Star Trek Sin Límites, as Star Trek Beyond is known in Spanish, premiered in Mexico earlier this month. Stars Simon Pegg and Zoe Saldana were on hand to talk about the new film and answer questions from the press. TrekMovie was there and brings you this report in photos.
We got an early press screening and even got to wear these cool glasses
The lobby was decorated with Star Trek displays
Stars Simon Pegg and Zoe Saldana pose for photos
Simon and Zoe take questions from the press
The press set up for the Red Carpet
Star Trek Sin Límites is in theaters now in Mexico!
Looks like fun. The Enterprise seen from above in the new artwork is fantastic.
Too bad Mexico only opened with only $1,430,472, compared to STID which made $2,605,466.
The box office currently stands at $320,207,251, and is unlikely to make it to $350 million. The total budget is around $305 million including $120 million marketing budget. Paramount only keeps about half of that.
Not sure where those figures come from, but keep in mind that Beyond is part of a franchise (a multi-platform franchise, actually, not just a film fanchise). As such, box office returns are just the icing of the cake (especially when you have two or three financing partners, it doesn’t really hurt them much. The only question is: will they be able to convince those partners to keep pouring in money for the next installment, as those guys probably don’t make money from any anxiliary stuff like merch.).
Considering it’s production history and the fact that it was rushed to cinemas, I am suprised the movie turned out as good as it did, both in terms of quality and numbers (which is a credit to both Lin and Pegg, who obviously know how to get shit done on a tight schedule). A number of factors adds to the under-performing of Beyond: the July release date didn’t work. Trek is not a late-summer tentpole. The May opening probably would have been far better, as it was in the past (or back to Christmas). Also, Paramount’s marketing is historically awful, not just for Trek. We discussed that in detail. The missing millions could simply be the lack of Cumberbatch-like A-List guest cast (which they had, but nobody knew because it was a spoilery part of the final twist. But then they they did it anyway, on facebook, two weeks before the release, which shows you just how headless their marketing really is).
As with their other franchises, Paramount really doesn’t seem to have a coherent strategy for the franchise, nor do they have any idea of how to milk the property. There really seems to be a sense of “we don’t know how to handle this, so we just make a new one every couple of years”. In that regard, I’m not certain whether anyone at Paramount really has any clue of how to read the numbers anyway. :)
@Alex,
“but keep in mind that Beyond is part of a franchise (a multi-platform franchise, actually, not just a film fanchise).”
That was true pre 2006 but not anymore. Paramount controls only the movie franchise while CBS control everything else, so your statement is not accurate.
“As such, box office returns are just the icing of the cake (especially when you have two or three financing partners, it doesn’t really hurt them much.”
Wishful thinking? Perhaps you should read on the subject before making baseless comments, here is one to give you an idea of what’s happening.
———————————————
Viacom’s Boardroom Battle May Be Over but Star Trek Could Add to Paramount Woes
Aug 19, 2016
The studio, which some analysts said could fetch as much as $5 billion, is having one of the worst summers in recent Hollywood history and could lose as much as $560 million through 2017, according to one analyst….
The biggest disappointment for investors, however, is Paramount’s apparent inability to send its flagship Star Trek movie franchise into warp drive. The studio spent $185 million to make the latest installment, Star Trek Beyond, which stars Chris Pine as a younger Captain Kirk, and another $120 million to market it.
Released on July 22, the movie has so far generated $142 million in domestic ticket sales, according to movie site Box Office Mojo, 60% less than the 2013 installment, Star Trek Into Darkness, despite the benefit of higher ticket prices three years later.
Read the full article here:
https://www.thestreet.com/story/13679963/2/viacom-s-boardroom-battle-may-be-over-but-star-trek-could-add-to-paramount-woes.html
“but keep in mind that Beyond is part of a franchise (a multi-platform franchise, actually, not just a film fanchise).” Actually it is true. Regardless of the fact that its owned by two different corporations, its still a multi platform franchise. Movies, TV, video games, novels, comics, etc. That is multi platform, not by same corporations, but multi platform none the less.
Ahmed….jeeze..what Alex said is all very apt and correct. Your link to Viacom only proves Alex’s point, Alex’s quote “There really seems to be a sense of “we don’t know how to handle this, so we just make a new one every couple of years”. In that regard, I’m not certain whether anyone at Paramount really has any clue of how to read the numbers anyway. :)” Didn’t Alex just state what you posted about Viacom?
Its like you’re only focusing on one aspect of what Alex was talking about lol.
This really pisses me off “The biggest disappointment for investors, however, is Paramount’s apparent inability to send its flagship Star Trek movie franchise into warp drive. The studio spent $185 million to make the latest installment, Star Trek Beyond, which stars Chris Pine as a younger Captain Kirk, and another $120 million to market it.”
Yes the executives have to answer to the board and the board has the final say i.e. they can oust an executive but until then, the execs still run the show, and just like Les Moonves of CBS, Brad Grey of Paramount has no idea what Star Trek is. Oh Mooves can say its the family jewel all he wants, but if he doesn’t like it, he wont get it. Paramount wanted to make their own Guardians of the Galaxy. Star Trek is its own damn template, don’t try to make it like other things or it will fail, and Beyond (regardless of how much we fans like it) is a failure. I wish executives would realize Star Trek trek is its own thing, hell its literally about charting its own course…so do that!
Frack the current style and fads that current movies are doing. Paramount, CBS…don’t make Star Trek like anything else except itself.
All I can do is hope that people like Fuller, Meyer, Roddenberry will rekindle the essence of Star Trek with Discovery, something that has been missing for a long time. And even Kurtzman’s words (giving him the benefit of the doubt) about what Star Trek is hope, optimism, exploration, the unknown, exploring humanity will shine through in Discovery.
Word is that Shari Redstone has already expressed interest in reuniting Viacom with CBS which would result in reuniting all of Star Trek’s assets. The financial windfall that was expected by splitting National Amusement’s media assets into two separate entities never materialized and placing Paramount Pictures under Viacom resulted in unintended consequences.
If Viacom and CBS are combined to once again form a single entity it’s unlikely that Star Trek will ever be separated again.
Excellent points, so apt. Its not just the box office money, its the blu-rays, digital downloads, and DVD’s, and all the merchandise that goes with it.
I remember when Star Trek was just a Paramount production. Now its Paramount, BadRobot, Skydance, Alibaba, Huahua, Sneaky Shark, and Perfect Storm…SEVEN production companies as opposed to just one back in the day.
I too was surprised at how good it was considering it was rushed. Lin, Pegg, and Jung know how to deliver.
Paramount marketing was garbage, too little too late, I do not understand the reasoning and logic behind it, like who gave the ok for it? Again take a page from Disney and how they market Star Wars. Also, there is the argument Paramount and CBS did not do enough for the 50th anniversary and I agree. In 11 years lets see how bombastic the 50th anniversary of Star Wars will be. I already know it will put Trek’s 50th to same, and shame on Paramount and CBS for that. I don’t care that Disney has more money, its not about that. One can still make a grand anniversary on a budget.
“we don’t know how to handle this, so we just make a new one every couple of years” I completely agree, and that is the problem, neither the executives at Paramount or CBS know what the frack to do with Star Trek. The suits don’t get it, they don’t understand it and they’re not fans. The last Paramount exec who was a fan was back in the TNG days if I recall. Current execs like Les Moonves canceled Enterprise and had issues with Bakula dating back to Quantum Leap days, and we leave Star Trek in the hands of these bias suit monkeys who get paid WAAAY too much. Brad Grey of Paramount does not get Star Trek. Its bad enough Star Trek is split between two corporations but that we have apathetic people in charge of our beloved franchise is so fracking pathetic and depressing. I really with the Roddenberry family still owned the franchise, such a shame Gene had to sell it.
Yea, I don’t understand how STID made so much. I am assuming that because of the success of the 2009 movie and how good it was, people expected the same from STID. I could tell from the trailers alone, no, its not going to be as good as 2009, yet people kept going. I also do not know how word of mouth did not hinder attendance for STID. Beyond is leaps and bounds better yet its struggling. It has to be the sheep effect. Average Joe thinks, “oh 2009 was really good, STID must be better.” “STID was terrible, Beyond must be terrible.”
(As of Sept.18 for STB)
Worldwide: STB $333,153,686 In 59 days worldwide
ST 2009 $385,680,446 in 147 days worldwide
STID $$467,381,469 in 120 days worldwide
@Judy … you need to compare Apples to Apples:
STB @ 59 days: $333,153,686 — BUDGET $185 million
ST @ 59 days: $375,036,118 — BUDGET $150 million
STID @ 59 days $444,960,833 — BUDGET $190 million
In order for STB to be on track to recouping its budget, it should be at the same place STID was at day 59. If STB’s budget had only been $150 million, as it was supposed to be, then this box office wouldn’t be so bad. Unfortunately, they went grossly over budget and the film is underperforming.
Add to that the first two films were said to have had a $100 million marketing budget, and STB had a $120 million budget.
^ actually Star Trek Beyond is at 333 Million as of 9/18…and has yet to be released in Japan, where it could gross as much as 15 million…so It could knock on the door of 350 million…Star Trek (2009), Into Darkness (2013), and Beyond (2016) have made a combined 1.19 Billion dollars (and counting)…or an average profit of 396 million dollars, on an average budget of 173 million…that makes it the most successful Star Trek trilogy ever, and a profitable movie trilogy.
I mean, it’s way better than crap like ‘Insurrection’ or ‘Nemesis’
@Drew Adams,
“and has yet to be released in Japan, where it could gross as much as 15 million…”
Oh yeah, there is always that one more territory where ‘Beyond’ could break out in a major way, right? First it was South Korea, when that didn’t work, it was Latin America and then China where some predicted that it will make over $150 million there. And in all of those territories ‘Beyond’ followed the same trend, making less than STID in almost all of them and dropping so fast in its following weeks. And even in China, it made just a little more after releasing in double the theaters with higher tickets and no competition for two weeks.
“that makes it the most successful Star Trek trilogy ever, and a profitable movie trilogy.”
Well, not sure about the profit part but it sure was the most expensive Trek trilogy ever. And I guess Paramount disagree with you since they weren’t so happy with STID box office number and were expecting ‘Beyond’ to make at least $1 billion!
———————————————
Simon Pegg: “Avengers, which is a pretty nerdy, comic-book, supposedly niche thing, made $1.5bn dollars. Star Trek: Into Darkness made half a billion, which is still brilliant. “But it means that, according to the studio, there’s still $1bn worth of box office that don’t go and see Star Trek. And they want to know why.”
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/may/19/simon-pegg-criticises-dumbing-down-of-cinema
Ahmed, I invite you to actually start READING what I wrote before you start trolling…I’m sure that’s tough for you, but you’ll pull through somehow.
“Oh yeah, there is always that one more territory where ‘Beyond’ could break out in a major way, right? ”
no, I believe I said specifically that it could gross as much as 15 million (Into Darkness made 11 million in Japan)
“making less than STID”
show me where I said it would…making more than Into Darkness wasn’t the point of Beyond…if it was, it would/should have had a bigger budget than Into Darkness (190 million)…Star Trek, Into Darkness, and Beyond are all on the same team, lol…
“Well, not sure about the profit”
I, however, am…the average sales from this trilogy is 396 million per movie, on an average budget of 173 million…that’s an average profit of 223 million per movie…no Trek trilogy comes close to that…it’s why yet another one has already been green-lit.
simple math, Ahmed…
@Drew Adams,
“making more than Into Darkness wasn’t the point of Beyond…if it was, it would/should have had a bigger budget than Into Darkness (190 million)”
And ‘Beyond’ had bigger marketing budget so it actually cost more than STID.
Do you think that Paramount spent $305 million on ‘Beyond’ ($185 million production budget + $120 million marketing & distribution budget) and expect the movie to make even less than STID?
And I guess that you didn’t read the quote in my post, you know the one from Pegg talking about Paramount’s wishes for a $1 billion profit?
And these movies aren’t bringing in as much profit as you seem to think, you want link? Go and read THR article:
“Paramount argued that the J.J. Abrams-directed 2009 movie, while well-received, was not a huge blockbuster, grossing $385.7 million (a relative pittance compared to Paramount’s billion-dollar Transformers series or even its Mission: Impossible movies).”
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-trek-3-stars-raises-805204
“it’s why yet another one has already been green-lit.”
Sequels have been greenlit before and never saw the light of day. Terminator: Genisys sequels, Fantastic Four 2015, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 sequels and many other announced sequels.
You keep asking for links, well the figures for the budget and the marketing are available from the trades as well as the one in my response to Alex.
@Drew Adams,
And about that “green-lit” sequel, it’s not happening in a vacuum it will depend on ‘Beyond’ box office numbers. You want a link? Here is what Abrams said about it back in July.
———————————
Speaking to EW at the premiere of Star Trek Beyond at San Diego Comic-Con on Wednesday night, Abrams said the story for the franchise’s fourth feature is his “favorite Star Trek story that we’ve had.”
“So one of the reasons that I’m hoping [Star Trek Beyond] does well is so that we can, without question, get that movie made,” Abrams added.
http://www.ew.com/article/2016/07/21/star-trek-4-jj-abrams-comments-sequel
“$120 million marketing & distribution budget”
link?
nm…I found it
@Drew Adams,
Here is the link from my response to Alex in this very thread as I just mentioned in my reply!
————————————————–
Viacom’s Boardroom Battle May Be Over but Star Trek Could Add to Paramount Woes – Aug 19, 2016
The biggest disappointment for investors, however, is Paramount’s apparent inability to send its flagship Star Trek movie franchise into warp drive. The studio spent $185 million to make the latest installment, Star Trek Beyond, which stars Chris Pine as a younger Captain Kirk, and another $120 million to market it.
Released on July 22, the movie has so far generated $142 million in domestic ticket sales, according to movie site Box Office Mojo, 60% less than the 2013 installment, Star Trek Into Darkness, despite the benefit of higher ticket prices three years later.
https://www.thestreet.com/story/13679963/2/viacom-s-boardroom-battle-may-be-over-but-star-trek-could-add-to-paramount-woes.html
The author of the article is Ronald Grover, he “covers the media industry and is the former Reuters and BusinessWeek Bureau Chief in Los Angeles.” and it noted that “At the time of publication, the author held a position in Viacom.”
@Drew Adams, It’s going to earn at least another $12 million worldwide without Japan based on previous film’s performance, but I wouldn’t expect Japan to do as well as STID, based on the film grossly underperforming in every territory, except China, where it had more theaters, larger audiences, and a Chinese distributor who kept 75% of the box office (they even had their own theme song). Add to that the home video might come out before the film opens in Japan, and that would almost guarantee a lower box office, so maybe another $5 million in that case.
Also consider that while this trilogy has made a combined 1.19 Billion, Paramount only earned about half that, or $595 million. And, out of that amount, Paramount has to recoup the budget and marketing costs, which add up to $525 million without the marketing costs, which we know to be around $320 million. So despite being the most profitable Trek trilogy to date, it’s about $250 million in the red before home video. Home video will likely put the trilogy into the black, but just barely.
So when it’s all said and done, Bad Robot overspent and underperformed. And now Paramount is struggling to earn every penny it can from home video and TV sales to even break even, much less earn record breaking profits. And the fact that Abrams screwed the pooch on merchandising, means Paramount has very few other sources of income on this trilogy.
“without the marketing costs, which we know to be around $320 million.”
I’d love to see proof of that…link please.
Considering what I am hearing in the forums (fan forums) about the film being a box office bomb and what not….
Simon Pegg doesn’t seem too bothered, what smiling and all lol. Seriously. I think this film is performing as well as they probably expected it to do. In the end. This film is going to do just enough I think for it to spawn at least one more sequel.
@DataMat,
“Simon Pegg doesn’t seem too bothered, what smiling and all lol. Seriously. I think this film is performing as well as they probably expected it to do.”
Yeah, I don’t see the Ben Affleck sad look, so everything must be going GREAT! /s
http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article7633233.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Ben-Affleck-in-Batman-V-Superman-interview.jpg
It hasn’t ‘bombed’ as you say (for definition of ‘bombing’ see Ben Hur). But it’s fair to say it has disappointed at the box office in relation to its costs. The box office casts some doubt about the Star Trek franchise as a major summer tentpole, but there’s hope.
While it’s a shame Beyond didn’t do better (I personally enjoyed the film) every cloud has a silver lining – perhaps Paramount will learn you don’t need to throw a $185 million budget (plus whatever else in promotion) at the next film, just do it cheaper and perhaps with fewer of the expensive and sometimes unnecessary action sequences. The budget does seem a misjudgment by the suits at Paramount – heck it was more expensive than many of the summer movies, including the likes of X-Men (when has Trek ever grossed more than the X-Men wordwide?).
Talking of misjudgments, Paramount might have helped themselves by not ‘burying’ the fact that it was Star Trek’s 50th anniversary when they were promoting it. It’s almost as if they were embarrassed by the fact and didn’t want the ‘geek’ connections putting a ‘mainstream’ audience off. You reap what you sow, Paramount …
You think the film is doing as well as expected. That implies the studio expected to have a flop and lose a considerable amount of money. I’m not sure a studio would do that and then be all smiles about it
It’s not Peggs money and some comments he’s made likely suggest if he was to assign blame he’s assign it to marketing. I’m sure he’s happy with the film he wrote and the big cheque he cashed.
I thought you said they answered questions? I hope one of the questions and answers wa sa release date for the DVD/Blu-Ray/Digital of the movie! Yeah I know, fat chance, but one can dream!
Amazon and other sites updated the release date to November 1 a few days ago, which seems reliable.
Yeah that seems a lot more reliable than the September 23rd release date that we were being told just weeks ago.
Star Trek has failed at the box office before and the studio eventually made another movie.
Remember the franchises true stink bomb Star Trek Nemesis.
$67 million at the global box office, off the back of a $60 million budget.
That didn’t kill the franchise, just TNG films. Which was OK with me since that series was dried up after the TV series ended. On screen death throws only produced one marginally good film.
It’s unlikely the Kevin timeline will end any time soon.
Two more films will likely be made.
Glad to see that I am not the only one thinking this way.
July 22nd was a tough release date. Many families go on vacation on last time before school starts.
Star Trek Discovery will do very well… I think. It allows for binge watching which the Millennials love to do…
@WhatWouldKahnDo – How does it allow binge-watching, homeboy? It’s going to be released weekly, not all at once. And it’s spelled: KHAN!
@I Khan Believe It An\\\’t Butter,
“It’s unlikely the Kevin timeline will end any time soon. Two more films will likely be made.”
Paramount of the alternate universe, where ‘Beyond’ grossed over $1 billion, will make two more movies for sure, but in the real world they will scrape the whole thing and start afresh.
You just made an agument against more Kelvin timeline movies!
After Nemesis bombed, it took them so long to make the next
Movie CBS almost took the rights back. And when they did it wasn’t with Berman, it was with somebody brand new. Hate to break it to you, but this film isn’t doing much better than Nemesis relative to ROI, and Bad Robot is likely out for good, especially if things play out at Viacom and Paramount as I expect.
Yup. BR is done with Trek movies. Thank God.
Curious cadet,
Re: CBS almost took the rights back.
Les is even telegraphing that the “Kevin” timeline will be delayed in CBS’ new James sitcom titled, KEVIN CAN WAIT. :-))
In keeping with the franchise repitition, the 4th movie should have whales in it.
STB made around $13 million for a worldwide total of about $333,153,686. If it follows the same trajectory as STID at this point, it will make around another $12 million, not including Japan, which could add $5-10 million to the box office based on performance of the last two movies, then again Blue-Ray comes out around the same time and could reduce the box office. So STB is likely to finish around $350 million as predicted.
STB cost $185 million to produce, and it cost $120 million to market, for a total of $305 million. If the box office closes at $350 million, Paramount and its investors will have earned only about $175 million (possibly even less since China kept about 75% of its box office), which means the movie will have lost around $130 million at the box office. Home video might account for another $100 million based on STID sales, leaving this film at quite a deficit of $30 million.
To put that into perspective, NEM had a budget of $60 million, and earned $67.3 million at the box office. That’s about the same ratio of ROI, essentially $115% of budget. INS had a budget of $70 million and earned $118 million at the box office. That’s about 170% of budget! And keep in mind, Paramount was the ONLY production company putting up money to make those films, so all of the profit it made, it kept. STB has 7 production companies — all of which get a piece of the profits it makes after the debt has been paid off.
Yes STB will eventually make its money back, just as every Trek film has, but STID reportedly lost money, and now STB has lost a lot of money. That’s two successive films which lost money for the studio on a very expensive franchise in decline. Considering the current studio financial and political situation, and considering the STB budget ballooned from a $150 to $185 million, it’s clear Bad Robot would be a bad investment to make another Trek film, rather than try to produce another lower budget film with less of what audiences have come to expect, for a franchise with evidently waning audience interest.
@Curious Cadet,
“Home video might account for another $100 million based on STID sales”
I don’t think ‘Beyond’ will make $100 million on the home videos. The physical disk sales has been in decline for some time now & the Kelvin movies are declining even more rapidly.
ST09 Total Domestic Video Sales (DVD + Blu-ray) $198 million
STID Total Domestic Video Sales (DVD + Blu-ray) $84 million
Source: the-numbers.com
Also the amount of fees that a studio will get from selling television rights & streaming depends on the movie’s performance at the box office. The bigger the hit, the more the studio will get.
Home video is not limited to DVD & Blu-Ray sales. I’m including iTunes, and Amazon in that. iTunes has STB available for pre-order now, and I wanted to watch MI: ROGUE NATION this weekend, but discovered I could only buy it for $20, which I wasn’t going to do. Hard to believe a film that’s been out for well over a year can only be purchased. Might be an interesting strategy Paramount has during these difficult financial times.
If anything, I expect STB to do as well as, or better than STID, whether disks or digital purchases, based strictly on comments people have made here. Obviously many people weren’t compelled to see it in the theater, but have expressed interest in seeing it when it becomes available on video. If the video is the same price as a single adult movie ticket, then I can see it being very successful in home video.
Star Trek is likely to always have decent selling price for TV merely because it’s part of a franchise with several other films available in the franchise, though due to limited and fragmented audiences it’s going to be less than in the past, regardless of how well the film does. Ultimately, it’s not really going to be a game changer for this film’s ROI. Neither is home video for that matter, but I do expect it to do very well. And there is a cost to marketing and distributing the product which will also reduce any profits they hope to make.
@Curious Cadet,
Too bad that Netflix is restricting VPN, otherwise you could watch ‘Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation’ on Netflix Canada. And I would be able to finish watching the second season of ‘Les Revenants’ on Netflix US!
I think with disc & digital, Trek is something that can be repeatedly monetized again and again. But in the near term, it likely wont make STB a success. Perhaps it makes the studio re-think the vision and go with a lower budget and less expensive production company and hope for “good” box office that at least breaks even while making profits on the spin off stuff.
The problem, and correct me if Im wrong, but with a franchise, so much of the spin off stuff is controlled by CBS, so Paramount is really not getting the full benefit of same. Star Trek needs to be re-joined.
That decline in cd sales from 09 to STID is shocking.
@TUP,
I wonder why? /S
Well you say that sarcastically, but seriously, the media landscape change significantly between 2009 and 2013 when STID came out. Blu-Ray and DVD have been in serious decline since 2010. So that accounts for at least some of it, as I don’t believe those reported numbers include digital online media purchases, or rentals.
If anything, they could drop the budget back down to 100-150million. 09 was made for 150 and it turned out quite well.
They did drop the budget back to $150 for STB. They moved it to Vancouver to save money too. But Abrams and Bad Robot failed to keep costs under control and the budget shot up to $185 million. That’s another huge reason why BR likely won’t be back to produce another Trek film, even if they can figure out how to make it with the studio in financial straits.
Oh I didn’t realize the budget increased. I thought they only had it at 190. Where is your source for this information as I would like to read more into it
@Cadet – i was just going to ask, because I see it everywhere that STB cost $180mm. The studio rolled back the budget and BR increased it??
Wasnt their a story about an audit after STID too and the studio was not happy with some of the accounting at Bad Robot, specifically how much they were taking for a production fee?
@tup @cadet
IIRC, one of the primary reasons for the ballooning of budget was negotiating for the actor’s wages. Which demonstrates why this “they’ll just cut the budget” stance for the hypothetical 4th film doesn’t hold water.
@Communicator,
The actors signed ST09 contracts in 2007 with options for two sequels. But then Bad Robot took a long time to make the movies that by 2014 the contracts were voided according to California law. Here is the article from THR about the contract negotiations that took place last year.
——————————————————
‘Star Trek 3’ Stars Score Big Raises as Kirk and Spock Sign for Fourth Movie
June 26, 2015
Sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that Paramount and producer-financier Skydance Entertainment recently completed last-minute renegotiations with the Star Trek stars, a move that has added as much as $10 million to $15 million to the budget. The project’s slow development process may have been partly to blame, as well as the rising star power of the actors, especially Chris Pine and Zoe Saldana.
When the original cast — Pine, Saldana, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, Anton Yelchin and John Cho — signed on for the movie that re-launched the franchise in 2009, they did so with options for two sequels. Despite the fact that studios often will give stars big new deals in case of success, no re-negotiations took place for 2013’s Star Trek Into Darkness. Instead, the Trek cast is said to have received only the nominal raises built into their original contracts. According to sources, Paramount argued that the J.J. Abrams-directed 2009 movie, while well-received, was not a huge blockbuster, grossing $385.7 million (a relative pittance compared to Paramount’s billion-dollar Transformers series or even its Mission: Impossible movies).
Read the full report here:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-trek-3-stars-raises-805204
I doubt the actors cost $30 million
Those hoping for the ending of the JJ portion of the franchise are bound to be disappointed. China has made almost $60m in 14 days, and now STB is at $333m. Japan is still to come, and it still won’t make ST09 money, but it is not a flop.
The sets are standing in Canada now, so the costs borne by STB of moving and constructing those sets is now past, so there is going be some savings going forward.
Further, someone at Paramount is bound to figure out the many ways that they actively tried to frack up this release.
I do hope that they reconsider going with the ST4 movie they already rejected, and they commission Pegg/Jung/Lin to create a more original and TOS like ST4 in the same way that STB was.
Sorry. Even with Japan at the end of October (which could be hurt by a potentially early home video release), this movie is going to close at around $350 million. It only earned $15 million worldwide this weekend. China is done with this movie. Sadly, according to published information, the film cost $305 million including marketing. With Paramount taking only half the box office to recoup that budget, they will be at around $130 million in the red when the movie closes. It looks very bad for a 4th BR Trek at this point.
@Cadet – thank you for the work you (and others) do in detailing the box office. Its fascinating. And important to us Trek fans.
Its unfortunate that the head-in-sand crowd want everyone else to bury their heads too.
I’m not buying the production & promotion costs. That was not a 305 Million Movie.
I think Bad Robot imbezelled half of the budget as well as miss managing the production schedules & delaying the films costing budget blowouts & re-sighting the cast at more expensive fees. Bad Robot should be fired for managing the production of the films so badly.
The publicity/artwork does look amazing. I hope STB does well in Mexico, as well as in South American countries.
I am surprised that Chris Pine was not there as he is also a Spanish speaker.
So sick of reading about how much the film is making at the box office and what a big flop it is supposed to be etc. The film has been out less than two months and has not opened in all countries yet. As for this boring crystral ball gazing and snide remarks – so ho-hum.
The film will make what it makes and the Paramount bean-counters will do their thing. Hopefully, it will add up to a fourth KT Star Trek movie being made. Only time will tell.
I am looking forward to getting my hands on the DVD when it is released.
@Rose – back from “vacation”? If the film had been successful and making huge profits would you still be sick of it? The downplaying from those that are doing contortions to try and make Beyond a success is more entertaining than the film itself.
If the behind the scenes aspects of film making dont interest you, thats cool. Dont read. But for many fans, the success/failure of a franchise film is interesting because it impacts the over-all franchise and what the studio does in the future.
STID was awful and we are still seeing the blowback. beyond was better but forgettable and we are seeing that in the box office. Dont you want Star Trek to be better? Well, if you loved STID then you dont, I guess.
Agreed, Rose. If it makes 350 mil., Paramount should be able to produce Trek 4 for 100-120 mil and still make a decent profit. JJ has stated that the script for the 4th film is the best he’s seen. Hope it happens. BTW, what became of your nemesis MJ: The Grand Return / Prodigal Son, etc.???
@Keachick,
“I hope STB does well in Mexico, as well as in South American countries.”
It opened in Mexico on September 9 at the top spot with $1.5M, which is 20% less than STID. Then it followed the same trend that it exhibited in every other territory and dropped -64% to the 6th place in its second weekend. Same story in other Latin American countries except that it opened at lower numbers.
“The film has been out less than two months and has not opened in all countries yet.”
It opened in every territories with the exception of Japan.
@Ahmed – Shhhhh, let Rose keep thinking Beyond just opened and will hit $1 billion soon. Its really precious. lol
Yup. Even China only earned $3.4 million this weekend, so it’s run out of steam there. But it definitely topped it’s earnings for STID. It’s currently at $62,443,912, and will probably reach $65 million before it closes there. But China is very interesting. Audiences seem to do all their business in the first two weeks and then move on to the next film. I’m curious if that’s because of the government controlled theaters, or if that’s the social norm. Either way, I’d love to know what the Distributors investment was, and whether their 75% take of BO was enough to justify it. It certainly isn’t going to make as much as China’s top box office. If STB closes at $65 million it will be the 24th highest grossing film in China for 2016 to date — with the top 15 films all making over $100 million.
Doesnt the studio make a lot less of the Chinese box office compared to domestic?
“Beyond” was the first Star Trek movie since “Final Frontier” that I only watched one time in cinema. Many of my friends did so, too. Although it was a good film. But somehow summer didn’t feel like the right time for this film. It would have been a perfekt winter movie. I think many Star Trek fans didn’t watch the film as often as they normally did with other Star Trek movies. If they did so the film could a make easily 500 million dollars.
But as always: the box office results are just a part of the sales. Wait for the bluray/dvd sales and the TV/streaming licenses. With all the reruns on TV worldwide every Star Trek film was profitable, even Nemesis.
As an older Star Trek viewer, I think the franchise needs to consider that people in my ( 50 up ) age group don’t tend to go to the cinema all that much ( I did ). There’s plenty of interest though for when it hits ho.e formats.
Beh, Beyond is Mas Allá, not Sin Límites in spanish…
The problem in Mexico was – in my humble opinion – that it opened TOO LATE. Let me elaborate on this. Here in Mexico, we still have a very serious problem with piracy. Back in 2004 (as an example), Hellboy’s premiere in Mexico was in late July, almost 5 months after the original US premiere in March. The pirate market on the subway and streets in Mexico City were flooded with poor quality Hellboy DVD’s, and when the official DVD was released in early June, the copies only got better, and still at $1.50 US Dlls (cheaper the $4.00 US Dlls the price of a movie ticket here). The Mexican audience is used to subtitled movies, so language isn’t a factor. Hellboy opened with everything in favor (a Mexican director’s best movie up to that day, an extensive country-wide marketing campaign, excellent local reviews, all the main cast visiting our country, etc) and still it barely made a dent. It was gone in 2 weeks from most venues and totally gone in 3. The same happened with Beyond. The pirate copies in Mexico City and Monterrey were available the very next day the movie opened in the US, with Spanish subtitles at $2.00 US Dlls, and most likely sold in the tens of thousands. The movies that make the best box office figures here are those that open before (such as Suicide Squad or BVS:DJ that had its world premiere in Mexico City) or the same day than the US (like Finding Dory or The Secret Life Of Pets). Also, Beyond opening days in Mexico coincide with the first weekend after the beginning of the fall school cycle. It didn’t open but in a few theatres in most cities and the main marketing campaing was limited to Mexico City, Monterrey and Guadalajara. There was no Burger King tie-in, or national TV or radio spots (the spots were only available on cable TV primetime the previous week). It was a VERY scaled down marketing campaing when compared with Into Darkness (that had many tie-ins, promotional gifts, ALL the main cast and the director at the premiere, months of advertising on billboards, buses, subway, radio and TV spots, and more important: it opened BEFORE the US (a week before, actually). I knew the movie was doomed in Mexico from the beginning when the hottest pirate DVD outside the subway stations on Mexico City at $1.5 US Dlls was Star Trek Beyond, and no billboard advertising was to be seen on the streets. I’m sorry to say so, but Paramount really dropped the ball on this one.
Very interesting. And that’s probably exactly what’s going to happen in Japan as well.
All of this is Paramount’s fault as they likely couldn’t afford to open worldwide at once.
Antigravity at work! :)