywood step to demasculate Asian males as not being portrayed as a heterosexual leading man interest. Even Spock gets more action with Uhura and he is more similar in personality to a… Read more »

It’s an alternate universe. Let it be alternate. A full-on reboot. I couldn’t care less about Roddenberry’s vision or integrity. But if you want to stay true to his vision, please by all means, insist on lyrics being used in the theme! Gene wanted it that way too. [cha-ching]

I’ll be honest, my Dad, a lifelong Trek Fan was upset about the change and choose not to see the movie. He saw the last two movies 3 and 2 times, but is planning to skip this one.

“I’ll be honest, my Dad, a lifelong Trek Fan was upset about the change and choose not to see the movie.”

Then your dad is a bigot and has no understand of what Star Trek’s message is. He’d be happier with some other franchise geared toward closed-minded homophobes.

The only closed minded person I see are idiot liberals like yourself who are too scared to face or tolerate different opinions or values. All for tolerance as long as its the same beliefs you have. You need a red armband. Your a f*cking coward, a hypocritical human parasite. Go back to your safe space, snowflake.

I don’t know your dad, so I wouldn’t call him a bigot based on that one decision without more information. However, I would like people with your opinion to experience for 5 minutes what I had to go through in high school in the mid 1980’s – just because I existed. I hope the days are over of kids having to endure that kind of social torture. There was no one to turn to – Parents? No. Brothers and sisters? No. Aunts and uncles? No. Grandparents? No. Friends? No. School guidance counselor? No. Priests? No. That’s what I call intolerance. Star Trek was one of my escapes and a mind opener. So, if that also makes me a snowflake, a coward and an idiot liberal with a red armband, so be it – if it helps to save one kid. I’ve been called much worse in high school.

A coward is more so a moron who is “against” homosexuality on the basis of their own stupidity since there is no legitimate basis for it. If you have hate in your heart for whatever reason (way you were raised etc) then so be it. But not being able to use your brain to admit your “heart felt” opinion is wrong is just ignorant.

Regardless, Sulu being gay was such a minor point that it did not have any bearing on the film. if someone’s hick father didnt see a movie he otherwise wanted to see because a secondary character was barely alluded to as gay, that is laughable.

If Sulu were gay, would not his lover have grabbed his asz? And why did Pegg seem to make such an overt gesture to insure a handshake from Reckittt (Spelling?)?

Why do you call people names? Not very tolerant of you. Was Takei a “hick” for opposing the gayification of Sulu?

Such views are quite unbecoming of the IDIC philosophy and frankly turn a lot of people off and against so-called “liberals”. Even if you oppose intolerance, you are not given free rein to call people names.

No legitimate basis? Try nature. If homosexuality was intended to be the norm (by God or Nature) then there would be no reproduction and the species would end. Now this doesn’t mean that anyone including homosexuals should be abused in a any way. Now I know any liberals heads will explode by hearing this comparison, which is only intended to make a point, but most people are against adults molesting children even though they were born that way and can’t help it. Ex. NAMBLA who claim they don’t want to hurt children and think it is perfectly natural to be attracted and with children sexually. As the liberal says, Who are we to judge? Would you say people have no legitimate reason to be against this? Of course we do.

G66, Nature doesn’t have intentions – it just is. Richard Dawkins has a lot to say on that subject. Since homosexuality exists, it is part of the natural world (and not just in humans). People are not in control of who they are attracted to, but everyone has a choice whether they act on it or not. Anyone who abuses another person or being whether adult, child, animal, or space alien is a criminal. Since children, animals, and (and sometimes space aliens) are not capable of making an adult, human decision, all sexual contact with a child or animal (and some space aliens) is criminal – just to be clear. I am an independent. I don’t consider myself a liberal, but I doubt anyone’s head exploded when they read your comment – just maybe annoyed to be reminded that some people (no, I’m not accusing you (or anyone on this site) of this, since you said you were simply using it as an example), but some people out there want to equate gay people with child molesters – which is such an ignorant, 80’s mindset.

G66,

Some “natural” things for you to consider:

Every cell in your body reproduces asexually. In humans, identical twining occurs asexually, i.e. the second copy, the twin, occurs without a sperm fertilizing another egg as occurs in the far more frequent case of twining, fraternal.

As revealed in the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, vast majorities regard self-gratification as sexual activity and engage in it. Clearly, it is not heterosexual. Is it?

“The only closed minded person I see are idiot liberals like yourself who are too scared to face or tolerate different opinions or values. All for tolerance as long as its the same beliefs you have. You need a red armband. Your a f*cking coward, a hypocritical human parasite. Go back to your safe space, snowflake”

Says the person who can’t tolerate even a split second of two men expressing affection for each other in a movie.

Holden.

You can’t understand an irrational thing like Homophobia.

It’s certainly not homophobic to agree with Takei on his character’s sexuality. Or to insist that he be given the respect he has earned for decades.

Joe You don’t understand the concept of tolerance. You were obviously raised without it.
yo Daddys a Homophobe- you said it yourself.
He has no Business in a Star Trek audience- we don’t want his hate & bigotry stopping us from moving forward- one day all the people like him will be dead & society can move forward.

You know, yer right! We liberals (like those uber dweebs Roddenberry, Nimoy, and Coon) had damn well better be prepared to tolerate intolerance, lest we be accused of intolerance ourselves. Point! But seriously, as a liberal and First Amendment absolutist I don’t see any need for “safe spaces,” since I’m well aware that your right to express bigoted opinions doesn’t in any way guarantee that you don’t get criticized for them. Rest assured, that’s good enough for me.

So if his Dad prefers ketchup to mustard, does that make him a mustardphobe ? Isn’t a phobia an irrational fear like having a fear of heights? Do you honestly think he fears homosexuals? Doesn’t it just mean he prefers ketchup to mustard or this case, straight relationships to homosexual relationships on screen? Would you be so passionate about calling him a closed minded bigot if he was telling you his preference for ketchup over mustard?

Dad: “Can you pass the ketchup?”
TrekFan: What’s wrong with mustard? Don’t you want mustard? What do you have against mustard? Mustard is equal.”
Dad: “Well, I just prefer ketchup to mustard. In fact, I don’t even spend money on mustard”.
TrekFan: “Your a closed-minded bigoted mustardphobe!”

@Rich liking ketchup up over mustard is fine, telling people that like mustard that they must hide it away in the pantry/closet to avoid upsetting people who like ketchup that’s not okay.

@Corinthian7 I get what you’re saying but my post was in direct reference to Jon’s post above and he was not telling people to stay in the closet to avoid upsetting people. He simply stated that his Dad chose not to see the movie.

Corinthian-
Brilliant

Show his Dad a little understanding.
While his behavior is disturbing, he was taught that homosexuality was “bad.”
I was guilty of this and then a family member came out to me.
I realized MY only problem was fear of the unknown.
I made an effort to visit this family member with his friends in his environment.
Other than gay men are attracted to gay men, they are pretty much the same, if NOT better than all of us.
They know what it’s like to be bullied, ridiculed and threatened by someone who is basically ignorant of the facts.
I hope someone reaches out to this persons Dad and listens to him.
He may just surprise you if he’s given a little slack.
By us, giving the knee jerk reaction – “You’re a bigot, go away,” he most likely will.
I know this is a stretch, but we can’t be intolerant of intolerance.
Think about it.

Or we can just wait for his generation to Die. Then move on.

Typical liberal attitude. Have to insult. Love your tolerance. Sounds like you are actually the bigot.

Consider before you speak

people like to use the word bigot like its a bad thing or they forget by definition once you call some one a bigot you are one,sulu was not gay and the movie took a hit because people are done such nonsense if you want gay themes then write them,write away don’t hijack someones work for your agenda! Just look at what a joke the Xmen became,,,lol

Your dad is not the only one.

Just saw it last night the first time and fresh in my memory.

I think the first movie was actually decent though not true Trek.

Second movie wasn’t too bad and I liked seeing Alice Eve in both.

Why she was gone from this one was disappointing. And if they had her as Sulu’s wife instead that would have rocked Beyond for me.

Most of the movie felt a bit CGI candy especially with the swarm attacks.

Why sit your ship still and let it come at you?

Reverse impulse and back the f out of there while raising shields. Evasive maneuvers while attempting to escape in the opposite direction.

No we will just wait and see what happens while blindly shooting torpedoes and phasers that have no effect.

If this happened with fresh rookie Kirk in Reboot movie 1 I would let it slide but not in movie 3 when he has logged more experience by this time.

The female alien with fighting skills stranded on the planet stole the show for me just as Kahn did in the last one.

The lack of Chekov footage disappointing. I am not sure if the actor’s death was before all his scenes were shot that caused this. If not then they could have had him die in the escape pod or when the swarm was penetrating The Enterprise.

omgoodness no to the lyrics

Vanguard-
If you don’t care about Roddenberry’s vision (Star Trek) why are you here?
Oh to Troll real fans.

^ I guess Hat Rick missed the ALTERNATE part of Alternate Universe…things are different…vulcan is gone…Kirk got command early…it’s a whole different universe and it’s time to accept not everything is the same.

“Respect for the original actor and Roddenberry’s vision for the character are two reasons to care. It doesn’t matter Roddenberry might have wanted to make Sulu gay. He didn’t, and that’s the point. He could have made Chekov German, or a female, but he didn’t. We respect these decisions. We don’t reverse them if we want to keep the integrity of Star Trek.”

Every sentence in that diatribe is ridiculous. Grow up, kid.

He didn’t make Sulu straight either so the Chekov comparison doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Having seen George Takei at cons I personally feel that he just doesn’t like the new movies and that is why he’s been critical of this latest bit of character development for Sulu. I can get that as I shared a lot of his misgivings about he first two Kelvin movies, it will be interesting to see if his view softens on this after he actually sees the movie. I also kind of feel that if George was to get the opportunity to reprise the role on Star Trek Discovery that he’d be totally down with having Sulu be gay in the prime timeline too.

First Roddenberry pasted 25 or so years ago. Star trek has to adapt(surprise people) or die. This Sulu being gay reason, being 20 seconds in the film iswhy you are upset are very petty in the face of the film, or franchise actually, that teaches understanding, tolerance, sympathy and more.

Also Kelvin universe is alternative universe. Why can’t sulu be gay in this one? Alternative universe means different probilities. Prime trek didn’t establish sulu having a wife. Just a family on ST Generations. (No you can’t count books, aka expanded universe as they aren’t considered cannon).

If people are truly not seeing this movie because Sulu is gay needs to get a reality check and remember IT’S A MOVIE!

Paramount IS the problem. Darn suits just can read a good script. STB’s script sucked again. Trek IS dead. You will NEVER see a Star Trek feature movie on the bigscreen again.

Or at least, you will not see me there.

Destroying the E was another BIG mistake.

BTW, you democrates better get you head out of the sand. Khan is going to finally bring down the clinton haus. Too many bad muzies are spoiling Hil’s last chance.

Wake the F up!

It’s amazing how you can disguise Homophobia as Artistic integrity lol
Merica

It’s amazing how you can disguise your own intolerance of opposing views as “liberalism” when it is nothing more than the intolerance or pretends to oppose.

It was nothing to the plot in this movie. But if Sulu wasn’t portrayed as gay by Takei, then it would be dumb to make him gay now. It could have been a new character. That would have been best.

Guess I was the other person. I won’t see it, and made a point to see Bourne (which sucked) instead. It is a controversy in the real world.

Your comment is exactly what turns a lot of people off. Insulting millions of people for their opinion with your holier than thou opinion. Pegg did this many times as well as insulting Trek fans who didn’t like the last film by literally telling them to F Off. The gay issue was compounded by the way they did it by not only making Sulu gay and not simply creating a new character but then basically insulting Takei himself by not even respecting his opinion who it was supposed to be for. Then you even had some of the stars throwing politics into it and weather you agree with them or not, why would you want to turn off potentially half the country. Trek is supposed to be so inclusive but many of the stars themselves don’t respect other opinions. With Hollywood more outspoken than ever and all their comments not missed when all over the internet as well as movies more expensive, the fact is when people feel personally insulated they just say F this movie. Why do I want to go see something from people who don’t like me. Just look at how many movies that were expected to do well either flopped or under performed because of the actors and directors attitudes toward the paying customers. Why would a hard working person like to be insulted by spoiled hypocritical millionaires that have their buts kissed all day. When you want someone to come see your movie, you don’t… Read more »

Let me guess, your business is making wedding cakes.

Sharp wit alert!

^ that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve read in awhile, Trumpbot, err, ‘Hat Rick’…If you go looking for ‘conservative values’ in Star Trek, with their diverse crews, female/black captains, rejection of capitalism, environmentally friendly ways, and general attitude of ‘let’s all work together for the greater good’…then you’re going to be disappointed

A couple of things: If you follow this forum, you’d know I have been anti-Trump to the point where others have commented on it. Another: I’ve followed Trek for around half a century. I other words, from the
Beginning. Never have I seen such disrespect for an original actor’s portrayal of a Star Trek character as Pegg’s. Never have I seen such misunderstanding of Middle America, which does know — to the extent of popular knowledge of this picture — that there is something a bit “off” (in their view) about a so-called “minor” character. To Middle America, most men are married to wives, not husbands.

If insults are the province of most pro-Star Trek Beyond fans, then I would understand why this flick fails.

Look IDIC in the face: It doesn’t mean you have license to call others bigots merely for disagreeing with you or your opinions.

^^ in other words.

Well said.

This problem with the idea that tolerance means that if you have an opinion , well no matter what, I have to tolerate it. It’s this false equivalency that makes small minded people think their uneducated, bigoted or racist drivel deserves equal time and respect. Tolerance means that you can have a point of view, and I can listen to it- but it doesn’t mean I have to give it weight or say it’s a valid point. Anti-gay, bigotry, hatred of equality for women or minorities should not be something that’s “tolerated”. It’s wrong, it will always be wrong, and no amount of listening will change that. Star Trek is about tolerance regarding different ideas or philosophies. Bigotry and hatred are not philosophies. Do you think if a crewman was on the Bridge and called Uhura a N-word that the rest of the crew would “tolerate” it? It wouldn’t happen because it’s not part of that world anymore. In their world, those things have fallen away and no longer mean anything. In Roddenberrys Trek, there is true equality between colors, gender, sexual orientation and even species. These are just accepted as FACT that all beings are created equal. There doesn’t have to be tolerance of those primitive ways of thinking because they simply do not exist in that world.

Steve T. In NY,

Re:called Uhura a N-word that the rest of the crew would “tolerate” it

I don’t know about that. Not a one of them rose to their feet in protest when faux Lincoln did it in THE SAVAGE CURTAIN. They seem to “tolerate it” just fine.:

“LINCOLN: What a charming negress [Uhura]. Oh, forgive me, my dear. I know in my time some used that term as a description of property.

UHURA: But why should I object to that term, sir? You see, in our century we’ve learned not to fear words.

KIRK: May I present our communications officer, Lieutenant Uhura.

LINCOLN: The foolishness of my century had me apologising where no offense was given.

KIRK: We’ve each learned to be delighted with what we are. The Vulcans learned that centuries before we did. ” — THE SAVAGE CURTAIN, Gene Roddenberry and Arthur Heinemann, PARAMOUNT, 3/7/69

Steve T. In NY, Re:called Uhura a N-word that the rest of the crew would “tolerate” it Apparently Vulcans, however, are “dismayed” by the use of the term half-breed: http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/10.htm “SPOCK: Frankly, I was rather dismayed by your use of the term half-breed, Captain. You must admit it is an unsophisticated expression.” — WHAT ARE LITTLE GIRLS MADE OF, Robert Bloch, Desilu, 10/29/66 And I’m not sure what to make of its reappearance here?: “KIRK: All right, you mutinous, disloyal, computerized, half-breed, we’ll see about you deserting my ship. SPOCK: The term half-breed is somewhat applicable, but computerized is inaccurate. A machine can be computerized, not a man. KIRK: What makes you think you’re a man? You’re an overgrown jackrabbit, an elf with a hyperactive thyroid. SPOCK: Jim, I don’t understand. KIRK: Of course you don’t understand. You don’t have the brains to understand. All you have is printed circuits. SPOCK: Captain, if you’ll excuse me. KIRK: What can you expect from a simpering, devil-eared freak whose father was a computer and his mother an encyclopedia? SPOCK: My mother was a teacher. My father an ambassador. KIRK: Your father was a computer, like his son. An ambassador from a planet of traitors. A Vulcan never lived who had an ounce of integrity. SPOCK: Captain, please don’t KIRK: You’re a traitor from a race of traitors. Disloyal to the core, rotten like the rest of your subhuman race, and you’ve got the gall to make love to that girl. SPOCK: That’s… Read more »

You do have to give the person enough respect to speak civilly to and about them unless they mean you personal harm and harbor malice against others.

Most religious conservatives who genuinely believe abortion or homosexuality or adultery is wrong should be spoken to civilly. Liberals do not have a monopoly on truth and must not act as though they do. Only immature, defensive thought or raw emotion relies on name calling and pure contempt as a substitute for reasonable discussion.

Besides, this matter is about more than homosexuality — it is about respect for a real person and his views — George Takei, a proud gay man legally married to another man. We should really not lose sight of this, and of the related shortsightedness of the producers in failing to understand that much of America continues to find homosexuality off putting (whether right or wrong). Many reviews made note of Sulu’s sexuality in this film and so it couldn’t have escaped notice.

Perfectly respect Takei’s opinion–understand it, even–though I happen to disagree with it. And it’s not disrespectful for the creators of BEYOND to carefully consider his concerns and yet ultimately decide to go ahead with their plans anyway.

Note for the record, too, that no one here is calling George Takei a bigot, his opinions about Sulu’s sexuality notwithstanding.

“Bigot” is a verb not a noun. Sorry.

You sound like the typical liberal. Trek never rejected capitalism. It never dealt with it at all. Where do you get the idea conservatives are against females, blacks and the environment? Have you even read history?

This from a Star Trek fan! Ever heard of IDIC at all?

[This comment has been removed by a moderator]

Hello from New York. Who cares about fat, uneducated, racist, homophobic and religious “Middle America?” We fly over those people in planes.

And they feed your sorry A**

It’s not intolerance, it’s that EVERYTHING has a token GAY element in it. It’s like the old seventies shows and even Star Trek TOS itself that had to have that ONE TOKEN BLACK CHARACTER in everything! It would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.

Your right it shouldn’t and was so short but people knew it was a BS reason they gave for it and it was clearly political so they just said ‘I don’t need this PC crap.

agreed,plus if they had not said or made a big deal of it beforehand,it would of played out a nice touch,yes i dont have a problem with sulu of this time plan being gay

It publicly irritating George Takei was a PR snafu, but can’t have cost that many box office dollars.

Because Americans are very Homophobic & they would not support the Film just like the South didn’t Air the Interracial Kiss

There you go. Insult Americans and better yet all Americans. How tolerant and liberal.

Nice using my nickname… I’m guessing this is MJ.

Vanguard

Re:MJ

Speaking of, he’s been strangely absent and non-vocal in these parts. I would have expected him to at least bless us with a screed on how the totally impossible nebula in BEYOND ruined the film for him.

I wonder if he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar again?

Heck, it wasn’t even 20 seconds. Maybe 7.

Because a lot of people are worn out with the “gotta put gay in everything” token element in EVERYTHING produced these days – even George Takei

Maybe they should’ve used Cialis.

“I was very peeved about the Sulu thing”

Then you’re a bigot and your opinion is thus meaningless.

Utter nonsense.

People are not biggots for having an opinion on Sulu, its their opinion and it is public record that Sulu was not gay in the original Trek and even GT said he was not , He is now however and it does bother some people and thats OK too.

i just wished they had not said anything and just let it play out on the big screen,i dont have a problem with him being gay in this timeline now if they recon the prime sulu yeah big problem

Does it threaten your manhood?

To TrekFan and any other that just tosses out Bigot, Homophobe, Trumptard or other nonsense. You have no idea what the F you are talking about. We live in a country highly divided. Now some blame it on Republicans some blame it on liberals and some blame it on just Stupid Americans. Me I’d say its a mix of all 3. As a lifelong conservative and a lifelong Trek Fan. I can say this nice and clearly. The idea of Trek is to be inviting to all thoughts, all religions, all creeds, and all colors or aliens. It is not a PC only Zone where it is to the soul focused only on liberal far left agendas. It is focused on expanding the realm of man to push boundaries not just in one way but in many ways. I didn’t personally care one way or another that Sulu was made gay for the film. However I do understand the criticism from those who have grown up with Sulu including George himself and have seen him as a straight man who has even had flings with women on the TV Show. So when one of us supposed Trumptards/conservatives say that maybe Sulu should of kept the same identity sexually he has had since the 60’s that doesn’t make us a bigot or homophobe. Another thing and a more political point. Conservatives no matter what you were told growing up or on the tv. We are not racists whack jobs who only… Read more »

Please do list every episode where sulu had a “flings with women”. I think you’ll find there’s not one. There’s not one moment in any TOS episode or movie where Sulu exhibits any sexual or romantic behavior toward women.

Mirror Mirror was one I found. But I remember other instances. Maybe you are mistaken?

James,

Mirror Sulu is irrelevant. Medical research shows sexual preferences are more like fingerprints, i.e. not hardcoded in but vary even among identical twins who can and do have have differing sexual preferences.

I sort of wish that the crew of the Discovery is gay. All of them. Just to watch people lose their minds.
BTW with all due respect to Takei I don’t GAF what his opinion is of a character he used to play. He is no longer the actor that currently plays Sulu. Takei’s Sulu can be straight or gay or bi. It had no bearing on the character of Sulu in the Bad Robot films. Oh, and provide actual numbers of movie goers who refuse to see STB because of Sulu’s sexual orientation and the actual financial impact it has had on the movie or concede that you’re talking out your arse.

Your kind of mad there aren’t ya :( I would say prove that it has not , your point is really a logical fallacy.
Fact is the box office is way lower than the previous outings. As to what that is attributed to is a
matter of opinion at best. We are all entitled to one yes? But to say no one was effected by the decision is probably not accurate. The studio made a choice and as such so do people if they chose to support that or not don’t they. Is it not ok for some to be disappointed just as some would be elated?

ThePhaige,

Re:prove that it has not

As anyone that has been exposed to enough STAR TREK would come to understand, you can not prove a negative using the scientific method. At best, calling for a negative to be proven is a disingenuous attempt to appear sensible while actually misdirecting the audience away from the vacuousness of what the debater has with which to respond and at worst, it is a call to deny science and attempt to persuade not by rational appeals, but to those grounded in superstitious fears such as those of the unknown.

Who’s mad? Me? Not remotely. If you are indeed responding to me then you are confusing an animated response for an emotion.

Do you really think that making Sulu gay and the political insults by Pegg and the actors towards a large portion of the public caused one person to see this movie that was not previously going to see it. If anything it had the opposite effect.

Sulu didn’t even have first name on screen until Star Trek 6… 25 years after the show came out. So please zip it about how this character was “straight.” You didn’t even know this guy’s first name until 25 years later… or that he was born in San Francisco until 20 years after the show came out. He could push buttons, liked botany, math and fencing… and it now turns out he liked guys. Big deal. And who cares about homophobes in 2016 anyway?

Frankly, I don’t really care if he’s gay or not. It’s not like they stuck it in your face.

I also was very put off by the Sulu thing. It was enough to make me rethink seeing the film, when I heard about it. Then when I saw the direction the film had taken toward being more and more “action blockbuster” and less what Star Trek was always really about, and saw some of the reviews, that solidified my choice to not see it. As a lifelong Trekkie, even one who enjoyed the first two films in this timeline (for what they were), I don’t think I’ll be watching any more of this NewTrek.

It’s a pity because STB is a good film, even for non-Trek fans. Scheduling, not film quality is to blame and I hope Paramount realizes this in preparations for the next trek film. But if Chris Hemsworth is going to be in it, whoa buddy, he’ll ask for $$$$$$.

Paramount & friends, please put Marvel & DC film releases on your calendar as you plan the next Trek.

Marvel is owned by Disney. They’ll manipulate their releases, or re-release films to draw numbers away from other big films.

Don’t berate Paramount for the Mouse playing dirty.

its an enjoyable film,take your brain out popcorn film, i sooner have a much deeper film but hey.
i am not sure chris will bring that much into the film, if you look at the thor films they have not done that great compared to the rest if the mcu and he has not become that big star that he should of done

Yep. This has been a bad summer for for pretty much most movies except Captain America and Deadpool, so trying to pretend this is the only movie not doing well is bs. Beyond was a good movie that had too much competition around it. Pretty much what Steven Spielberg described when he wrote an article about the death of the summer blockbuster. Basically his point was that budgets are getting bigger, but the summer schedule is getting more crowded. If you’re a family, with the crazy high cost of going to the movies, it means you have to choose one or the other. Spielberg suggested that blockbusters be spread out over the course of the year, and that we do away with the notion that good movies come out in summer or at the end of the year.

In essence, Spielberg was advocating giving these movies more space to breathe and make their money back, because if they keep losing money, big expensive films will go away.

Good point about the cost to take a family to the movies. I know people holding off going to the cinema to wait for, “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them”. So that’s a valid point, it’s way too expensive.

It’s still going to be the 3rd highest grossing star trek movie ever.

Relative to expenditure, that means very little.

Look at the biz SPECTRE did, and yet even with home vid it is barely going to clear 25 mil (and took a half year or more to do that.)

Maybe Kirk should have been riding a motorcycle that transformed into a big honkin’ robot, since that seems to be the hook for mindless big draw box office.

Except for the Sulu character decision, which alienated a lot of people, it was a decent and heartwarming film. I am unhappy it is underperforming.

What evidence can you provide that it alienated anyone aside from hardcore bigots?

Hardcore bigots? Of whom are you speaking? Please do tell. Don’t be coy.

Anyone who thinks Sulu being gay hurt the film is not just a bigot, but a moron too.

How nonjudgmental of you to say that.

I would estimate a good 20 to 30 percent of the potential male fan base would object to any homosexual references in an action movie. That’s pretty clear from anyone who is familiar with high school American culture, with its emphasis on red-blooded physicality (jocks versus nerds, etc.).

Americans are far more conservative on many issues than liberal.

“What evidence can you provide that it alienated anyone aside from hardcore bigots?”

It hardly bothered anyone other than hardcore bigots. Rational, intelligent, open-minded people who embrace Star Trek’s core messages had no problem with it–and those few who DID have a problem with it clearly don’t get Star Trek, so their opinion is irrelevant.

A silly comment. Many moviegoers are not driven by rationality. They, too, count as far as seeing or not seeing a movie. Trek is not some holy liberal scribe existing in a vacuum. It must appeal to mainstream audiences, not set itself up as an in-your-face altar of liberal causes. What mainstream average teenager wants take a heterosexual date to an alleged “gay Trek movie” (even if isn’t gay)? Fewer than to a more normal movie.

Think about it. Think before you insult others.

Pegg has a lot to answer for, in my opinion.

Actually you are only stating your opinion. Provide actual numbers detailing the financial impact that the reveal of Sulu’s sexual orientation on STB’s BO or concede that you don’t actually have any facts to present.
Only opinion.

“Except for the Sulu character decision, which alienated a lot of people, it was a decent and heartwarming film. I am unhappy it is underperforming.”

You are not a Star Trek fan and have no comprehension of what the franchise’s core messages are.

The youngsters have no idea what Star Trek is. They’ve created their own hard left religion of it.

I think you are right.

I seriously doubt that.

I love Star Trek but it will never have the box office success as Star Wars or Marvel films. That is just a sad fact. Unless maybe you bring in a James Cameron and say the Borg and make it pure sci fi.

Star Wars is just generic sci fantasy crap for the masses. I hope to God Star Trek never gets that bad, despite the bigger profits. Quality over quantity.

Exactly, ziplock9000.

So disappointing and I really hope this doesn’t stop a sequel. Watching Trek 09 again just solidified for me that Beyond is even better. It should have opened on July 1 – surrounding it was…

-Independence Day 2, which had flopped the week before.
-Legend of Tarzan on July 1: Star Trek would have come out #1.
-Secret Life on Pets on July 8, for a different audience
-Ghostbusters on July 15, a flop with seemingly little mainstream appeal

Releasing it just before Bourne and Suicide Squad (which will probably be huge) was a huge mistake for keeping any kind of box office momentum. Aside from the release date, the first trailer was completely disastrous and turned people off from the movie for good – it made Star Trek look irrelevant when The Force Awakens popularity was at its insane peak. Although to a lesser extent, the lack of linking the film to the 50th anniversary was bizarre to me. I went to the Starfleet Academy exhibit in Ottawa which promoted the 50th anniversary but had nothing whatsoever for Beyond or any of the new films.

Paramount should rightfully expect Trek films to make a lot more, but it looked like they were sending this one out to die until the last month.

It was supposed to come out on 7/8, but was delayed. It would have had an even weaker open against SECRET LIFE, and GB would have cut into its 2nd week, so maybe they were lucky to get this one weekend.

It probably doesn’t help that CBS has little interest in promoting the Bad Robot films as 50th anniversary faire. They probably make plenty off of selling TOS goodies. This film was a solid entry and Paramount (as well as ourselves) deserve a better fate.

It’s mind boggling how a franchise instalment with 18% like Transformers: Age of Extinction can make $1.1b but Star Trek Beyond, one of the best blockbusters in years, will struggle to make even $200m domestically (probably not happening). I can’t think of another big blockbuster example of a film that really deserved so much more. As a huge fan of Star Wars I might have even liked Beyond more than TFA.

I think that first trailer had an enormously negative impact.

@Andrew – sorry but Beyond wasnt that good. Lets not [pretend it was a masterpiece. Poor word of mouth is because there was nothing to make people say “wow, you have to see it”. “It was okay” means people will see it on DVD but arent rushing out to catch it on the weekend.

It’s easy to understand. The Transformer films are cartoon fantasies that appeal to a wider demographic, a larger international audience and children. Plus, the Transformer movies are part of a genre that is hot right now: fantasy. TREK struggles in all these areas and, after 13 films, it must now be clear, it just doesn’t translate well to current cinematic audiences.

@Merchant of Vulcan,

“It probably doesn’t help that CBS has little interest in promoting the Bad Robot films as 50th anniversary faire.”

Is that a joke? Why should CBS cares about ‘Beyond’, it is not their project. If you want to blame someone, then blame Paramount.

Because it’s mutually beneficial.

@Corinthian7,

“Because it’s mutually beneficial.”

No, it is not. CBS gains nothing from promoting ‘Beyond’, in fact Paramount prevented CBS from airing the new Trek series before ‘Beyond’ comes out.

You two have a funny way of thinking, blaming a company that has nothing to do with the production while ignoring Paramount, you know, the company that actually made the bloody movie.

Yes but how do you explain BAD MOMS beating it?

Bad mom’s didn’t beat it…

Helping to keep the Star Trek momentum going and keeping it popular is absolutely beneficial to CBS. It was absolutely ridiculous they didn’t have anything to promote the new film at the 50th anniversary exhibit I went to. Just seems petty to me.

Must be in the same class as the Transformers series.

I suspect this is part of a larger trend. Ticket prices are very high these days, what with all the bells and whistles – GTX, IMAX, 3D, recliner seats, in theater dining…etc. It is hard to find anything under $8.00 even at a small theater matinee, and most tickets are well over $10.00 in th evenings when folks are off work and can go. So if you are talking dinner and a movie for a family, you are talking over $100 for a night out. Add that to the fact that DVD releases are pretty quick, and todays TVs are large with HD etc. and many people are just not going to casually watch a movie. They really have to want to see it, and will likely limit the number of movies they go to see in theaters.

Very good point. My wife and I went to see it during the first showing on opening night (which I have done with every Trek movie since ST:TMP), and two tickets, standard def, and a large popcorn and Diet Coke to split set us back $40. Not to mention that I think they did a lackluster job of promoting the film. They think that if they tack ‘Star Trek’ onto the title, it’s going to draw people in like moths to a flame. In reality, the theater was only a quarter full. And this was in a theater a mile from Auburn University, the only one within 40 miles of another theater running it. I don’t think it’s a matter of talent or creativity (the story and cast were more than capable), it’s the heads of these studios who don’t seem to have a clue as to what a broader audience wants. Pegg and Lin did more to bring a fifty year old franchise full circle in a few seconds of screen time with that TOS crew pic than Paramount did from the moment they green-lighted the whole movie. What a wasted opportunity.

Kind of same here in baton rouge. Standard viewing was half full on the 21st. (Imax, not sure but thinking bigger numbers at 7) That said, the 7pm showing was for the fans. Friday and saturday brought out higher numbers in both types

STB is absolutely my 2nd favorite JJverse Trek, and I like it more than most of the Next Gen films (and of course it’s better than Final Frontier). I really think the lack of promotion hurt STB. The HIDEOUS first trailer and almost no promotion til almost the release date. Quite a few people I asked to go with me didn’t even know it existed. I’m very tired of how Paramount treats what should be one of its Crown Jewels!

@Ralph
Again, I like Final Frontier a lot more than TUC and think its better because it didn’t have the convoluted dialogue of TUC, the dinner scene is awful to watch, of course all the bloody Shakespeare!!! Gimme a break! we all know Plummer and Shatner went to Stratford, Ontario, Canada and they should have left the hammy-ness there.
The only thing really bad about TFF, was the turbolift scene, which was supposed to be a joke anyhow, since the true number of decks is known and they start from the top down.

TFF is not only a bad Trek film but a bad film all around. If you dont like TUC is one thing but I think you’re the only person I know who thinks TFF is better. But why we all have personal opinions here.

OFFS TFF is a good film, it had great character interaction it just wasn’t as epic as the others.
It’s not better or worse than TUC. Just different.

This had nothing to do with the quality of beyond or the content regarding Sulu. (To think people were tuned away because of Sulu’s backstory is obsured and ignorant). This had to do with a bad summer for sequels and sci fi films in general. The bigger problem here is that Paramount insist every movie they make be a huge movie that has to make over a billion. Paramount have got themselves in serious trouble (as have other studios) by throwing cash at these franchises. From Transformers to TMNT to Star Trek. Every single movie has been cut from the same kind of Hollywood cloth. If Paramount want Star Trek to be a huge money earner for them then they need to do more than just a movie every three/four years. An animated Star Trek series aimed at fans but especially kids would be a fantastic start, especially now that Star Trek Beyond was such a fresh new start for this crew and this universe. The Kelvin Timeline is the perfect place to spawn an animated TV series aimed at he younger audience on Nikelodeon. You bring in fans with a well written and intelligent but action packed series for the kids and you’ve got a Transformers $800 million box office smash hit on your hands with kids wanting to take their parents to see Star Trek. Otherwise, slash the budget in half and expect a box office taking to be smaller and give moviegoers a more cerebral, more grown… Read more »

Really good points Captain! What we’re seeing here is the result of a studio that didn’t/doesn’t know what to do (again) with its franchise Star Trek imo. Star Trek 09 really was a shot out of the blue. It caught a lot of non-Trek people by surprise and that was a first in the franchise’s history. A Trek that anyone can watch, neat! You think the studio would strike while the iron’s hot.

So what does the studio do? Fast track an animated show? Directly targeting kids (you know, future fans). Nope. At least how about a TV series based in this new universe to get a potential wider audience? nope. Novels? Nope those were canned. Comics? Yeah, years later. How about anything of substance? eh nope.

In other words they let all that good will from ST09 just fade into the sunset. And on top of it all the sequel was 4 years in the making! Way to long for a fickle mainstream audience to stay on board. .Heck this one took 3. I know they say they wanted to wait for the 50th but I don’t really see any overt connection to the it in the marketing.

I’m not sure how the CBS Paramount split played in the lack of any real promotion of this franchise. But what ever the reason is it sure didn’t help it.

Exactly! So much of this lays at Paramounts door. To give them credit they gave Star Trek 09 a massive budget and treated it like a big blockbuster for a change. We were so use to the cheaper films it was exciting to see Trek get something like Star Wars or Batman for a change. But then you’re right, the film comes and goes and NOTHING. No extended medium anywhere. I get putting on another show is a serious task and they didnt want to become that committed again but why not a real comic book line, sets of novels, theme park ride, something, anything to keep peoples interests up. Star Trek is such a huge medium and property now but they squandered it. And then with Beyond they waited to make it for the 50th anniversary but can ANYONE tell me a single promo anywhere for the film they mentioned it? Any build up to the fact its the 50th anniversary? They would mention it in interviews but there was no concentrated campaign to let people know it was the 50th of an enduring franchise and this film was meant to honor that. I know everyone has seen this clip for TUC but it says does it so beautifully for Star Trek 25th anniversary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RERAc0ipha0 THAT was the sort of thing I thought we were getting, this slow but integrated campaign to honor Star Trek and its 5 decades of existence and this film was going to be a… Read more »

Great points Tiger. Honestly if I wasn’t aware this was the 50th already I wouldn’t know because as far as I can see there is nothing in the advertising that would tell me it is. That’s a huge missed opportunity imo.

I hope Trek isn’t in “limbo” again, that would stink. But I wonder with the way the studio has dealt with the franchise if it ever really was not in limbo. They could have done a lot more to promote it. Again maybe the studio split thing has a lot to do with it I don’t know. I remember way back either Bob O or JJ saying they had approached CBS about a series of some kind but were basically told by them no thanks, not inerested. Either way here we Trekkies are again, worried about the future of Trek lol.

Great Tiger- You get it

CBS owns the TV rights and they’re not interested in helping Paramount by creating an animated TV series.

Visitor1982, I understand your point, but I don’t think it’s smart for CBS and Paramount to not work together in creating a synergy with Star Trek. Both corporations could benefit from coordinating their efforts rather than acting strictly as competitors. An animated series would support the film franchise and vice versa. CBS would profit from the TV rights and the excitement and exposure created by a blockbuster film, and Paramount would benefit from a fresh, young audience. When I was 10, I had to beg my parents to take me to the motion picture in ’79. They would never have chosen to see it. Right now, there is no reason for a 10 year old to want to see a Star Trek movie – and I believe that is a major reason for the slumping ticket sales – and the ever older skewing audience. If Paramount and CBS refuse to coordinate their efforts, expect the trend to continue.

I too would have hoped Paramount and CBS would work together and create one big Star Trek universe on TV, in the movies, games, comics etc. etc. But they don’t. I wish one big studio would buy all the rights for Star Trek and make something big out of it. A movie every one or two years with different crews. Two TV series (13 episodes each, so we get 26 episodes a year) and much more… I’m afraid it won’t happen any time soon.

I’m obviously a box office and movie making expert here, so it’s clear to me why this film is underperforming. First, outrageously high expectations against a summer stuffed to the gills with gigantic popcorn movies targeting nearly the same audience. Second, making Trek into a tentpole in the first place — it just doesn’t hold that appeal to people, and pouring buckets of money into it is gonna guarantee a summer release date against all the other big budget franchise movies with larger fan bases. Third, and most important, WTF was that marketing campaign??? Remember that amazing teaser trailer for Undiscovered Country celebrating 25 years of Trek? NONE OF THAT for Beyond. I doubt anyone who isn’t a Trek fan even knows it’s turning 50 this year. Huge missed opportunity. Add to that the fact that, and I hate to say it, the Trek community is old and getting older — I think 75% of the audience for Beyond was over 25. None of this justifies a $185 million price tag. So like, what are you doing, Paramount? Spend a hundred mil and put the rest actually advertising for the movie.

Several good points. Unless trek appeals to the younger comics crowd these box office results can be expected. Also it can be said that the Bourne film drew many of the older males who normally would have seen Beyond. Certainly Paramount would have expected this to be the case. And has been stated there has been NOTHING regarding the 50th anniversary.

All very good points.

This is the first Trek movie that I’ll probably just see once in the theatres. Like, it’s way too expensive now and the movie will be on Netflix in 6 months. I’ll just wait to see it again like I did for Star Wars (already out on Netflix Canada).
This probably plays in the balance as well.

Paramount didn’t promote this movie AT ALL! they have themselves to blame. maybe hype the hell out of the next one and get pple excited for it, instead of delaying marketing of the film till less than 8 wks before it opens which made everyone think its a disaster.

Well it’s published that they spent $100 million on marketing and advertising, so it’s really sad that you perceive it this way.

If they spent $100 million then it was poorly spent. My wife – a non-trek fan – mentioned to friends that she saw it and they didn’t even know it was out. And they like the jj movies but hadn’t heard about it. That marketing failure falls on Paramount.

One problem with the trailers and the movie itself was the lack a great visuals. Star Trek 09 had great still shots or images in the trailer. This one lacked those “Wow, look at that” moments. I LOVED the movie but visually I had high expectations that were not met.

If they had signed William Shatner for one 30 second cameo in the film they had gotten far more pub than the $100m they supposedly spent.

I agree; the whole world knows he’s Kirk…and will be forever. So even a cameo or a voice over by him saying the iconic words for one of the trailers would have been great publicity!

Water under the bridge. I enjoyed this movie a lot, the actors did a fine job and they worked very hard promoting the film. Paramount is a whole other story.

Your living in the past noone knows who Shatner is anymore- especialy not kids. he doesn’t resemble Kirk anymore.

I guess that would make them like the government. Spend a load and we don’t see anything for it. It could have cost that much for just trailers adn a little on TV stuff and I mean a little.

I mean it couldn’t have cost that much.

Yes but where did that money go? A few commercials on the NBA abd NHL finals? Hard to believe $100 million went in that direction.

I think they spent most of it on those fireworks at Comic Con. The next movie will spend it on Chris Hemsworth.

An alternate reality is a nice place to visit, but you don’t wanna live there. Star Treks next movie: Fixing the timeline!

There is “fixing the timeline” needed. The Prime universe still exists. A new TV show is being made based in it. This Kelvin universe exists on a different branch of the Trek universe.

Not until they make it canon. From all appearances, the new TV series may take place just prior to the Kelvin being destroyed by Nero — so it’s the Prime universe all right, but before Nero went back in time and began overwriting it.

It should be fixed because it sucks. its a lazy crutch.

@Len Krieger
However, I don’t regard anything that Rick Berman has touched as the Prime timeline, they lost me in TNG with the stupid episode “Force of Nature” but before that the Borg are a rip-off of both Doctor Who’s Cybermen and the Vogon guard’s catchphrase in The Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy. DS9 lost me when they claimed that the Terran-Vulcan Empire fell, Voyager stunk to high heaven and only year four of ENT was any good until that stinker of a conclusion with Riker and Troi!

I Khan Believe It An\'t Butter

Repeat after me: Alternate universe, Alternate universe. there is nothing to fix. Prime time line is still there, nothing can ever change that.

The only thing needing fixing is adapting the Kelvin timeline to younger fans.

@I Khan Believe It An\’t Butter
Damn straight!!

Let’s come down to brass tax . The JJ universe oh I’m sorry Kelvin universe is flawed how does two people coming back in time not only change the timeline alter technological developments and alter an Entire species, example the Klingons. Yes I admit it would have a negative impact on on James Kirk but talking about the JJ universe in the context of a movie franchise has completely invalidated everything that has been done creatively over the last 50 years. As far as paramount pictures is concerned the prime universe does not exist and I think it is the outcry of the Star Trek fans who prefer the prime universe that is forcing Star Trek discovery to take place in the prime universe. It has been said before and I wish to reiterate it now Gene Roddenberry’s vision of the future is dead as long as the JJ universe continues . It has long been documented that the Gene fought long and hard with Maurice Hurley over his version of what the 24th century is. Leading to Maurice Hurleys exit from Star Trek the next generation. Gene never intended to have Fast and Furious in outer space. Maurice Hurley wanted to introduce action ala Miami Vice and Gene stopped him. But in either case it doesn’t matter what matters is what happens at the box office and if dismal box office results would force Paramount pictures to consider Returning to the prime timeline or least modifying this JJ nightmare… Read more »

Make bones the star for a change. Urban has been the best of them all.

Give it time. It’s up against a lot of other stuff,. In my opinion though, the movie hasn’t been advertised much and wasn’t marketed much at all, so what do you expect?

All things many of us said for months and were shouted down by the group here that loved the film before it even came out.

I was puzzled why they didn’t promote the 50th Anniversary using Beyond? I think they missed a big opportunity for publicity.

Somewhere some dumb studio exec decided that “50th Anniversary” = old. Just like “We cant have an 85 year old William Shatner in our cool, young, hip, edgy summer blockbuster”.

They were right Unfortunately they were marketing to the wrong audiance

A few points. Re: “On average, studios earn only 55% of a film’s final gross, according to Box Office Mojo.” This is roughly true for domestic box office revenue, but not for international box office revenue. The following excerpts are from this Wall Street Journal article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/for-hollywood-not-all-box-office-dollars-are-equal-1409241925 “The cut of each box office dollar that studios take varies from as little as 25 cents in China to about 50 cents in the U.S.” [I’ve read that it gets as low as 15% in China due to import tariffs. There are also various tariffs and fees that bring down the real net revenue from European box office returns.] “A U.S. movie that sold $100 million of tickets domestically would allow a studio to collect about $50 million during its theatrical run, but over the next decade could bring in another $125 million from sources including DVD sales, video-on-demand, and airings on HBO, basic cable and Netflix. Russia generates about 65 cents per box office dollar, according to the studio analyses, while South Korea brings in 55 cents, Japan 83 cents, and the U.K. about $1.30 over a decade.” One of the big problems that I and others have with the Bad Robot Trek movies is that they don’t hold up well to repeat viewings. Once you start to pull at any thread in the story, the whole thing begins to unravel—and you realize that the movie is ultimately devoid of meaning, at best, and also nonsensical, at worst. And the entertainment… Read more »
“Despite the smaller revenue opportunities, studios are expending more effort to reach moviegoers in fast-growing foreign markets. Their goal is to find new audiences in China, Russia and Brazil without losing viewers in the U.S., where theatrical attendance has been roughly flat for the past decade. That can be a tricky balancing act, however, as Paramount found with “Transformers.” Producing and marketing a movie with foreign viewers in mind can make it less appealing to Americans.” That last sentence should probably be changed to “…*does* make it less appealing to Americans.” This effect is obvious and flagrant in movies such as IRON MAN 3, wherein the Mandarin character was changed from a Mandarin to an Englishman at the insistence of the government of the People’s Democratic Republic of China. A bit more subtle, however, is the imbalance of action to drama, in internationally marketed tent-pole movies, which appeals to non-English-speaking audiences who’d rather have as little subtitled dialogue to read as possible. It is also for the aforesaid reason that non-English-speaking audiences are so fond of sequels—i.e. they’re easier to follow because the characters, premise and setting are already familiar. Even after a series of movie sequels has greatly declined in the US (as with the PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN movies), they might still be on the upside of the demand curve abroad. If the Bad Robot Trek franchise were pulling international box office revenue on the order of big earners like PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN and TRANSFORMERS, then perhaps… Read more »

Lets just sit back, watch paramount bury itself in stupidity & sell Star Trek to someone who knows how to use it.
Such a pity CBS was bullied by paramount & isn’t reboting Star Trek (Kirk/Spock) that could have saved it- another Voyager so far removed from the Star Trek people know & understand as Star Trek will fail.

Important note: Star Trek Beyond is a Chinese co-production, guaranteeing a release date and 40% of the box office instead of the typical 25%.

@Vulcancafe,

“and 40% of the box office instead of the typical 25%.”

Source?

Cygnus-X1
Brilliant

It’s a shame that a Trek film making over 100 million in less than two weeks is a disappointment. Most Trek films never even made that much in their entire runs. As much as I love Trek, it’s never going to be the Marvel behemoth that Paramount wants it to be. Plus I’m pretty sure that it would have made a little more if there wasn’t so much fan resentment over the fan film guidelines. Still, the film will still open in other countries, and if it does well in China all is not lost.

China added less than $25 million to the box office of STID. Even if that number doubles it’s not going to add nearly enough to boost the box office without a strong rally all the way around. The film is down 30% over where even ST09 was at the same point in its run without any significant holiday periods ahead. That’s a huge obstacle to overcome for any movie.

I guarantee you not one person neglected to see the film because of the fan guidelines. No one is that ridiculous.

Indeed, How many people among the general audience even KNOW about the fan guidelines let alone care about them.

The fan Guidelines & hatred of the marketing of the first trailer was mainstream. People, the non fans may not care that much but they sure heard about it. & it was a negative light on the movie.
There was more talk about Paramount Hating their fans & slapping them in the face than the new film.

They invested heavily in promotion? I’m not so sure about that – I remember a lot of us saying only a couple of months before the release date that we’d barely heard anything about the movie coming up, certainly far less than we heard in the months leading up to STID. Or did I somehow miss it all?

They spent at least $100 million according to published reports.

Can you say Tax write off for a failing Studio?

I wonder how much of this is due to people completely tuning out after that disastrous first teaser. I know I was really turned of by that one and it took me a long time to finally decide that I’d see the final movie. I can picture a lot of people seeing that teaser and then just avoiding any future advertising for the movie.

There are also other factors: the later summer release, the competition being released. I think burying Idris Elba, who I still am not convinced is an international draw, under a ton of makeup may have dissuaded some of his fans from watching it. And ultimately, Star Trek has always had a rep of being more geared towards television and being that “other” movie franchise. The first two reboot movies both had plenty of hooks (the reboot, the involvement of Abrams, the inclusion of Cumberbatch, etc.) and the resulting curiosity and word of mouth; this one really had none of that.

Sadly, I think for Trek to succeed as a movie franchise, it needs to go even more Hollywood: hip director, really popular actors in key roles, continued focus on action over ideas. I really don’t want to see that but that is what a tentpole movie is all about.

Too bad, as Beyond was actually a pretty good movie and the best of the three Nu-Treks in my opinion.

I think that first trailer did A LOT of damage. And Paramount made a great 2nd trailer but it took 6 months to do it for some reason. If you look at YT whats sad is the second (and better) trailer only got half the reviews as the first one has so it means a lot of people saw the first one and never bothered to look at the others. Of course there have been tons of TV ads, some really good but you also cant get away from the fact the story felt pretty generic which I think also made a lot of people shrug. Being stuck on a planet for half the story makes for a great episode but for a film I think people didn’t feel all that intrigued by it. I wasnt personally but being a fan I went (twice now) but I can still see how the story is not engaging enough to the general audience even if it clicks a lot of boxes for long time fans.

Tiger Today 5:36 pm

After each of the STB trailers was released, I pointed out that they showed nothing of the plot or story. They were basically just a bunch of action clips spliced together, with a few lines of dialogue peppered in. Quite a few people here bitched and complained about my remarks, advising me that the trailers were not necessarily indicative of what the movie had in store. From all of the critical reviews and reactions here, it seems that the trailers showed nothing of the plot because there wasn’t much of a plot to show. And there also seems to have been no meaningful overarching theme to the story, to speak of. So, how interesting can your movie trailer be if the actual movie has a thin plot and a meaningless story?

I would say for the most part you’re right. The story is pretty bare but same time there is a little bit more going on than what was shown in the trailer (although yes actually spoiled in a freakin TV promo) and I dont know why I’m writing this as if you dont know lol but I know you didnt see it but yeah you probably know everything. And yes obviously its really Krall that is the catalyst to everything and thats the thing though his backstory IS interesting but unfortunately its layered by a very by the numbers plot: Supervillain needs a super weapon to destroy the Federation because he’s very pissed at them for what they did to him. I mean end of the day all said and done thats the story. This has been done in countless episodes to a variation of another to obviously films like TWOK and Nemesis. The stuff on the planet was fine but end of the day it had no real bearing on the story itself. So yes I agree that was a big part of the problem. The story itself is fine but its nothing uniquely amazing. But then again I guess it was never meant to be and it was suppose to be a bigger TOS episode which is an intriguing story but not a very unique one. And look its always easy to play Monday morning quarterback after the fact but yes I think if they gave Krall a… Read more »

Yes. Captain Kirk needs to be someone the caliber of Matt Damon. Seriously. I think Damon would make a great Kirk.

It is funny you mention Matt Damon because I’m sure everyone will remember here when the first film was announced there was a lot of calls for Matt Damon and Ben Affleck to be Kirk and Spock in the movie. Of course having both wouldve been distracting as hell but yeah I think Matt wouldve been great as Kirk. I LIKE Pine for the record but yeah a stronger star power mightve benefited from it but I think Damon is kind of like Tom Cruise or Leonardo Dicaprio, they don’t seem to jump into a lot of big franchises and Damon already had Bourne so thats probably enough for him.

Tiger,

Re:Damon already had Bourne so thats probably enough for him.

Did you even take a stab at checking before making your pronouncement?

http://videomedia.ign.com/ev/ev.swf#!flashvars#object_ID=692255&downloadURL=http
://moviesmovies.ign.com/movies/video/article/807/807144/mattdamon_onstartrek​_07
2007_flvlow.flv&allownetworking=

“Damon: But now, in fact I know that JJ is directing it and I talked to JJ and said “what is the deal” and he’s like “no, the Kirk in my movie is much younger, it’s like the early years.” So I think he is hiring probably like a 20 year old actor or something. So no it’s just an internet rumor.

IGN: oh, it would have been awesome…

Damon: oh thanks, maybe if they do the progression then I can play him ” — IGN, MATT DAMON ON STAR TREK, video interview, July 2007

Wow cool thanks for sharing. I probably saw that at the time but it has been awhile lol. But it was nice to know he at least considered the idea but as said Abrams was looking for someone younger at the time (and Pine is a decade younger than Damon) and yeah he probably wasn’t too bothered because he had Bourne and he doesnt come off as one of these guys looking to jump into a big shiny franchise. Bourne at the time was a brand new thing, it was just a single film with the hope more would be made but no guarantees. It wasn’t exactly a household name although now Bourne is probably as known as Bond and Captain Kirk is today so well done lol.

Tiger,

Re:Bourne at the time was a brand new thing

Again I beg you to check before engaging in making such such off pronouncements.

The third, and regarded by Damon at the time as the last for him, THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM premiered in Hollywood on July 25, 2007. That interview was out a few days before. Bourne wasn’t new then. It was considered over for him as he met his contractual obligations, and he was clearly considering jumping to the next franchise.

The ‘Fast & Furious’ trailer really killed my enthusiasm for seeing the film, which was a first for me. I’m going to see it this Wednesday, but only because it has Star Trek in the title and it is the only new Trek to watch right now.

The bad taste left by Into Darkness has definitely affected Beyond’s box office. I know dozens of Trekkies who haven’t seen Beyond yet because ID made them wary. The only reason I ended up seeing Beyond was because the Ghostbusters remake was surprisingly not-the-worst-thing-ever-made, so I gave Beyond a chance and LOVED it. But a lot of folks, even those who LIKED Into Darkness, are staying away from Beyond for fear of getting more of the same.

I don’t think you can assume those who didn’t like STID will stay or stayed away from Beyond.

For many of the international market that were watching Star Trek for the first time thanks to Paramount’s aggressive and expensive marketing campaign, they may not.

If we agree STID hurt Beyond can we lay the deaths of two Trek films at Bob’s feet? lol

@jim,

Why not?

Some people were very disappointed with STID and they were on the fence about ‘Beyond’, it’s possible that a number of them didn’t watch ‘Beyond’ because of that.

I agree that the bad taste of Into Darkness hurt Beyond. It’s such a shame because Beyond is the best of the reboot movies and feels like Star Trek while still having mainstream appeal. Poor marketing also hurt the movie IMO.

I’m not too worried about the future of Trek as we have Discovery coming up. If they want to take a break on the movies or decide they’re done with them (as I think Beyond’s performance will sadly make Paramount iffy on a fourth movie), we ended on a really good note.

I truly believe that the bad reaction to Insurrection in part is what led to the absolutely dismal boxoffice for Nemesis. Nemesis wasn’t as bad as many make it out to be. In fact I consider Insurrection the worst of that lot.

Agreed. Nemesis needed an edit and a rewrite of the ending. Insurrection needed a major overhaul or else a can of gas and a match.

Agreed. Nemesis is extremely underrated in my view. Despite the film’s problems, it struck an ideal balance of action and story. I only wish they retained many of the deleted scenes, a decision that would have benefited the film immensely.

A short insert preceded the showing I saw. It was Simon Pegg politely begging people to watch the film in a theatre (and not download it!!). I gotta believe pirates are to blame for waning box office numbers.

Aaaarrrggh! Space Pirates!

Wow this is truly sad. A relatively decent film and good reviews is falling pretty fast. I guess Trek fans really dont love these movies and they are responding with their wallets. Especially when you realize this movie will probably make about $100 million less than the first film which A. Didn’t have 3D and be 7 years of inflation and this film will make far far less than that domestically. I knew it was going to be the worse of the three in the U.S. but I still thought at least around $180+ million but its not going to be anywhere close to that. Its going to easily fall around $15 million next week, maybe more if Suicide Squad proves to be a big hit.

And for people who think the overseas numbers will save it, don’t hold your breaths. STID did a little over $200 million but I don’t suspect its going to really do all much more and people mention China a lot but that only gets the studio 25% as others have mentioned. The U.S. BO has always been the more reliable for the Trek movies so when that begins to fail the franchise is in big trouble. They could still make a fourth one but its no longer a foregone conclusion now, especially since most of the cast is now no longer contracted to make another one. Add in Anton’s sudden death maybe this is a sign they should stop at three.

STID’s earnings in China was around $25 million, so even if they double that, they’re still no where near recouping their budget.

Box office was almost 60 million from China for STID in fact, but even if it matches that, Beyond will still end up as a financial disappointment for the suits at Paramount.

Right STID did around $57 million IIRC which isn’t exactly huge so I’m not sure why people act like China is going to suddenly save this film? It may do a little better but it also may do a little worse. And the fact is since its already doing worse in places like America and U.K. I dont see the trend suddenly shooting upward there at this point.

Where are all those new trek lovers who were almost violent on here in regards to the marketing? Now it’s the studio’s fault? It might be. But lets not excuse the lousy plot.

Sorry, it was $25 million opening weekend. $57 million cume.

i love star trek beyond is one of my favorite movies ever since star trek and star trek into darkness but now there are working for the fourth star trek movie the return of the uss enterprise ncc-1701-a has revealed at the end of star trek beyond i hope the enterprise will join the new starship also call the excelsior a new consititution class starship will make a debut on the fourth star trek movie and a female villian i might say klingon i want charlotte mckinney to play the klingon captain plus ronda rousey in her star trek debut on star trek 4 love star trek trekkies forever

This movie I gave ** or ** 1/2 stars to at best. It doesn’t have enough memorable moments to have fans rushing back for repeated viewings like they did with the classic “original series” films.

This movie was written on the fly by Simon Pegg and was filmed shortly after that.

It felt like a 3rd season episode of the old series…some decent moments, but not coming close to the high marks of the series. The creativity and new ideas are empty but the cast elevates the material to a mediocre C+ rating at best.

Just out of curiousity how can Paramount and Skydance be heavily invested in marketing? There was almost nothing until about 2 weeks before the film came out?

Can we stop saying that it is Middle America only. It’s all over the country. It’s not middle America’s fault. It’s the people who made the movie be it actors, director and writers. There are Liberals and Conservatives everywhere. I bet the film didn’t do well on the coasts either.

You may be right.

STID did a lot of damage. All the goodwill from 09 was basically lost and needed to be recaptured here. A lame cookie cutter revenge driven villain and shallow plot hasn’t helped either.

I really hope they get a shot at 4. But there is no excuses here. Studio made poor decisions. And now it’s biting them.

TUP Today 6:54 pm

Yup.

And another thing that I forgot to mention below is that the paper thin plot and meaningless story of STB might be calculated to appeal more to international audiences and try to drive up the foreign grosses, as with the franchises that I mentioned (TRANSFORMERS and PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN). Paramount may have decided after the disappointing domestic performance of STID to tailor STB more to foreign audiences, which would be consistent with rejecting Orci’s script as “too Trekky.” Recall the global marketing surveys conducted after ST09, in which foreign audiences complained that ST09 was “too Trekky.” I haven’t seen STB yet, but by all accounts the filmmakers kept the extremely simple—“thin plot” and “meaningless story” are two descriptions of STB that I’ve seen recurring.

Its weird because STB had many “treky” references especially in the main meat of its plot. So it still surprises me the weird things they choose to focus on as far as canon and others they ignore. They really need a new creative team that gets it. And the best advice I would give new writers is to forget the idiotic “new timeline” crap and write a film that celebrates the original characters as if the timeline didnt change. The new timeline has been such a crutch and hurt the films.

STB was terrific. The story and acting were superb. And we finally got to see more of the Dr. McCoy that was teased in the first film. I’ve seen it 3 times (in IMAX 3D) and plan on at least two more (traditional screen and drive-in), and have pre-ordered on Amazon. My only disappointment was that Paramount didn’t give STB the same level of promotion as it did Skyfall. They threw (me, anyway) a sort of head fake by starting to promote the Rihanna song which it turns out was pointless because it had nothing to do with, nor was used in the movie. But as a stand-alone ST movie – it was among the best.

‘Star Trek Beyond’ grossed less than ST09, STID and ‘First Contact’ as well as dropping more than these three movies!

ST09 – 2nd weekend drop 42.8% Gross to date: $171,395,300

STID – 2nd weekend drop 46.9% Gross to date: $150,999,800

FC – 2nd weekend drop 42.0% Gross to date: $119,223,300

‘STB’ – 2nd weekend drop 58.2% Gross to date: $106,474,717

Adjusted for inflation via Box Office Mojo

I wonder how all the Trek films would stack up under this metric.

Well, I took my grandson to see the movie. He said he told his friendships were taken him to see the new Star Trek movie and my grandson said ” … there’s a new Star Trek movie coming out? .”

I blame it on marketing.

Regards.

New Trek series will most likely be set prior to Kirk and Spock’s era…which is great, if they can create the true sense of the new, dangerous, awe inspiring aspects of the final frontier…which Enterprise failed at miserably. We’ll see how much adventure there is, versus soap opera.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/75876

Not surprised. I suspected this would happen. Science fiction just isn’t relevant anymore at the box-office—if it ever was. As science fiction goes, so goes STAR TREK. Fantasy is king at the boxoffice. As a matter of fact, since the mid 1970s, it was always fantasy. The problem is, in the mid-seventies, the majority of producers in Hollywood made the terrible mistake of thinking STAR WARS success was because of it sci-fi elements, and because of that, we got a spat of sci-fi movies… including STAR TREK. No. It was the fantasy elements of STAR WARS all along. This didn’t become apparent until a decade or so later. Go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films and take a look at the top 50 grossing movies of all time. Forty two of the films are fantasy-type films. That’s incredible! The majority are either STAR WARS films, Pixar films, Harry Potter films, Lord of the Rings films, animated films from other studios other than Pixar, Transformer films, and Avatar. All fantasy. Now, take a look at the current trend of films in the last decade or so. Comic book movies. What are comic book movies? In essence, fantasy films, and sure enough, they make up the remainder of the films on this list. Making matters worse for TREK is Bad Robot has made two critical errors. First, they have turned TREK into a sci-fi-action franchise, combining two genres that aren’t hyper-popular in and of themselves. Second, they have not laid out a long story arc for… Read more »

Wallace Today 8:52 pm

Science fiction just isn’t relevant anymore at the box-office—if it ever was. As science fiction goes, so goes STAR TREK.

INTERSTELLAR. GRAVITY. There aren’t many sci-fi movies being made these days, but when they do get made they have a fair chance of being profitable.

Don’t forget The Martain either. It is crazy for the last three years Hollywood has made some actual hard sci fi films and they all have been extremely successful as well. They have to keep it up is there another space sci fi film coming later this year?

it always amazes me how people don’t consider The Martian science fiction.

Gary 8.5, Maybe that’s because a large percentage of the population actually thinks The Martian was based on a true story – LOL!

True but as Wallace states, the majority are still fantasy films. And how many people are even casually aware NASA has a new rocket system designed to return humans to the Moon which is due for an unmanned test launch at the end of the next year?

Neither INTERSTELLAR, GRAVITY or THE MARTIAN are in the top fifty grossing films—which was my point. And, to carry it further, if you go to Box Office Mojo, none of these three films are even in the top 200 grossing films. People around the world aren’t rushing to cinema doors to view sci-fi. They are rushing for fantasy films.

Paramount/Bad Robot would have done better with the TREK movie franchise had they laid out a three-movie story arc, with the crew engaged in some sort of fantasy-like event, situation, struggle, etc., say with a race or species caught up in a galactic or planet-size cataclysm, catastrophe, battle or upheaval. It didn’t have to be physical only. It could have incorporated political, moral, philosophical questions also. The way TREK usually tackles such issues. Any adventure that was magical, ethereal, dream-like, pipe dream dominate would have worked. I’m sort of reminded of the epic adventure on a magical, fantasy-like planet as seen in the movie AVATAR. Of course, it’s too late now. I’m not a particular fan of fantasy movies, but if that’s where the market is, then that’s where you have to go. A pity.

Wallace August 2, 2016 9:23 am

No, you said that sci-fi is no longer “relevant at the box office.” I assume by “relevant” you mean profitable.

In INTERSTELLAR, GRAVITY and THE MARTIAN, we’re talking about three recent sci-fi movies that grossed 4x, 7x and 7x their production costs, respectively. That suggests profit on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars, which I’d say is relevant, regardless of comparisons to movies that grossed even more. Every, single movie can’t make STAR WARS money. I don’t think that studios are thinking that they should pass up opportunities to earn hundreds of millions, if favor of waiting for an opportunity to earn a $billion or more. Hundreds of $millions is still good money.

Cygnus-X1,

Re:relevant

Well, thank God that it’s still relevant over at CBS [all caps my emphasis in the following quote]:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3992999-cbs-corporations-cbs-ceo-leslie-moonves-q2-2016-results-earnings-call-transcript

“As a result, Star Trek: Discovery, our new series, is PROFITABLE and we haven’t even begun production, and we still have additional windows to sell the show in second and third cycles down the road. It’s also safe to say that Star Trek will lead to a significant bump in subscribers for CBS All Access here in the U.S. ” — Les Moonves CBS CEO, ‘CBS Corporation’s (CBS) CEO Leslie Moonves on Q2 2016 Results – Earnings Call Transcript’, Jul.28.16

I was discussing films, not television. But now that you bring it up, will STD be relevant, creatively? In my opinion, it’s already disappointing seeing that they are once again retreading another ship-based series in an expansive fictional universe where they could have conceptually gone in any direction and come up with something original. Plus, why even go this route when the last two ship-bound series were failures? Priceless.

Come in. If you read the entire post, I was clearly stating relevant at the box office in comparison to fantasy films.

This film is disappointing at the box office for two major reasons. 1/ It wasn’t a very good film…It was directed by the director of the Fast and the Furious and it shows. When I heard the reports that the studio wanted a film that was “less Star Trekkie and more Guardians of the Galaxy” I knew this film was in trouble…Granted there are some very nice character moments, but the non stop/nearly incoherent action in this film, combined with a weak/underwritten villain makes for a pretty mediocre film…I don’t why people say it’s just like a TOS episode. It’s far from it. In fact it’s just another big, loud, dumb summer movie…I expect more from Star Trek. 2/ The marketing campaign on this film was very poor, form the incredibly bad first trailer (turned a lot of people off) to the complete lack of buzz that the studio failed to generate for this film. Compare the marketing campaign of ST: Beyond to that of The Force Awakens or even Star Trek 09…It was as if the studio didn’t think this film was very good and didn’t want to spend money on a film they thought was a dud. Another way they dropped the ball was the total lack of celebration for the 50th Anniversary of this iconic franchise. Why didn’t they pull out all the stops in the same manner that 007 franchise celebrated Bond’s 50th Anniversary with Skyfall? You couldn’t go anywhere w/out seeing some type of tie… Read more »

VOODOO Today 9:13 pm

Well said.

And what ever happened to having TOS Kirk and TOS Spock worked into the story somehow? Do you remember when the production leaked that they were going to have those two classic characters digitally imposed and worked into the story somehow? I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I haven’t seen anybody talking about TOS Kirk & Spock being worked into the story.

That was in the old Orci script. Werent you here for any of that? It was rumored in his script it was going to have Prime Kirk and Spock but his story line got the boot and they went a completely different way with Peggs script. In fact one of the rumors that got out why Orci story was dropped was because Paramount was against having Shatner in the story and wanted it change. Now how much thats true you’ll have to ask Orci since NONE of this has ever been confirmed but yes based on rumors thats how it went down.

There were rumours of using archival footage etc. Im curious if there was any basis for any of it or if it was wild speculation. its possible it was an idea that morphed into what we got.

But the lack of Shatner is one of the greatest mistakes and thats the only reason I’d have a remote smile about the film under-performing. 50th Anniversary, the original Captain *wants* to be in it and you snub him…well, you reap what you sow.

TUP August 2, 2016 6:48 am

It is pretty amazing that they didn’t do something spectacular to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the franchise. Was there anything at all in STB to that effect?

Tiger August 2, 2016 12:47 am

Ah, right. Thank you for the memory jog. It’s been a long time…

Gettin’ from there to here…

Beginning to wonder if it was more of a CBS decision not to market Beyond. It sounds as if they do quite well selling TOS t shirts, mugs, etc. Any cross marketing with the Kelvin timeline would probably confuse consumers and push sales south. Then there are statements from the head of CBS promoting the 2017 series. Beyond never received that kind of support, especially so far in advance of its’ release, And $100 million spent on marketing? In the last 2 weeks before release? Where did that money go? Beyond was a very good film and Pegg and Lin deserve credit. Having spent $185 million making the film it is difficult to imagine marketing incompetence so extreme as to totally botch capitalizing on the 50th anniversary. It’s very possible they want the Kelvin timeline out of the way so they can focus on marketing Discovery. As we recently learned, that series is already profitable.

@Merchant of Vulcan,

“Beginning to wonder if it was more of a CBS decision not to market Beyond.”

Dude, CBS has nothing to do with ‘Beyond’. How many times do I need to say this, why the hell are you blaming CBS for something they didn’t produce?

@Ahmed
Thanks for trying to straighten me out. But I do think that Paramount is owned by CBS, so what they say is probably setting the rules.

@Merchant of Vulcan,

Viacom owns Paramount, not CBS. Both Viacom and CBS are owned by Sumner Redstone’s company National Amusements.

Isn’t it true that Beyond was produced under license from CBS television?

I wonder how much Paramount’s punishing guidelines for fan films are hurting Beyond.

I think the script and plot of Beyond is the best of the three recent films, but it still isn’t great and the directing was tepid.

I think Paramount should have opened up fan films and asked for royalties, but I realize that is a novel and scary idea.

I am not so pessimistic about this. It was predicted to come in 3rd for the weekend, and it came in second to Bourne. Overall, there hasn’t been so much money even made at the movies this year – with the exception of BvS and Civil War. Beyond sort of snuck in at the end of the summer, a lot of people on vacation (at least they are where I am) — and kids aren’t in school with the word of mouth. It comes on the heels of Into Darkness which while it made a bunch of money, it had a lot of flaws. People didn’t expect a great movie here, and then the commercials, if they even saw them, were awful. If this movie doesn’t make it at release (and I would bet that it will still exceed $250m+ worldwide) – there will be a lot made on the video release later. When it is seen there, and on HBO, it will help the 4th. I am still shocked at the awful teaser. And then in the trailer, it pushes the fast and furious director…. nothing wrong with those films, I guess, but you don’t promote a Trek movie with that. Then the trailer was what, 4 weeks out? A great trailer, that probably didn’t show the Enterprise being hit so hard (which has happened in the last two movies) a great trailer, showing the interaction of the characters and Jaylah, should have been with Star Wars and with… Read more »

I agree and if it can stay at Number 2 until Suicide Squad gets here, so much the better.
Fingers Crossed.

Dang straight – the initial Beastie Boys trailer wasn’t very good, but I still say this is the best of the three reboot movies.

What the article doesn’t say is that Star Trek Beyond still has major launched planned for other countries, including lots of Europe in August, and September 2nd for China:

IMDB: Slovenia 4 August 2016
Switzerland 11 August 2016 (Italian speaking region)
Belgium 17 August 2016
Switzerland 17 August 2016 (French speaking region)
France 17 August 2016
Czech Republic 18 August 2016
South Korea 18 August 2016
Spain 19 August 2016
Norway 19 August 2016
South Africa 19 August 2016
Israel 25 August 2016
Portugal 25 August 2016
Turkey 26 August 2016
Venezuela 26 August 2016
Argentina 1 September 2016
Brazil 1 September 2016
Chile 1 September 2016
Colombia 1 September 2016
Panama 1 September 2016
Peru 1 September 2016
China 2 September 2016
Mexico 2 September 2016
Japan 21 October 2016

And most of those countries are relatively minor in terms of totla income. Possibly China and Japan as high income earners, but don’t think Beyond will surpass Into Darkness.

The ONLY countries you listed where Star Trek has made more than $5 million is Japan, Mexico, China, South Korea and France. And out of those only the Asian countries has done over $10 million and STID just barely did that in Korea and Japan. So yeah basically China is really the last true big market left to open. It will probably make more than all those markets combined but thats not really hard since they average about $3 million a piece. Majority of them is easily less than $1 million in its entire run.

I HOPE that a fourth one will be made on a smaller budget. That would mean that a fourth one will happen at all, which is all but guaranteed at this point. The pre-release announcement was just a marketing gimmick, nothing more, nothing less…

STB was the best of the three Kelvin timeline event movies and I’d hate to see it all gone now. STB needs to make $150+ domestically now and needs a HUGE boost from China to make a tiny little profit… Star Trek movies should be made for $120 million or less to avoid any risks…

Are people not watching movies? I don’t blame this on Trek. I see many films this year just flunk in sales when I’d assume them to be higher.

That awful first trailer is the culprit IMO. It was shown often and for a long time. I saw it in front of Star Wars, 10 Cloverfield Lane, and even Independence Day: Resurgence. I’m thinking it drove away the finicky casual audience.

@ Shane – yeah, first impressions count, and that first ‘Beastie Boys’ trailer prompted a lot of negative reaction unfortunately. I wish everyone’s initial look at the movie had been the excellent second trailer instead.

Star Trek just isn’t a big movie franchise. They should make the movies on a 100 to 125 million budget. That proably means less focus on action and CGI and more on story and characters, so the movies will only get better as a result. With a 100 to 125 million budget, Beyond would now already be considered a success.

While I enjoyed the 3rd Star Trek film better than the 2nd, CBS Paramount Viacom earned negative opinions; which I think had a bad impact before Star Trek Beyond was even released into theatres –

2nd Film – lying to your fan base about plot and character, then apologizing when a sloppy “my bad” doesn’t solve it (you lost the trust of Trekers)

Attacking fan-made Star Trek media, then dictating how future fan-made media must strictly comply for legal reasons, not even JJ Abram,s or Justin Lin, could assure Trekers that everything will be ok (you lost the trust of Trekers, you pissed off Trekers enough to lose support of the 3rd Film)

Star Trek Discovery gets Netflix deal worldwide, except for North Ameroca, where our only ‘legal’ choice is CBS On Demand (you lost the trust of Trekers, you pissed off Trekers to lose support of the 3rd Film, now you’ve alienated Trekers into wanting to boycott and torrent media vs investing in it)

Conclusion = don’t f’ with your fan-base! don’t piss off your fan-base! don’t alienate your fan-base! don’t expect blockbuster profits with such bad p.r.!

It all goes down to the proper marketing of the movie.

The original trailer was terrible pure and simple.

There was ZERO reference of the 50th anniversary of Star Trek anywhere in the trailers nor the marketing of the film.

Paramount did not even start to market the movie until two months before the movie.

How do they expect to compete against the likes of Star Wars without proper marketing and direction of the series?

The reason Star Wars is so successful is because Disney owns ALL OF IT. They have put Star Wars everywhere in everything, and with hundreds if not thousands of product tie-ins.

CBS in many ways is competing against Paramount with the TV vs Movies split of the property. Remember J.J. saying why he left directing Star Trek? Because he couldn’t get control of the property and guide it the way it needed to.

This is what has killed Star Trek.

I predict we will not see another Star Trek movie until the 60th anniversary. My prediction is they will try and reboot the “rebooted” series again with this cast but older. By that point they will all be in their 40’s and 50’s, and I could see them throwing on the Kahn “red” uniforms and playing the older crew style of movie.

That is if we are lucky.

R.I.P. Star Trek.

In Their Defence, how could they Market the 50th Anniversary when they are a seperate universe only existing in Trek for 10 years?

About time ! They never should have started with crew with a movie, They should have been a weekly TV series with this crew, then after 7 years make a bunch of big movies. they really screwed this up, I watched BEYOND 2 times, and I still don’t like it. it was lack luster, the whole thing felt off it was like. You know when you watch a really good movie, then you hear someone bash the hell out of it , because they don’t get it. Well that’s what this reboot felt like. They just didn’t get the new crew, new ship, new timeline / universe thingy.. they really made a mess of this whole thing. and now they are making Star Trek Discovery, that will also bomb. RIP Star Trek you will forever live on in my memories.

LOL! First you say they should make a new TV series and now that they do, you say that will also bomb.

Uh yeah dude your logic is all over the place. You got on their case for not making it a TV show before having it a film. And now you basically saying Discovery will bomb which is doing what you said they shouldve done with this crew. No offense but this is why its really hard to please some Star Trek fans.

Our main City Cinema Cineworld in Glasgow, Scotland still doesn’t have any STB posters up outside the cinema as of yesterday?? We went to see the film on the 22nd July at that cinema and passed the cinema again yesterday – that isn’t helping much! They seem to be pushing the BFG instead!

Its a great movie & does not deserve the box office reception but right now unless your a comic book you struggle for box office. Paramount marketing machine should be fired as well. The December trailer before Force Awakens was a HUGE misjudgement & that alone hurt the advance publicity massively. Beastie Boys song being so prominent does not exactly help a 23rd century sci-fi movie either!

The film was too episodic, there’s no real plot and Krall was underdeveloped. A weak film, with weak results. I much preferred ST09 and STID. Good FX and some great character moments in amongst the action though. Bring back JJ.

@ James,

No get rid of Bad Robot all together. They screwed ST right to the wall.

I can only go see it so many times a week!

Wow I just realized if they stop making these movies and since its now confirmed the new show will take place in the prime universe, does that mean the Kelvin TImeline will just be over? I mean will they ever go back to it again and if they don’t do Kirk and Spock again then what would be the purpose?

I thought when the new show could actually be in this universe it would basically start to fill in this universe better. Now that its not these films will kind of be an outlier in a way. I’m not saying they wont be canon, they just won’t really matter to the bigger picture because they won’t have any real effect to anything going forward now…except Romulus being destroyed. Ok….one thing lol.

BTW, I realy cant wait to see when we hear the new show takes place in. I’m so curious if its post 24th century how will they use the destruction of Romulus? It could even be a big story line going forward.

wpDiscuz