Star Trek Beyond has largely exited theatres domestically and now heads to home video release, first debuting on digital downloads (iTunes/VUDU/etc.) tomorrow (Oct. 4) and on disc in a few more weeks (Nov. 1). In our estimation, the film underperformed at the box office globally to the point where it looks to be unprofitable for Paramount Pictures, at least for now. This article examines the near-final numbers for Beyond, seeks to answer the question why this happened, and analyzes what this could mean for the future of the Kelvin Timeline on the big screen.
The Numbers
(For the purpose of this article, all of our data has been taken from Box Office Mojo, and some figures have been calculated based on their data.)
After over 70-days in theatres, Star Trek Beyond is now being shown on less than 300 screens domestically. While the film is still in theatres internationally and has yet to be released in Japan, we estimate the film’s remaining international business will only add $10-15 million to its overall haul. Star Trek Into Darkness grossed $10.8 million in Japan.
Current Numbers
Domestic Gross: $158,428,433
Foreign Gross: $178,328,110
Total Gross: $336,756,543
Production Budget: $185,000,000
Marketing Budget: $120,000,000
Our Predictions
When we analyzed Beyond’s box office performance after being in release for a month, we predicted a final global gross of $332 million. We predicted a domestic haul of $164 million, which the film fell short of by roughly $6 million dollars. It is doubtful it will make that much money in its remaining stint in theatres.
The overseas market was better than domestic for Star Trek again, as Beyond has made 53% of its money internationally compared to Into Darkness’ 51.1% (although Beyond’s foreign total is tracking to be tens of millions of dollars shy of that of Into Darkness.). In making our predictions for the film’s international gross, we used Into Darkness‘s foreign numbers as a bellwether.
As Japan (debuting October 21st) is expected to add at least $10 million to Beyond’s overall gross (based on Into Darkness’s numbers), the film will likely earn 54.3% of its gross in the international market, roughly 3% more than Into Darkness. While the overseas percentage of overall box office is slightly better, the number is far from it. Into Darkness earned $238,602,808 at the box office internationally, a number we do not estimate Beyond will come near.
We estimate a final box office haul in the $346-360 range.
Is Beyond is in the Red? Most Likely
Calculating whether a studio made a profit off of a film at the box office can be a difficult task for a number of reasons that we will cover, but the simplest indicator is how much money the film took in against its budget.
Beyond had a budget of $185 million, with an additional $120 million spent on marketing the film. That alone would bring the money spent on production and marketing to $305 million. With an estimated final haul of just over $346 million, it would seem that Beyond is $41 million in the black.
However, this is a simple expenses-vs-earnings calculation and, when it comes to large Hollywood productions, there are a number of other factors a studio must take into account, namely interest payments to their partners in making the film, and the actual amount of money the film brings in from each country.
In certain international markets, films only make a fraction of their earnings. According to the Wall Street Journal, Hollywood earnings in China can vary between $0.25 to $0.50 on the dollar. Based on Beyond’s $65.8 million Chinese haul, the amount Paramount takes home may vary from $16.4 to $32.9 million, enough to nearly erase Beyond’s perceived profitability. Many other countries, including Russia, operate the same way to protect their local film industries. The point to take home is that the total international earnings for a film do not represent what Paramount actually receives.
Additionally, When Paramount partners with a company like Skydance Media (formerly Skydance Productions), Paramount is accepting a percentage of the production and marketing budget from a company that exists to finance film and television. Skydance, and similar companies, raise funds and partner with the big studios to co-produce and co-finance productions. However, that money is not a free loan. Paramount will owe Skydance interest on what the company advanced, in addition to any money owed in a profit-sharing agreement that it almost certainly written into Skydance’s contract with Paramount. Unfortunately, the amount of money that Skydance invested, the interest rate, and the share of the profits taken cannot be known to us. The simple fact is that these agreements are not made public.
In addition to Skydance, IMDbPro indicates that Paramount had six additional partners in producing Beyond: Hong Kong’s Alibaba Pictures Group, China’s Huahua Media & Culture, and Bad Robot, Sneaky Shark, and Perfect Storm Entertainment in the United States. Additionally, Paramount had eight partners helping to distribute the film internationally. All of these companies are likely involved in a profit-share agreement with Paramount, and will be owed money.
Why Didn’t Beyond Do Better?
As we hypothesized in our summary of Beyond’s performance in an analysis of its numbers after two months of being in the box office, we pointed to poor audience word-of-mouth, inflated expectations, subpar marketing, and difficult competition as reasons for the film’s struggles. These were quantifiable metrics, rather than conjecture. Was Beyond only deserving of one visit to the cinema? Why didn’t audiences spread the word? Why did the film’s marketing seem so lackluster and slow? Did general audiences decided to see other films over Star Trek? These questions can be debated ad nauseam.
The point is this: Beyond was not able to replicate the box office success of its two predecessors from the Kelvin Timeline. This is a problem for Paramount, whose future is in question as its parent company Viacom has had nothing but troubles recently, to consider when thinking about Star Trek 4. Does the studio go bigger in an attempt to capture the audiences of the first two films, or will Beyond‘s lesser showing and Paramount’s internal turmoil necessitate a smaller film?
In our opinion, a smaller film would be better for the Star Trek feature franchise.
The Course Ahead
As Nicholas Meyer stated regarding the development and production of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country:
“I think there’s something to be said for making movies faster, rather than slower. I think that the years that are now consumed in obtaining a green light and the funding for a movie, and the amount of rewriting that scripts undergo, overcooks them to the point where a lot of times spontaneousness and a sort-of short-order cooking is lost. Something happens that robs them of a certain spontaneity, and when we were writing at breakneck speed, and turning things around really fast there is a kind of energy and enthusiasm that I think is sometimes lost when you have too much time. Art thrives on restrictions, and it’s not just money that can be restricted to good effect, it’s also sometimes time and the fact that we didn’t have enough time to second-guess ourselves may have worked to the film’s advantage.”
Into Darkness and Beyond took four and three years, respectively, to release after the films that preceded them. Star Trek needs to be kept in the minds of moviegoers, especially among the general audience. If too much time elapses between films, Paramount risks audiences losing their anticipation for a sequel.
Meyer demonstrated that Star Trek thrives on limitations. The two debatably finest films in the franchise were made with low production budgets and a target release date that could not be moved, lest Paramount lose money. Assuming Star Trek 4 is made by Paramount and Bad Robot, we recommend the following.
- Schedule Star Trek 4 for a late 2018 release date, and disavow yourselves of the notion that Star Trek is a Summer tentpole franchise that needs a $150 million-plus budget to draw an audience.
- Produce the film for $100-120 million. Some of the most enjoyable moments in Beyond were the interplay between our crew. Star Trek has always been about characters, not action set pieces.
- Give the job of writing the film to experienced screenwriters who thrive under tight deadlines. With all due respect to Patrick McKay and J.D. Payne, neither have a released film to their name. If the Kelvin Timeline is to continue past a fourth film, more seasoned writers will be needed to minimize rewrites and ensure the script is delivered on time.
- Hire a director who will prioritize story and drama over Star Trek. Some of the best films in the franchise have been made when writers and directors come up with interesting story ideas, and then use Star Trek to tell them. The beauty of Star Trek, and the science fiction genre, is that it can be used to tell nearly any story one can imagine.
- Be daring. The cast, now with three films under their belt, will think they know how their characters would act in every situation. Do not allow their hubris to interfere with telling a good story.
I would like to see the story of the Bismark or Turpitz told through Star Trek.
I’d say the Vengeance, in Into Darkness, would fulfill the role of the Bismark quite well.
Stop retelling. Go boldly where no one has gone before. Quit the retread.
Exactly, but, if they weren’t making just terrible movies in general it shouldn’t even matter when and where the story takes place.
Beyond didn’t retell anything.
I’m all about that Space, No Tribble,
Re:Beyond didn’t retell anything
BEYOND retold yet another tale of crazed, obsessed with great power, Starfleet sailors first introduce in the second pilot WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE, induced by technology as further explored in THE ENEMY WITHIN, and sailor madmen who often focus their insanity on Starfleet and/ or The Federation in outrage over some perceived injustice as in COURT MARTIAL and TURNABOUT INTRUDER. and for good measure it also threw a revisit to that insanity being magnified by the pursuit of immortality first introduced in THE OMEGA GLORY.
And that’s just from the FIRST series, these themes were repeatedly revisited and beaten to death in subsequent series and movies. In TNG Picard bragged to Q that the Federation had transcended the insanity of immortality’s temptation that he offered Riker and yet, even after that, the series’ writers kept going back to that over and over again. It’s my main beef with the movie INSURRECTION, I didn’t need to pay to get, yet again, another pursuit of immortality lecture from a Picard who had previously contended The Federation had transcended it.
Disregard what Picard said. In this timeline, Picard didn’t happen yet. ;)
Those are basic topics of Star Trek – summed up by Roddenberry as “exploring the human condition”. You are right, we’ve seen all those things before. That’s because those are what Star Trek is made of.
Dis, good points.
Turnabout Intruder wasn’t a perceived injustice, it was an actual rule then that women couldn’t command. Also, what Beyond had in common with The Enemy Within was … nothing. And Court Martial? Seriously? There are many familiar plot elements in Beyond, but the episodes you’ve picked are not the right ones.
There’s no confirmation that there was actually any rule against female starship captains (based on what we’ve seen in both enterprise and Star Trek IV, with female captains before and after, that would make little in-universe sense). All we have is the offhand comment of a woman who was objectively less-than-sane. To me, it makes perfect sense that Janet Lester would be rejected for captaincy due to her personal instability, and ascribe it to a bias against her gender; that Starfleet has simply decided that ‘this world of starship captains doesn’t admit women.’ While the intent of the actual episode when written is hard to gauge, canon material set both before and after, as well as less-canonical material (novels and the like) set contemporaneously all point to female starship captains.
Andrew,
Re:Starship Captains
Well, there was an indication in the first series’ episode, BREAD AND CIRCUSES, that a Constitution class ship was what came to be implied by “starship captain” and captaining those was regarded as a thing apart:
http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/43.htm
“CLAUDIUS: You’re a clever liar, Captain Kirk. Merikus was a spaceship captain. I’ve observed him thoroughly. Your species has no such strength.
MERIK: He commands not just a spaceship, Proconsul, but a starship. A very special vessel and crew. I tried for such a command.” — Gene L. Coon and Gene Roddenberry, STAR TREK: BREAD AND CIRCUSES
It was not a Rule just a dillusion of a paranoid woman
Can you imagine Passion Of The Christ filmed ala Fast & Furious?
Most likely Parmount will want to re-capture the magic of the first two and go with a larger budget
That would be a mistake, Bill.
— Character over action set pieces;
— Release the movies at a “quieter” time of year; forget the “tentpole” crap;
— Release them more often;
— For godsake PUBLICIZE them;
— Make ’em cheaper.
In other words, I agree — for the most part — with the editorial ;-)
The 2nd one was poor from the story point. Looked nice. Good action, but weak on the character and story. Beyond had way better character. If you could infuse the Beyond and 09, happy days. But I think you must at least keep the budget between 150-190 million.
ST09 and STID showed Parmount what trek could be they will want too get that back
Better marking yes
But many fans don’t get that Star Trek can be a summer tent pole why? Because they feel when you make a trek that isn’t amid more at the fan base your harming trek, the idea that seems to exists is that trek must never be Seen as mainstream friendly that Trek in movies must be the B rool
Oh please. Into Darkness was dreary and depressing.
Beyond was just released at the wrong time. Simple as that.
I feel like you guys are really underplaying the fact that there were so many movies to see this summer. I feel like it should have been released earlier or later in the season. I thought word of mouth was fairly ok, but again, the amount of competition is hard. Marketing was sub par? IDK where you live but I couldn’t turn on the TV without seeing a Beyond trailer almost every commercial break. I go to the movies all the time and there were massive card board cut outs everywhere not to mention the popcorn buckets and cups were all Beyond decked out.
All of those marketing items you mention only started about 4-weeks out.
Previous articles have talked about the packed summer it was thrown into as well.
https://trekmovie.com/2016/08/25/star-trek-beyond-after-one-month-at-the-box-office-well-received-but-not-profitable/
Marketing should start three months out; trailers two – four months out. I don’t know where Snugglepuff lives, but I didn’t see one dang trailer and nor was there any poster or lobby stand-up until TWO WEEKS before the picture. The words “Star Trek” did not appear on the standee or the poster, and the picture was an enigmatic one of Kirk and Spock’s faces on either side of Jaylah [“Look! An alien chick!”].
Good grief.
Dude there was no movies to see this summer . Oh lets go see the same marvel or the same jj abrams that we last year. Oh yeah so many good movies to see.
Jason Bourne and Suicide Squad were tentpole films released just after Beyond. Bourne wasnt a huge blockbuster, but Suicide Squad was. SS was released a week after Bourne (contributing to that films struggle) and at a time of the year that won’t see a major action movie release until October 21 (Jack Reacher) and no blockbuster until Doctor Strange in November.
I think it’s pretty clear that when you put out a big film at a time with little competition, you can reap great rewards, particularly when you don’t have the biggest brand. Star Trek could benefit from release in a quieter period (Jan/Feb or Sep/Oct).
…which is why they should have released the movie on the exact 50th anniversary weekend. How awesome would have that been?
They could have done some fantastic marketing on the fact it was the 50th anniversary that week.
BUT of course we are talking about Paramount, who did one of the worst marketing jobs on Beyond in the history of cinema.
BEYOND just wasn’t intelligent enough. Even by Star Trek standards.
For me, It had no wonder factor. Aside from the poorly named Yorktown.
The destruction of the Enterprise ALMOST had me walk out. Almost. And then Kirk on a motor cycle for ten minutes killed it for me completely.
Well not completely. That would take a little more than another weak thoughtless movie from out team…
And that would likely be the STUPID Trump statement they released earlier in the week.
’nuff said.
That “STUPID” Trump statement wasn’t stupid and it wasn’t just from Abrams and the new cast.
https://www.facebook.com/TrekAgainstTrumpOfficial/posts/887685388029999
Trek Beyond, at nearly 337 million worldwide and counting, is actually number 14 on the list of the 100 biggest domestic Box Office takes of the last 365 days – behind the Force Awakens, Spectre and Finding Dory, but ahead of Ghostbusters, Tarzan, Independence Day and 94 others (Ben Hur, Gods of Egypt and the Last Witchhunter are close to the bottom).
Again, I’d like to see evidence that it actually lost money, which people are saying here.
I saw BEYOND three times in the theater, and thought it was a lot better than the preceding two Trek films. I am sad that it didn’t do as well financially as they did.
Im so disappointed in all these comments does any like movies anymore. This movie was directed by the guy who does fast and the furious. Honestly tell me what you think is a good movie. This why movies suck, because people like you dont care if it a good story, as long as its fast paced action and has a lot explosive cars and buildings.
Did you even see it?
That was to Travis – Gosh, I hate how this commenting system stacks replies.
I saw things go: crash, bang, boom, catch fire, melt, disintegrate, vaporize, explode, etc. What I didn’t see is much plot.
I think two things hurt this film. There is a large contingent of traditional trek fans that hate the Kelvin timelime. You see them everyday on every thread. There are a lot of angry fans that boycotted the film because of how CBS and Paramount have handled Axenar and fan films. These might seem trivial but they factored into the time of release. Too bad, it was the most Trek like of the new films and it was good.
We hate the kelvin timeline because these might as well a fast and the furious movie
We hate the Kelvin timeline because it minimalizes and ultimately rejects Trek’s history
And yet another poster laments the fact that STB is yet another Star Trek that retells themes etc from Star Trek movies/episodes. So which is it?
There is just no satisfying some.
No satisfying a lot, it would seem, by the fact the film lost money and might very well have ended the Bad Robot film series. People wanting good Star Trek are not wrong, Rose. Just because you loved STID because Bob talked to you on the internet doesnt change the fact that film set the film series back and likely contributed to the failure of Beyond.
TUP – Stop stalking me.
I stand by what I said. People are fickle.
Rose posts something stupid, someone replies, she tells them to stop stalking her. lol Dont post here if you dont want people to reply to your nonsense. Up the meds, sweetie.
I’d like to see that assertion quantified with hard numbers and a scientific survey, not an easily-tilted online poll. I suspect those who are anti-Kelvin-Timeline are a vocal minority.
For the last 3 Star Trek movies to have got the numbers they did – leagues more than any of their 10 predecessors – the majority of the audience were probably not Star Trek fans, certainly not “hardcore” fans.
I doubt any of those people were even aware of the “Kelvin Timeline” unless they’d seen the first movie, and they certainly weren’t aware of the “fan films crisis” which is, to be honest, a tempest in a teapot, much as I and many others enjoy them; so it seems hyperbolic to claim that the film’s poor showing at the box office was due to either of these things.
It is much more likely to be a combination of:
– A ho-hum story that didn’t really generate “gotta see it” word-of-mouth buzz, i.e. Yet Another Mysterious Villain Bent On Revenge three times in a row, little to no time really spent on character development and moments to build up audience empathy. We don’t really see many strange new worlds, it essentially shuttles between the station and Altamid and back.
– A crowded summer box office slate; certainly Captain America: Civil War’s marketing had been saturating the air since almost a year in advance, Disney’s Finding Dory, Jungle Book and Zootopia swept consecutive months from Spring through mid-Summer; Deadpool came out of almost nowhere to take a huge chunk of box office by both promising to be, and then actually being, outrageously fun to watch (a very violent comedic X-Men spinoff!).
I’d touch on that last point. The last 3 Star Trek movies haven’t been overly serious – but neither have they had many real moments of wonder or laugh-out-loud funny, either.
The best sci-fi/genre action movies always mixed the laughs with the thrills and moments of pure wonder; and to do that you need the story to be based in something grounded and real, which means character moments. That’s why Star Trek VI did the best of the TOS movies with general audiences, even though TWOK is our Trekkie “critical” favourite. It’s also why audiences loved Empire Strikes Back, Close Encounters, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Superman: The Movie; Jurassic Park (which I forgot was a Spielberg film!)…
If there is to be a 4th Kelvin Timeline movie, yes, maybe it needs to be made on a more modest budget, but more importantly, it has to make audiences care.
Fred, I agree, especially with your first few sentences. This “they must please the hardcore fans” is pretty much nonsense.
–The people who come to websites such as this and the Trek Bulletin Board and others already ARE hardcore fans, and
— Any polls done on the sites are, OF COURSE, slanted.
The publicity for “Beyond” sucked, in my city, and the Summer market was indeed overtaken by the huge popularity and multiple viewings of “Zootopia,” “Finding Dory,” and “Deadpool.” The first two [I believe] were backed by Disney. Maybe Paramount should sell Trek to Disney … as has been previously suggested by some people here.
Marja, thanks. I mean, so far — we’ll see what the Xmas film season does — STB is still in the top 10 films for the year, and #6 for the summer, according to Box Office Mojo, so clearly people went to see it, but not enough for it to be a blockbuster hit. And yes, the publicity felt late or non-existent.
The question is that of profitability. Part of it might be due to ‘Hollywood accounting’ which finds a way to declare certain films as losses for tax reasons, due to complex financial / funding relationships as the article outlines. But part of it also might simply be overblown expectations.
Put it this way – Deadpool raked in $750M on a budget just below $60M, and this for an R-rated film where you couldn’t market things traditionally as you would for a family-friendly tentpole franchise, so they leaned heavily on viral video and social media; plus, it was Ryan Reynolds’ passion project, and he helped create/film lots of custom promo pieces that ran on cable networks, etc. It was clear that he was having enormous fun and that carried over into people’s enthusiasm for the movie, even if they weren’t familiar with the character from the comics.
If Star Trek is to succeed as a blockbuster franchise, then it simply needs to turn in better films. ST 2009 was an entertaining origin story with strong dollops of action, humor, and ‘hero’s journey’ broad themes. STID was, unfortunately, not the ‘Empire Strikes Back’ second installment we’d hoped for, i.e. the continuation of the hero’s journey, and STB didn’t feel that connected to the events of the first two.
It’s hard to invest in characters and relationships if there isn’t that through-line, or adequate screen time for the other ensemble members. Zoe Saldana, in particular, felt sidelined, when she could have been a stronger pillar of this reboot series’ quartet (adding her to the triad of Kirk/Spock/McCoy) and a marketable, strong heroine to broaden audience appeal. John Cho and the late Anton Yelchin didn’t seem to have that much to do either.
I’m not sure what you’re saying. “Zootopia” (February 13) and “Deadpool” (February 8) were not summer movies. Both were already on DVD/Blu-Ray before “Beyond” hit theaters.
You do have a point, but it depends which market you’re looking at. Zootopia only finally exited domestic theatres in August, and internationally was still in theatres up till this past weekend. Deadpool stayed in some theatres to June. Certainly, STB’s opening weekend had it up against The Secret Life of Pets which hung on at #2 after 3 weeks, and then it was knocked out of the top spot by Jason Bourne and Bad Moms. It progressively slid down the rankings week after week, which is unarguable.
I saw Beyond three times in three separate theaters in two different states. Zootopia and Deadpool were not playing at any of them at that time.
Sure, but anecdotes are not data. I’m going by what Box Office Mojo’s stats about when films opened and closed say. Films stay on longer in bigger markets and open later overseas.
We hate the “Kelvin” timeline because it was lauded as ‘Not your father’s Star Trek’. My father doesn’t care for sci-fi. Maybe, just maybe, I actually liked Trek the way it was, in all it’s prime universe incarnations? Maybe it didn’t really need changing, or sexing up, maybe it was just a greedy studio bastardising a brand to make money? Trek’s concept of hope, human development and discovery… Traded in for an ‘improved’ Trek, that nobody really asked for. The reason people are so sad about this news is because the last film, Beyond, was a lot more gracious to fans. Too little, too late. The fans have spoken. The vocal minority here will claim there’s no audience anymore for Prime Universe, I think they’re slowly going to wake up.
Ralph — Ummm I think your confusing this with the fan film Star Trek Renegades. You know, the one that actually marketed itself as “Not your father’s star trek!” lol
Aaron (Naysayers are gonna nay),
Re: lauded
“Lauded” does not mean “marketed”. And fan films by definition are not marketed, if they are, they become independent films.
After 50 odd years, Paramount still doesn’t GET it. Example..their 50th Anniversary Bluray boxed set. Not a shred of gems of never released footage or gag reels. It was exactly everything EVERY Trekker owned 10 times over. And smart people knew TAS would come out(Presales on Amazon now)as a stand alone release. I myself have hours and hours of Trek footage on vhs that was obtained because the studio failed to. Thankfully Rod is releasing his BD in Dec with outtakes and trims never ever on home video and more.But again, they’re forcing fans to EAT the same old TOS episodes in this boxed set to make it appear like it’s substantial.
120 mil for marketing? I think the really got screwed on that one
I’d like to see their source for that number.
Spectre-7, Haha, yeah.
120 write off. Isn’t it about time we Audit Starfleet / Paramount? I mean they lean on so many fan films for reasons that only make themselves look stupid.
C’mon Axanar crew. challenge these suckers. I still say fight them on the trademark. They HAVE, IMO, abandoned it.
Trademark can be lost if you don’t enforce it, correct, but this is not a trademark case. It is a copyright case. And if you have something copyrighted, you don’t lose it if you con’t enforce your copyright.
Technicalities aside. I just don’t think Trek ever lived up to its style and performances – in the 60s.
Any trekkie would agree, that Star Trek has not ever “looked or felt like” like the 1960’s version, post 1970.
That is why I say they abandoned the 60s style Trek.
That is why I say the TOS styled fan films SHOULD always have their right to be made – FREELY.
‘
I still don’t know what happened to to my beloved Star Trek.
It’s almost like there was another incursion in 1970.
They sure did get screwed on that marketing, because they was hardly any. I think marketing started 2 months before the movie as released. And if 120 million was spent on marketing….someone got robbed. It’s a shame that for it’s 50th Anniversary, Trek was treated this way. Then again, Trek has always been the bastard child of Hollywood.
I think one of the problems was the late summer release. With the previous two movies coming out earlier in the Summer, they lent themselves better to multiple viewings. I saw 2009 4 times. I barely had time to watch Beyond twice.
Im sorry you had to watch 2009 trek 4 times you must like the show lost. Lol no taste in movies.
Just because you didn’t like Star Trek 2009 doesn’t mean other people can’t. Trek is supposed to be inclusive.
What this movie needed was a Captain.
Pine just was absurd looking when he put on those goggle. WHAT T F WAS THE CAPTAIN DOING ON THE BIKE!?
Captain Kirk always made use what was at hand in order to achieve his aims – whether it be a starship, a shuttle, an antique car with a shift (ref A Piece of the Action), a horse or motorbike. He did/does not quibble over trivialities, unlike some posters here.
There really is no arguing with the general common sense of a Shatner/Pine/KIRK!
I will have to see it again someday, Keachick.
But after what they did the the Enterprise in that movie, I don’t know. Maybe, if I have a six pack of beer with me.
Why is it that so many people can muster more sympathy, insight, understanding for a useful, OBJECT but not an iota of the same (sometimes) for an actual living being. Both are fictional *characters*.
Besides, Kirk did not write off the Enterprise completely. He was convinced *she* still had something to offer. Also, I could have sworn he was about to burst into tears as he watched his ship, Enterprise, go down.
Fine work, Chris Pine, fine work!
Try to imagine your home going up in flames,Kea.
It’s that type of sympathy, And I don’t think Trek was helped for re-envisioning the Enterprise’s destruction.
A bit late I realise, but if all my family and pets managed to escape and uninjured, then the shock and loss would not nearly be as bad. You can replace things, but not people or loved animals.
Kirk had to watch not only the loss of the ship, but also many of the crew – and that was truly a double whammy.
The way Pine/Kirk played it was excellent and they did it without turning the Enterprise into an object of idol worship. I get the sense that some people appear to have been doing this kind of worship in regard to the ship/vesselINAMINATE object. It has always seemed so very off to me…:(
That was the best part of the movie. the entire Enterprise extended destruction….WOW….WOW….loved it. Why ? Because we finally get a better Enterprise -A at the end. Star Trek III: the Search For Spock still have the most emotional death of Enterprise, but the destruction in Beyond was spectacular. I don’t know why so many gripe about the ship being destroyed. Oh well.
Does anyone really think ST4 is going to happen?
Yes.
Never reboot a legend. It will always come out short.
Alas, Star Trek (2009) made good money.
Yeah but 2009 was far from perfect. It was just good enough that people were willing to give it a sequel. Alas, STID was awful. A lot of the failure of this film series can be hung around the neck of Bob Orci and his writing partners for that brutal STID.
I’m Gary Seven. Have been for over five years.
But Star Trek: Beyond’s script *was* rushed on deadline. Doesn’t that undermine your argument? And I don’t understand this counter-intuitive notion that long waits between installments make the series lose momentum. Star Trek is one of the most over-saturated franchises in Hollywood history; we don’t need a new film every two years. Nothing would be worse than erring on the side of overkill, esp. with a sixth series on the way. Either way, fans want a more cerebral & deeply allegorical story, more akin to Interstellar/Cloud Atlas/The Matrix and less like GOTG/Star Wars.
If the movies were well written and not the “anti-hero wants to destroy the good” re-tread plot … the audience would get there every two years. The movie audience would not necessarily be the same audience that watches the TV series, and vice-versa. It’s more likely that the movies would draw more people in to the Trek universe[s]. If they tell good, dramatic, smart sci-fi stories with a “human” element, they would do better with audiences who liked “Interstellar.”
Since the last series left TV, what, a decade ago? More? there hasn’t been any Trek on TV except for reruns. I don’t agree that the market is over-saturated, whereas the Marvel movies ARE over-saturating the market — because they tell the same sort of story again and again and … BOOM! SMASH! POW!
*Some* fans want a cerebral/allegorical story. I don’t even know that Interstellar was that cerebral, except, like Gravity, it dealt in its science fiction in more of a “hard SF” fashion… up until they enter the black hole, and then it goes into the realm of conjecture. It was certainly clever and well-written, but the thing that made audiences care, beyond visual spectacle, is that it was a human story of flawed, limited people trying to do their best against overwhelming odds, and a father trying to get home to his daughter.
The Matrix certainly wasn’t really cerebral, it was a sci-fi kung fu movie series with some pretensions of ‘what is reality, man’ borrowed from Philip K Dick. I mean, the point where Neo gets weird powers in the real world (and it’s never properly explained) kind of cements that…
I don’t think any of the Star Trek movies, save TMP, were very cerebral think-pieces – they’re hardly 2001: A Space Odyssey or Tarkovsky’s Solaris…
To this day, the movie that most feels like an episode of the original series, even though it’s a comedy… is Galaxy Quest. I mean, think about it. You have sympathetic, imitative aliens (A Piece of the Action!), a dastardly villain, strange new worlds, rock monsters, transporter woes, some brilliant visuals (when the movie goes widescreen, as they’re preparing to send Jason Nesmith home in his pod…), and themes of redemption (the Omega 13!) and finding meaning in your life.
@Fred. Exactly. Interstellar wasn’t cerebral at all. And most Trek episodes weren’t cerebral either – there was usually shooting and explosions. Even TMP isn’t really a think piece – it’s about a giant cloud coming to destroy the earth… what big ideas are there, really?
TMP definitely is. They actually come right out and say they just witnessed the next step in human evolution.
Basically, the unforeseen effects of our technology. Kind of a big-screen remake of “The Changeling,” with V’Ger standing in for Nomad.
Beyond should have done better. Although I saw it a few times, many of my friends and coworkers couldn’t be bothered. The most common reason was that Into Darkness left a bad taste for them and they didn’t feel like giving Trek another chance.
Honestly, I can see their point. Into Darkness sort of ruined any good will that the 2009 movie had and a lot of people turned their attention to other things.
Good point
I agree. STID hurt the Kelvin timeline. A shame because Beyond was a better movie than STID and had some TOS elements. Still, as a TOS fan I think the Kelvin timeline may be irreparably damaged by STID and its miscasting of Khan and its cavalier misuse of TWOK dialogue. I know that STID severely damaged the goodwill established by 09 Star Trek for me, anyway. Also, I think that there should have been some way to figure in Shatner for the 50th anniversary to win back the lost goodwill of STID. A missed opportunity which may never be captured. Alas.
@Timberius – Yes, STID was the ticking timebomb that killed the film series. For all of Orci’s bravado and arrogance, what say he now? STID was so bad, sooooo bad, it killed Beyond.
I agree, Jeff. And it’s really too bad, because “Beyond” was a much more likeable movie. Some critics said it was like “a two-hour TV episode,” but that may have been because our characters got to exchange some meaningful dialogue. TV lately has become much more “long form” in nature, so in my mind that’s not a total condemnation.
For some critics, the episodic nature of STB seemed to be a factor against it. Then again, I wonder just who critiques some of the critics and editors.
For STB in the NZ Herald, a short synopsis was that it was like the original TV series and got 2 out of 5 stars. However, the Jason Bourne film was described as having a hackneyed script but got 4 out of 5 stars. Seriously, reading this was a case of WTF. A film with a not-so-good script gets “Very Good”, yet there is nothing noted about how good or otherwise the story for STB was, just labelled “Fair”. What I can recall from the Bourne film trailers was a robust, muscly, shirtless Matt Damon in a punch-up and lots of other action. I guess that could account for the two extra stars…:/
@Rose – because Beyond was “simple” and “forgettable”. It was basically a monster of the week with a weak villain with weak motives that once again was chasing for the epic Khan villain and fell way short. Nothing of consequence happened in the film other than the destruction of the Enterprise which was helpfully undone at the end of the movie and wrapped up in a pretty bow.
I have a hard time believing that they spent $120M on marketing.
njdss4,
Heh-heh, I, too have a tough time with that.
Why, for a movie with that budget that as budget is not high at all. You can find general breakdowns of film experiences and the ad budget is usually fairly close to the production budget of a a tent pole film (it can actually even be higher).
You might not think the ad budget was effective, but here is a huge point not to miss. After Into Darkness we finally had a Trek film that really broke out of the percentage of total gross from overseas (for most of TOS films its below 33%). Because of this history most of Trek ad budget has been spent primary in english only countries (for the most part), now after Into Darkness, the studio is seeing that Trek can make more then half of its take from overseas. Thats a huge number of locations to push with marketing, China is a good example its marketing push was significantly larger then the other two films (dramatically so). And the studios whole idea is to take Trek and replicate the percentages of most other tent poles where 66% of a films take is from overseas marketing. That takes a lot of money to hit all those markets. And while Trek 2009 and Into Darkness did push ads and presence overseas more then any previous Trek, they didn’t push it to the level of US ad coverage.
I think JJ Abrams team needs to do what Leonard Nimoy/Harve Bennett did after “Star Trek III”.
Its time to lighten up the series and have a film that doesn’t mirror our “Terrorist Laden” world.
The last film was too dark. Let’s have a fun light hearted film that celebrates the Human Spirit. This last film had none of the Roddenberry ideology that would make you think we have evolved and progressed since the 21st century.
I doubt Abrams will be around for a 4th film, especially now that it looks like CBS is going to merge with VIacom, and Moonves will be in charge of Paramount.
The fault lies solely at the feet of the studio. The inception and execution of this film was utter chaos. And it shows. While the fist two films seemed fresh and truly felt like some weird, close-but- not- the-same, alternate TOS reality…beyond came off, almost as a parody. All the broad strokes were painted as if to complete a checklist of things that are in an original series episode. A little Spock/McCoy bickering is fun…a lot of it is beating it to death. I liked the first movie and even the second, because these characters were put into situations I had never really seen them encounter before. I’m a hard core TOS fan…rarely give the spin-offs much thought…they simply don’t fit into MY vision of the Star Trek’s universe, established by TOS. I saw the first two movies multiple times because I felt they fit…sure, there were changes in aesthetics…but the balance was there. The fine line of drama, mixed with humor mixed with with action and imagination, was there . But I only gave Beyond only one viewing. It simply wasn’t very interesting. From beginning to end, it never grabbed my attention. Some awesome action sequences…but that’s about it. An uninteresting story about an uninteresting villain, on an uninteresting world. As Trek, it seemed way over the top, for me…giving many fans the stereotypical adventure they were longing for. But to me, it seemed contrived and forced. Which I fault the studio for dragging their ass in getting a solid story nailed down. So sad that JJ, who knows how to strike that balance between heart and humor, laced with action was driven away by CBS to Star Wars and now the buzz of the year on television, HBO’s Westworld. The buzz on Trek’s 50th anniversary should’ve been about Beyond and the new Trek series. Could’ve, should’ve. The entire handling of Star Trek’s 50th anniversary has been a disaster.
HBO’s Westworld. . . Wow, was that pilot a buzzkill or what! Saw it last night, and watched all of it and was convinced I won’t watch more. To bad, it had promise.
About ST: Beyond, I think you’re right. Paramount is solely at fault. My gut feeling is that they had the wrong director, a story told in the wrong way, (someone else on another thread suggested a “Die Hard” version of the story would have worked, and I do agree). I also think that Paramount spent far too much money, for what they got for marketing. FAR too much! It’s almost like politicians are running the show over there.
Marketing was terrible especially the beastie boys trailer in front of The Force Awakens. That alone sunk it without a trace there was no recovering after regardless of quality & how enjoyable it was.
Rob Moore got sacked by Paramount last week effectively he was the exec who championed these nu Trek movies but he clearly got the blame for Beyond’s financial failure. One of the biggest mistake’s he made was allow Bad Robot to insist Into Darkness be made in LA adding $30m to the budget as JJ said he did not want to work outside LA for family reasons…then he leaves Trek & goes to work outside LA…for Star Wars! So Into Darkness was too late by a year, too expensive & although big budget clearly did not leave a good taste in the movie goers minds did it! So Beyond was already up against it as they moved overseas & lowered the budget then the original director got replaced & the writers changed so Beyond had less time, less budget & tighter deadlines to work against which also threw it into an overcrowded marketplace where it had more competition. If Beyond had released in early May it would have made a lot more box office.
I think Beyond is a very solid movie & superb at times but also budget limited in places & using the beastie boys song was very poor judgement as it takes you out of the movie.
As Rob Moore has gone you have to wonder if his replacement will be as keen on Trek 4 with this cast as its not going to work spending less than Beyond as sci-fi spectacle is not cheap & everyone costs more every time they make a sequel plus production costs rise.
Its a shame we will probably never get the original ST3 Bob Orci story with Shatner as that would have done very well especially as its the 50th anniversary (not that you would know it as Paramount have done nothing to highlight that apart from a few cash grab home video repackaging releases!!).
Paul, “One of the biggest mistakes he made was allow Bad Robot to insist Into Darkness be made in LA adding $30m to the budget as JJ said he did not want to work outside LA for family reasons…then he leaves Trek & goes to work outside LA…for Star Wars!”
JJ Abrams really screwed the new Trek by fooling around for so long before STID started filming,too. Four years before it hit theatres, ferfecksake! That just allowed the KT fandom to slowly dissolve, only to reassemble for the disappointing STID, which they made “dark” because of TDKR was such a hit, so “sure, let’s copy the Dark Knight, and let’s issue crap posters which don’t mentiond the [apparently, in their minds] dorky ‘Star Trek’ name.” So new-to-Trek audiences came out of STID confused [who the feck is Khan?] and loyal Trek fans were peeved about the spurious, scurrilous ripoff of lines from TWOK. A clusterfeck. “Thanks,” JJ, and Damon L. [Grrr.]
“and loyal Trek fans were peeved about the spurious, scurrilous ripoff of lines from TWOK.”
Those lines were no spurious, scurrilous ripoff. They were a homage to the TWOK scene with a reversal, because some things are the same (down to the very same words) while other things are different. I can understand how, at certain significant points, two universes/timelines might merge for an instant, only to go their own way again.
No doubt I will be lampooned again by TUP for my writing above. I guess it is easier to write as others have, so as not to be singled and railed against.
BTW, this is my third post today, the first in about three weeks.
Rose – if you provide me your address, I can send you an autographed 8X10, since you’re such a big fan. I can also explain to you why you’re wrong.
Why do you attack people for having a different opinion and then complain that people are attacking you? Thats awfully hypocritical. Please grow up. This place was wonderful when you were sent away. And I think we can all agree, if you stop your random attacks on people, you could be a decent contributor.
I say smaller budget but more marketing.
I`d love to see Kirk fighting with Jesus! Bring that on screen! :D
Bring back the Next Gen for a final foray… Patrick Stewart alone is way more marketable now with X men and his other work since the Gen era material
Are you crazy? Who would go actually watch that apart from people here and how would they make any money from it?
Well my mental state is questionable, but whos isnt anymore. I just think the reboot of the Classic Trek was a novelty thats worn off. While I enjoy it I think it may have run its course. Perhaps its time to just hang it up. A Next gen flick would be my personal desire , certainly in this day and age without some gimmick its not going to draw huge crowds anyway. Trek isnt really about the mega hit IMO , never has been.
I would be there opening day !!!
X-Men did worse than Beyond this year.
Agreed, Because it was lousy… Beyond was a lot of fun , but I think the novelty is worn off and thats what were seeing.
How would you explain Data looking old?
Same way they explained his emotion chip. He was tired of seeing his friends aging and dying now that he has emotions is hard for him , so he wrote a subroutine for aging.. and its been activated for a long while now. Except I think Data is gone and we now have B4 or his clone android with his consciousness inside of him?
Hire another actor. Data is an android. No reason he can’t build himself a new face or even a whole new body. That’s one of the reasons I hated Nemesis killing Data off.
Easy fix there buddy, give us a cgi Data. Look at the magic they have done for Planet of The Apes. Have Brett Spiner do the mo-cap and voice…everything else would be cgi. Take him back to his roots. The way he appeared in the first season of TNG.
torgo1964
Re:How would you explain Data looking old?
NEMESIS: Ignore it. The same way no one asked why’d B4 and Data looked so old.
Fun way: A nasty virus he picked up from the Borg Queen, the cure of which left him prematurely and permanently aged.
Canon: Remember his head is over 400 years old. As that’s where the clock for his internal body map is maintained all those years finally caught up to it.
I agree. Next Generation never got the proper send off. But let’s have a motion capture Data with Brett Spiner providing the voice. Lets face it. Data is an android, he should look the same. 2) Have Riker remain on the USS Titan. Have Picard and Riker team up or sent on a joint mission together. Unless they decided to destroy the Titan only to have it’s survivors beamed aboard The USS ENTERPRISE -E or less they decide to open the movie in real time, ( A decade or so after Nemesis’s events) where there is an Enterprise -F or G.
Oh absolutely at least 10 or 15 years later… I think Spiner still looks great actually . I could get my teeth into it and if it were done on a limited budget with some hungry hot FX team, It could do well. I dont think its going to break the box office, I just dont think Trek has that capability at this stage. Its kinds of a victim of its own girth and complicated fixed canon. The canon is what gives it a real universe vibe and depth but it also makes it a daunting entry for newbs.
I just don’t think the general audience got on board with Beyond. They went to Jason Bourne and Suicide Squad instead. With an 80+% Rottentomatoes score it should not of dropped off as steep as it did in week 2 and 3. The domestic box office seems more like First Contact or The Voyage Home type of box office accounting for inflation were it came mostly from Star Trek fans. I thought the marketing was weak. Were did they speed that 120 million at. I never felt like anyone even knew there was a Star Trek movie coming out. And no marketing at all trying to make it an 50th year anniversary event. I also don’t think Independence Day Resurrection being as bad as it was helped either.
Jason Bourne didn’t do that well, either, and got far worse reviews.
I have seen the film once now. It’s really just too congested with SFX and really weird pacing. I didnt enjoy the enterprise attack at all. It was boring…. I really didn’t like that, although I need to watch the film one or two more times to see how it grows, or not, on me. The acting is OK. The story is completely underwhelming for the 50th anniversary.
I do feel that another film will still happen. But we need a radically new direction next time. If they cannot deliver that, hopefully they leave it at Beyond and no more than that.
How often do you see a swarm attack with tiny vessels piercing the hull? That was different from the usual fare which, in itself, made the attack more interesting.
Keachick,
Re: How often do you see a swarm attack with tiny vessels piercing the hull?
At least told once before:
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/The_Swarm_(episode)
I also think Species 8472, used in introducing Voyager’s Seven of Nine, which spilled out of singularities a hundredfold and attached its bioships to opposing ships and then proceeded to rip through their bulkheads behaved in a swarm-like manner, with smaller vessels than those they attacked, for another example.
I had no issue with the swarm attack. It looked fine on camera. Ofcourse the decision to destroy the Enterprise was ho hum. But then again, the idiotic decision to retcon the Enterprise into this gigantic, incredibly high tech Apple-inspired ship reduced the drama that was inherent in TOS – a wondrous ship but one still pushing the bounds of available technology, out on the edge of known space far from communication and safety. Anything could go wrong.
They eliminated that on purpose and thus, to put our crew in danger needed an even bigger, badder, stronger and more ridiculous ship or come up with a way to immediately destroy it. Shame really
I discount your assertion that the film suffered poor word of mouth. Before anyone else takes blame, someone in marketing needs to fall on his/her sword. Marketing was lame for this film. My theatre (an AMC googleplex in a nice suburb of Atlanta) had ONLY the Jaylah non-descript poster, the one that says “Star Trek”… nowhere on it. You’d think the poster was for a movie called ‘Beyond’ about an albino girl. No toys. No games specifically for this film. Lousy marketing. Also, unify the damned release date, since the haul on opening night has become your god.
CmdrR, I could not agree more.
I just wanted to say Yes, to everything you just said.
I loved the poster design, but it felt out of context.
Anyone else remember the toys for STAR TREK in the 90’s being awesome? I still have my next gen and voyager figures, and the ships.
The lack of games, even for mobile devices is shocking. What is available is kinda terrible, there’s no excuse for not trying. I’d rather pay for a ported old game than the free ones that are available.
Star Wars was idle and there was no Guardians of the Galaxy when the first two movies came out. With those two franchises thriving has the general audience lost excitement for Star Trek? I am afraid Star Trek Beyond will prove to the Studio that if your Star Trek movie is to Star Trekie, it will not make money. If there is a 4th it will be more like the 1st two.
I’d have to disagree with you there. The best of the Trek films were so, in large part, because they were very Trekkie. Look at TWOK, TUC, & FC. They could have just as easily been 2-part of episodes of their respective series because they grappled with ideas, explored character & THEN threw in some action for eye candy. Just like in the shows. Beyond came closest to that of the new movies & so I hope that if a 4th one is made that they keep going in that direction. I hope that they finally make one that shows the crew actually exploring & finding something new & the drama arises out of the discovery.
I wasn’t talking quality of the films. Those movies are why I am a Star Trek fan. I was fearing profitability. Those movie were made with reasonable budgets that could turn a profit with box office mostly coming from trek fans. At the budgets these newer films are being made with they cannot make a profit without the interest of the general movie audience whether a trek fan or not. Beyond’s box office performance might make them go back to the formula of the first two films. But they should try to go lower budget and be unique and not try to complete with or be Star Wars.
They. need. to. release. Trek:
— worldwide on the same day;
— every two years;
— at a different time of year[Thanksgiving! Winter holiday season!];
— movies that don’t have to fulfill the “tentpole” shallow-action-CGI crapfest formula; and
— movies like “Beyond” without the “villain” but with a good, dramatic, well-thought-out science fiction plot.
I agree with you, Marja.
Having a Star Trek movie released around your Thanksgiving or Christmas makes no difference to us here, since that time of the year is the spring, and from Christmas onwards our summer holidays!
I suspect that there will always be some form of “villain”, but it would be great if it were something more in the nature of powerful natural forces, causing a host of problems for the good ship and crew, both large and small.
However, it cannot be denied that much of the angst throughout our human history has been brought about by a member(s) of the human race. Unfortunately, what these stories seem to be telling, is that it is likely many humans will carry the same crappy baggage that has been part of humanity’s inheritance and, it seems, will be part of our future inheritance as well. However, much of the goodness our humanity had/has and will have will counteract such iniquity – (only word I could think of).
I think this is what Star Trek is about, ie recognising that, no matter how bad some people can be (for a variety of reasons), that there are other people who are able to muster a certain strength of character in terms of goodwill, empathy, insight, capacity for self-sacrifice (even in terms of one’s own life, if it has to come to that) etc. Both Kirk and Spock have proven themselves capable of such action. (TWOK/STID). The fact that both were brought back to life later is irrelevant, since, at the moment they each made their decisions for the good of the many, neither knew that those last breaths they took would not be their last after all.
I think they should cut budget for ST4 (if it happens), and focus on the story instead of VFX. I thought Paramount were quite generous to provide an $185M budget after the first two films below-par returns.
I was also confused as to why none of the trailers said anything about the 50th anniversary; Paramount rushed the film to get it in for the 50th anniversary then didn’t make a big deal out of it.
I disagree with the article suggesting to replace the director: I think Justin Lin did a fantastic job.
Khawaja,
I’m wondering if CBS designed, and had the “rights” to, the 50th Anniversary imagery [like the Starfleet emblem with “50” inside]. It is a demmed shame though, that they didn’t couple the phrase “on Star Trek’s 50th Anniversary” with the movie advertising.
Agreed Khawja. Justin Lin wasn’t the problem.
Dre… Unless he was responsible for that Fast & Furious Un-Trek first trailer last December.
It doesn’t feel like they spent 120M on marketing. It felt like they only spent 50M on marketing. Outside of the horrendous 1st Beastie Boys trailer, the marketing scheme only hit my area 2-3 weeks before debuting in theaters. I remember Into Darkness specifically having a much larger marketing presence all over TV, magazines, entertainment news, etc. This time there was barely anything.
JABL, I’m really puzzled that, as soon as they saw the reaction to the first “Beastie Boys” trailer, they didn’t bring out another trailer within a week. Why not? Just use Giacchino’s music …. [shrug]
How much elaborate cutting do they need to do on a trailer? Should it really take as long as it took them to cut and release a new one? “My God, Jim!!”
Star Trek Beyond bombed because it was boring!
It didn’t bomb and it wasn’t boring. There is a middle ground between a bomb and being a blockbuster.
What movie did you watch ?! The movie was a lot better than many of the other Trek films.
I saw posts & spoke to some others who had comments like “I’m sure its good, I’ll just wait to rent it on Blu-ray’. A lot of apathy towards the movie. Plus some people made their minds up with that 1st trailer, nothing was going to change that groups minds.
It’s not fair, goddamit! Beyond was the best of the new movies..
There was no point in going more than once to see it when we all knew it’d be on On Demand in like 8 weeks. And let’s face it, these movies are fun but they aren’t the kinds of movies you want to watch over and over. That’s Paramount’s problem, not ours.
Let’s talk about JJ lying the entire way through development to release, to people that Khan wasn’t going to be in STID. How about people right here interacting with Bob Orci and telling him right after ST 2009 that we don’t want to see Khan revisited. How about ripping off word for word TWOK death scene and just switch Kirk and Spock lines in the theatrical release. My friends online and off were not happy with all of this and I and many of my friends can now say that this is the first trek movie that we will have not seen in the theatre. Only a few of my friends knew of Axanar, so I don’t know how to view the effect of people wanting Axanar and perhaps boycotting Beyond plays into this. I’ll get the dvd, but I was not about to pony up for beyond in the theater after STID.
BRT, Some people here were really pumped to see Khan. Too bad, IMO. Why revisit what was done well previously?
Oh, wait. That’s the Hollywood formula for success these days.
It’s even more bleak when you consider The numbers from Box Office Mojo don’t factor in the exhibitor split.
I think one of the major problems with Star Trek right now is that it doesn’t feel like you’re watching a movie (or movies) that are connected to anything larger.
There’s 50 years worth of Star Trek out there and Star Trek Beyond (and the previous two star trek movies), regardless of the great nods to the original cast, just feel detached from everything else.
In contrast you look at Star Wars. While it’s not fair to compare the two too much, with Star Wars you get the sense that everything connects with one another. It doesn’t matter if it’s Rebels, The Force Awakens or Rogue One, all of those stories combine, connect and are established within a single universe of characters.
Star Trek since 2009 has felt more like an attempt at distancing itself from itself rather than embracing this rich, mythology and expanding and fleshing events or characters or the prime universe out.
Hopefully Discovery can do for Star Trek what Rogue One looks to be doing for Star Wars by bringing the fans back into investing their time, their money and their passion into Star Trek again.
The experiment of setting up an alternate reality has failed. No one wanted to see a younger Kirk or Spock, in an alternate universe that forever changed their destinies.
Fans want to see their universes expanded upon. Be it Star Wars or Star Trek. To start again is an unthinkable nightmare for many, a nightmare that, no matter how good the movies have been, came true for Star Trek fans. It would be unthinkable to reboot Star Wars in the same manner in which Star Trek was rebooted.
The failure of Star Trek Beyond isn’t so much to do with the quality of the film, it’s to do with the very concept this new Kelvin Timeline presents.
I very much hope that what comes next is a confidence from CBS to mine and exploit the prime universe and to reestablish it as the main universe from where everything else has sprung.
I disagree. I think the AltVerse opened a “universe” of possibilities.
Leave the original universe to television, where there is time to dig in and explore what is already heavily mined territory, and let theatergoers see something they will “get” even if they don’t have 50 years of Trek fandom under their belts.
Disagree. Why create a “new universe” where nothing matters. The best thing would be CBS regaining all rights and having the same people do both TV and films. Star Trek is tailor made to be a Cinematic Universe.
Except that this new universe does matter to some, possibly a great many, just not to you, TUP. However, not everything is about you.
Rose you missed the point ofcourse. Why does the new universe matter to you? Are you saying if they made a 4th film and split off into yet another universe, you’d somehow be choked up?
They created a scenario where literally, they could kill everyone and it doesnt matter because its not our Kirk or Spock…they continue to exist. That’s the point.
50 years of Star Trek is a benefit, not something to be erased because the writers are too lazy or lousy to write a great film that respects it. You draw in a crowd, many of whom are not hardcore fans but ones that have had some relationship with Trek over those 50 years and so little is familiar, it breaks that sense of connection they might have felt. It becomes just another sci fi film. And on that level, they werent good enough.
The question is – why shouldn’t this new universe matter to you?
Many people, like me, happen to like this new (KT) universe as well.
When TOS first screened on TV 50 years, none of the characters then were “ours”, but they became so for many people. The same can and does apply to this present scenario.
Nobody is erasing anything. It’s all (just) sci-fi.
You try to make a point about why this universe matters to you but then end it by essentially saying its all just make belief anyway so none of it matters. Well, I agree. But 50 years of anything beloved is something great. The creative aspects of the KT is essentially that THIS Kirk & Spock are not the same Kirk & Spock we watched for 50 years. So why should anyone care?
Liking it or enjoying it for what it is is fine. But if they killed Kirk (oh they did), isnt going to be emotional because its not William Shatner’s Kirk/ That would be the same even if Pine played the same Kirk. But it would matter more if the entirety of the adventures, loves, success, failures etc of OUR Kirk were at stake everytime Pine’s Kirk was shown on screen. But it isnt.
The writers took 50 years of stakes and erased them. That was the most boneheaded thing they did! They completely lowered the stakes and broke the connection between the audience and these beloved characters. And they did it, supposedly, because they werent good enough to write stories that existed in an existing sandbox…and then turned around and wanted all the toys from THAT sandbox in their new one. Utter stupidity. Just bad, bad, bad creative decisions.
the decision to use Nimoy the way they did, despite the really convoluted plot that essentially required knowing an entire movie’s worth of story that was never shown, was actually ingenious. But the decision to crap on traditional time travel rules used in Trek was the wrong decision.
The last 50 years were great.
What is wrong with a new Kirk et al (crafted pretty much after the originals) starting off having their experiences and adventures? That is all JJ/Bad Robot tried to do and I applaud their efforts.
Both captains are “my captain”. William Shatner had his time (and he knows it). Now it is Chris Pine and his Kirk’s time. The connection was never broken for me, nor for many others, it seems.
I am sorry for those who cannot sense or share any kind of connection, however, that is not my problem. That is yours and there is little I can do about that.
Again, Rose, you are presenting your opinion as being correct versus others. Why not recast Luke Skywalker? Because that character and actor are beloved. Even Carrie Fischer, who has seen better days as an actor, was brought back because her inclusion mattered too much to the franchise not to use her.
Regardless of why Paramount has blackballed William Shatner to their own detriment, the idea to erase 50 years of Trek so that a handful of new writers who think they are smarter than everyone can play in their own sandbox was the wrong decision.
basically, every reason you give for “starting over” is still relevant if they chose not to. You can have your cake and eat it too, if these writers had been more clever. They werent. And they were selfish in trying to create a new franchise that they would control and profit from.
Carrie Fisher was the one weak actor in Force Awakens IMO and from the rumors I’m hearing, Carrie may have a much small role in Episode 8. I was vocal about my concerns of her acting on Star Wars forums and was soundly attacked but watching her scenes in the movie, her acting just isn’t up to par.
This has and always will be my argument about bringing Shatner back. He’s such a parody of himself he’s impossible to take seriously anymore. I wouldn’t see Kirk on screen, I’d just see Shatner and I’ll argue this to my grave – he’s never been and never will be a good actor.
The first four Trek movies weren’t tied to anything on TV at the time
This is what happens when you add dirtbikes and horrid uniforms to an already lame reboot universe. #StarGenericSciFiActionNonsenseTrek
Don’t forget about the gold painted rocks in the movie too.
Is that why TOS was cancelled? Painted rocks and terrible uniforms?
I think that Beyond suffered from the two underwhelming movies that came before. Also, the marketing campaign was horribly inept. This is unfortunate because Beyond was a very good movie.
Ah, that’s why it didn’t do as well! They slightly altered the uniforms! You’re a film genius!
Something else for Viacom and Paramount to consider . . .
A number of Trek actors came out in a political statement against Donald Trump. Dumb.
Regardless of whether he wins or loses, Trump has a loyal following of at least 40% of the electorate. They have legitimate concerns about illegal immigration, terrorism, and jobs. Actors who represent the Trek brand who denigrate Trump as a racist, blah, blah, blah also denigrate his followers. Dumb and dumber.
So, while I may be in the minority, my money is still green, and Paramount and Viacom will not be getting any of it for the ST Beyond DVD.
Who knew I could live without ST, just as I am living without the NFL? Surprise, surprise, life is good without contributing to hateful intolerant leftist millionaires who hate America and the principles upon which it was founded.
God bless America. Vote Trump to make it great again.
Utter nonsense.
So, you’re saying that all of those actors, writers, producers, and directors had no First Amendment right to get together and sign a statement expressing their common opinion? That Paramount should have been able to shut them down, even though in many cases it hasn’t employed most of them for years or decades? That’s your idea of the principles upon which America was founded? Sheesh.
(And while we’re on this subject, I feel compelled to express my very real disappointment with this site for ignoring what is by any definition, and whatever one’s politics, a major news story in the Trek universe.)
I am also wondering why this isn’t a story here. Although I have had enough of it in my life. I forgive ya’ll. No I don’t. Yes I do.
I try to separate the artist from the art in most cases. They have every right to speak their opinion (regardless of how incredibly misinformed it is). They have theirs and I have mine. Neither candidate is ideal imo but there’s no way under Gods green earth am I voting for that arch criminal Clinton no matter what bull shit message those people put out. But I’ll still watch Trek until they give me a reason not to.
P.S. I wonder what Bob Orci thinks about this (and Alex for that matter.
it’s just crazy how much people eat up Trump’s lies. That’s why it takes 50 years of Trek actors to bind together to make a political statement — because sometimes people don’t realize that they’re a hair’s breath away from electing a dictator to be president of the United States of America. That’s not our Star Trek future. Trek was always about more than America — it was about all of us.
Clinton is literally the physical embodiment of everything wrong with this nations political system. Crony Capitalist 2.0, neocon war hawk, espouser of divide and rule sex/class/race politics. Not to mention she would sell anyone and their brother down the river for a plug nickel. So yes many people are so tired of this type of politician they would literally vote for anything else at this point. At least Trump would attempt to jump start this nations dead in the water economy. That’s if its not FUBAR already.
I don’t like Clinton [she’s too hawkish, supports oligarchs, and seems to like to intervene in overseas conflicts], but she has my vote.
Trump [“anything else,” in your words] is dangerous to everything our country stands for. He, too, is a plutocrat and oligarch. But add a thin skin; a narcissistic personality; a need to be liked; nay, worshiped; a dismissive attitude toward those who are different from himself; numerous bankruptcies and an ego that perpetrated them, and you do NOT have a person who is qualified to be POTUS. Imagine him texting some world leader at three a.m. with insults, say, telling Angela Merkel she’s a dumbass and a fat pig, and perhaps you’ll get the picture.
The economy has finally begun to recover from the financial disasters W created with his FUBAR “War on Tair”.
I’m not sure if you are clear on just how much Trump has embraced and surpassed “dog-whistle politics,” but racists love him.
Well said, sir!
albatrosity,
You never know: Trump could turn out to be the progenitor of Trek’s Eugenics Wars. His family believed they were better than everyone else, and he seems to have the same mindset. Just let the Losers die and the Winners will rule the world.
Clinton is a “criminal”? Just what has she been convicted of?
Well, jolly good for you. Stay home and have a good time with your nonsensical statistics.
Trump symbolizes everything that is wrong in our country. His campaign rhetoric seems to me to be antithetical to everything Trek represents [hope for the future, and investment in the future].
Dear Trumpfan, why the hell did you like Trek to begin with? Trek’s universe is the antithesis of Trump’s — IDIC and immigration are shown to be positives; women (OK, setting aside TOS) are shown to be worthy of respect; the disabled (Geordi, Melora) make real contributions instead of being mocked; military sacrifices (Spock, Yar) are honored, not mocked; interstellar trade is celebrated; etc.
And not, Trumpy doesn’t have the “loyal following” of 40% of the electorate. Much of that 40% is loyal to the GOP (think Paul Ryan), and I suspect that if Hillary weren’t the equivalent of catnip to the GOP, even a lot of them would defect, a la Mitt Romney and the Bush family.
I think that 40% just likes that Mr. Trump is an outsider and not another career politician like the parade of incompetent, self-serving, available-to-the-highest-bidder politicians of the last 50 years who have gotten this country into the mess it is in now and for whom Sec. Clinton is the Poster Child. They don’t care that he’s impolitic, in fact that’s a selling point. He says what he thinks and gets away with it (even when he’s incredibly stupid, i.e., Miss Universe or the Gold Star Family fiascos). Sec. Clinton says what her pollsters tell her to say and like Trump, she seems to have a casual (at best) relationship with the truth.
I can’t stand either of them. I’m voting for Gary Johnson (while holding my nose.)
That’s definitely a factor in Trump’s popularity. But if you want to stop the endless flow of “career politicians available to the highest bidder,” take money out of politics.
Do it Canadian-style: 5-week campaign, elections and voter registration handled not by a patchwork set of state and local laws but by a single national system, the whole thing completely publicly financed. Put the brakes on PACs, SuperPACs, and lobbying. Repeal Citizens United.
Maybe then, instead of a Congress of millionaire lawyers and businesspeople backed by special interests, ordinary citizens could run, broadening the diversity and lived experience of the people in government. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson said on Bill Maher’s show once, why aren’t there more teachers, scientists, engineers, and artists in Congress?
Honestly, the biggest source of worry is less which individual politician is in power (though Trump is very, very worrisome), it’s the unchecked power of non-state actors like financial institutions and corporations who get to game the system.
As far as I’ve seen, only Clinton and Kaine (and surrogates like Elizabeth Warren) have made this an issue and part of their platform.
Towards the last point, Clinton is a respected career public servant who’s done lots of admirable work, and who scares the GOP so much they’ve done nothing but smear her since the time she was First Lady, to try to delegitimize her; even though most of their accusations have been proven to be baseless or mere rumor; Politifact rates her as more truthful than the majority of politicians. She’s definitely not perfect, but she’s hardly the Napoleon of Crime that she’s made out to be.
I suspect for many, especially low-information voters or those who just think “all politicians are the same,” she’s a Rorschach test they project their worst fears on.
Actually, Clinton didn’t adopt that “non-state actors” campaign angle until Sanders forced her to. As far as I know, she never did release the text of the speeches she made on Wall Street.
I never said anything about Clinton saying that. I find it odd that people are behaving like the content of a speech is somehow a top secret briefing. Surely there were people in attendance who remember what was said…
Absolutely right.
Greg job Simon Pegg – one week before theatrical release open your mouth and tell all fans who disagree with your politics to F— Off. That will do wonders for box office returns.
Admittedly, I have not been following the US presidential electioneering much, but from the little that I have seen, it all feels surreal and not in a good way. It’s hard to want to follow. So this is what the US is all about, has come to? Surely not.
As for those Trek actors endorsing the statement made on facebook, I was under the impression that something called freedom of expression was still OK/legal in the US. What these actors endorsed was personal and has nothing whatsoever to do with Paramount or Viacom. Some may have been or may still be employees of these companies, but that does and should not limit these individuals in their right to express their views on politics, religions, what makes for a healthy dachshund or any other darned thing.
I meant to place my post above (9.04 pm) below Jack’s. He is right – what Truzak wrote is “utter nonsense”.
Truzak has a point. While an actor is entitled to their opinion, we are entitled to judge them for that opinion. I am generally a conservative so I was open-minded about Trump and was not dismissive of him as so many were. I knew he was going to capture a lot of attention.
I dont think he’s maliciously racist. I think he’s just out of touch. I think he’s so elite and sheltered he doesnt get it. I think a successful, wealthy black guy is someone Trump wouldnt bat an eye at being pals with. But he would judge poor black people. I think he made some interesting remarks about the Muslim religion and ofcourse you cannot judge an entire people based on the craziest segment (the same could be said for Christians).
I turned the corner on Trump when he basically lobbied for the assassination of Clinton, his repeated lies and his continued statements that, at best are seemingly bigoted. His remarks about certain women also. Trump is a jerk. And thats why he should not be voted for.
You will never fine one politician who is the perfect candidate as far as matching all your beliefs. So you take the bad with the good. But sometimes the bad is bad enough that you have to vote against the good. So people who like Trump’s economic plan or immigration plan, sorry, but that doesnt outweigh the bad.
Hilary isnt perfect either. But she’s smart, effective, experienced and I believe genuinely wants to make a difference. I can respect someone who might be wrong or have a different opinion who truly believes they will make a positive difference. That’s Hilary. And again, Im a conservative. I’d vote for Hilary if I could.
I don’t think Trump fans are Star Trek fans. Star Trek is way to forward thinking, liberal and inclusive for your average uptight religious right gun loving bumpkin. You could always tell the “Trump” fan on this board from a mile away because they were the ones in an uproar about Sulu being gay in the movie
Here is my take, and I have seen it mentioned it by others. (See Red Letter Media’s review of “The Force Awakens”.)
In every one of the Kelvin Timeline films, our heroes fought a baddie driven by revenge with a big-mother-friggen weapon. Enough. (It’s worse when the “classic” Trek films are added. We have this story repeated in “Nemesis” and “Insurrection”. Five films in a row. Doubly enough.)
The fact that Into Darkness was a crappy movie didn’t help.
Trek fan 67, Mr. Plinkett’s review, “Star Trek: Into Reference” is hilarious [also crude at times] and dead-on. Mr. Plinkett is part of Red-Letter Media.
To each their own. I liked it
I have not read all the responses here, so apologiess if this was already said, but I blame the first preview that was released. You know what they say about first impressions. Ive been a trek fan for almost 25 years, and that first preview left a very foul impression on me as a trek fan. Fortunately in turned around in the next set of previews, but i cant speak for everyone. Just my opinion.
This isn’t a great piece – it’s full of speculation and the writing isn’t great. Trekmovie has no business posting stuff like this. “Our predictions?” Give me a break.
This movie is pure garbage and the money made shows that. If you guys are true star trek fan or even fans of good movies you would see this.
Travis I agree with you. When the villain picked up two crew members and sucked the life out of them with his magical powers, I was taken out of the Star Trek universe and imagined I was watching some generic 2016 Comic Book movie.
and the scenes with Spock and Bones, wouldn’t they have been more effective if we had scene some of the competitive banter between the two of them, which could have been added to that scene Kirk and McCoy had sharing a drink quite early in the movie. Instead of showing the two of them at odds, which would have made their “reconciliation” more meaningful….we’re told that we’re in year 3 of the 5 year mission so we can only imagine the bickering they had over the first 3 years. Oh well ….
I love the actors and appreciate the crew..but the story and the script were just not up to the standards we’re used to.
“STID” looks like an Oscar worthy film in comparison to this one. Cumberbatch gave a wonderful performance.
I liked it more than STID, about the same as 2009. Again it was the same old generic villain and generic super weapon. I more or less felt for Krall as I did for Nero, meh. All that talk in interviews before Beyond was out about this villain being different, that it would make us stop and think, maybe the Federation is the bad guy…just didn’t pan out. I was over generic villains wanting to blow up the world ages ago. The super weapon would have been a little more interesting to a fan if it were Iconian. Krall talks about an ancient civilization and the ancient weapon, would have been cool if they tied it in.
TheChad,
At least Krall didn’t have a giant black spaceship
One of my favorite things on this website is Rose trying to twist the plots to try and make sense out of them. And convince everyone else her false narrative is real.
I think that what was important is what lead Edison to become Krall and why he felt as he did about the Federation. His reasons were different from both Nero and Khan. Of course, on the surface, they all seemed to want the same thing – earth and/or Federation’s destruction, but the individual motivating factors are what make each of these three characters different from one another.
It is about seeking dissimilarities with these villains, not what is similar. Most villains are not all that interesting because often their actions tend to be strongly motivated by self centered aggrandisement, stupidity and cruelty. You need to dig a bit deeper then maybe you discover something that could give one pause for thought. All three films gave viewers clues…
Also, no one and nothing is totally separate from another. We all impact and are impacted by what we do/say or by what others do/say, in the most obvious ways and in ways too subtle to be easily discerned. This also applies to the Kelvin timeline’s three main villains. It is about insight, foresight, response.
“When the villain picked up two crew members and sucked the life out of them with his magical powers”
No wonder a movie gets such bad press because much of it comes from the so-called fans who will/cannot follow what the film is actually about. The villain had no “magical powers” (as you put it). What he did was some more advanced alien technology which could extract the life-force out of another living being.
There is no end as to what kind of technology there may be or could be created in the future – for good or ill.
Open your minds.
More insults from Rose. So many fans had an issue with the Alien Vampire garbage that its CLEARLY a poor plot point. We get it – you watched it so closely you understand and appreciate it. Maybe others simply reject garbage and you like it. Thats cool. But why are you trying to convince people to like something they didnt?
Except that, TUP, you once again miss my point.
It was not “magic”. Just because you do not like what a particular technology is shown to do, which was, in this case, quite unconscionable, does NOT make it a poor plot point. In actuality, the showing of the use of such technology was a key plot point because it explained how Edison had managed to live as long as he did and why he looked the way he did.
I am not convincing anybody to like anything. I am pointing out that all kinds of technologies do or could exist. However, this does not mean that they all should exist, like the alien tech that Edison found, but it does (within the context of this movie) and he made use of it.
I don’t like guns or machetes, so according to some people’s logic, I should have a big issue with this “gun garbage”, despite the fact that the guns in question may be crucial to what happens in a particular story.
The poster used the word magic in a sarcastic way to describe how stupid it was. Did that go over your head?
Except that the technology in question was not stupid. It was clearly very effective at delaying the ageing process and maintaining a person’s general health (not necessarily a healthy mental state though). It was neither magical or stupid. Whatever happened to Edison’s conscience (as in basic respect for other life) – who knows, however, he is certainly not the only person to behave unconscionably.
The creation and use of such technologies is iniquitous, but it is little different from the nuclear weapons arsenal that many countries have now, not to mention bio-weaponry etc. If you want to describe anything as stupid, then surely what humans have created within the last 60 years would satisfy the criminal and stupidity descriptions.
Keachick,
Re:Except that the technology in question was not stupid
Well, I think the notion that it could ONLY rejuvenate living tissue with self-aware life energy somehow common among distinctly differently evolved species preposterious.
Rose – you do backflips to justify your opinion which was formed based on Orci saying hi to you. You just argue for the sake of arguing. If you liked the film, then great. But you seem to take it personally when others dont agree. The whole monster mash aspects to the character were stupid and should have been cut during re-writes. The plot didnt have time to evolve properly, they were too rushed.
It was, ‘we need a pre-federation officer who is mad…but he has to still be alive…so he has to have some technology that allows that…and that conceals his true self…and that is scary’. A led to B led to C…the problem was, it was a weak foundation to begin with. It served no real purpose other than making the character a monster which actually reduced the effectiveness of the character’s perspective. Because it allowed an “out”, that he had gone mad and was changed, rather then having a real perspective worth hearing.
Much like Marcus was reduced to a war mongering Dick Cheney rather than saying hey, you know what, he has a point. And making it a philosophical debate. it became big bad monster vs Captain Kirk. And then trying to walk that back near the end…fell flat.
Poorly written movie.
Oh, please the old “if you like _______ then you are not a TRUE FAN like me.” You are not the arbiter of who is and is not a true fan. You have your opinion, and I have mine.
Thorny I agree with you, a fan saying another fan is not a fan (got that?) goes against everything that is a star trek fan.
Looks like STB made less than a million dollars this weekend. China barely earned $100 thousand this weekend, and it was the last big earner. So the total box office is going to sit around $336,756,543 for a few more weeks until it opens in Japan.
Sadly, in Paramount’s desperation to release the home video before it’s opened in Japan, all but guarantees the film won’t do well there. I completely disagre that it’s going to make anywhere near $10-15 million. I’d expect a final box office somewhere around $340-$345 million.
With Paramount only keeping half the international box office, that leaves them $15 million in the red, before they even add the massive $120 million marketing budget to the deficit.
Now many will say, that ST09 only earned $385,680,446, and Paramount’s half of the box office take was only $193 — but STID only had a budget of $150 million, which means Paramount already made a profit of $43 million from the box office alone. Add to that record BluRay and DVD sales. If STB had only cost $150 million, Paramount would be $18 million in the black instead of $18 million in the red.
Hopefully the home video sales will make up the deficit, but with over $135 million to go, they will have to have another record release.
There is one silver lining to this — the international box office, though down overall accounts for over 53% of the total box office, which means the huge marketing budget spent on STID paid off in attracting new international audiences, earning to date over $50 million more than ST09.
I thought STB was a good movie. Thought the 1st half was great, 2nd half good, but just a mediocre ending. Third best of the of 3 Bad Robot movies. Of the 13 trek movies it would be somewhere in the middle 7th or 8th best. I know the marketing of the Enterprise being destroyed AGAIN in the trailers turned me off. I was like didn’t we just see that in the last movie. Though I thought it was entertaining and will executed when I saw it in the movie. But I hope the next director shows more respect to the Enterprise. Maybe a smaller budget won’t allow for the Enterprise getting the hell knocked out of it again.
Jim,
I agree. This is the only time in the KT that the Enterprise’s destruction was well done and meaningful. Kirk and Chekov found she still had some tricks up her sleeve.
I’m tired of the Enterprise being beaten to within an inch of her life in these movies. I want to see the Enterprise come out on top for once, and not due to some trickery like beaming photon torpedoes into the cargo hold. And I want phasers that look like they’ll do real damage, not the pew-pew-pew phasers of the first movie.
Well done article. I really do believe the lackluster job of marketing really hurt the film. And, yes, time to do more with less.
Maybe it’s just that the stories are weak. The first one used a silly plot twist with Spock and the last one was a remake of a classic. I love Trek but these movies are weak.
Maybe the next film should be a bona fide remake of an favorite episode. An expansion. Something we all know “took place” and want to see again, bigger, yet more varied. With nothing “meta” about it.
I would listen wholeheartedly to what Nick Meyer says, especially as he is responsible for the 2 best movies in the Star Trek franchise; both of which were done on a relative shoestring budget. He is right to say that pressure and constraints can sometimes fuel artistic quality (take the genius of Spielberg and his yellow barrels in Jaws and all the tension they generated, used only because the shark looked so bad). Studios allocate too much time to action set-pieces and special effects. Its almost as if they have the idea for the set-pieces and then build the movie around them. For my money, the clean, military look of ST6 hasn’t been topped, nor has the tense, tight storyline and the character interplay. Similarly, ST2: TWOK plays like an old submarine movie and the beauty of the Mutara Nebula sequence still stands as the benchmark to this day.
If they ever make ST4, I agree they should be looking to half the budget, forget the promotional tie-ins with soft-drinks and car-hire and just look to make a thrilling story with a strong human element, a spirit of adventure and some great character interplay, plus (dare I say it) some space and exploration. Beyond managed to tick some of these boxes, but a lot of the good elements were marred by the generic action, some stupid plot holes and a very contrived / engineered feel to it all. It just felt like product rather than a piece of creativity and was desperately missing that spark of inspiration. Again, not a bad film by any means, but just a bit hollow and unmemorable, much like Jurassic World.
i think, ultimately, Star Trek belongs on television where the creative team don’t have to pander to pop-culture and the (presumed) desires of a young audience.
As relatively disappointed as I was, I am still a Star Trek fan at heart and will always turn up to see a new movie. Paramount can probably count on (in today’s money) at least $ 100 million of ticket sales from the loyal fans. They should be starting there and then looking to just make a great movie that will get another $ 100 million. It also wouldn’t hurt to have a truly international cast, rather than (generally) Americans of varying ethnicity. Take the top stars from Korean, Indian and European cinema and cast them in key or strong supporting roles to truly underline the international message. That’s no disrespect to John Cho or Zoe Saldana. How about casting Rajinkanth as a starfleet Admiral or a Klingon or some other alien. He would cost very little to hire, but would rake in millions at the Indian box office.
Those are just my thoughts.
Barry, I agree with this:
“Studios allocate too much time to action set-pieces and special effects. Its almost as if they have the idea for the set-pieces and then build the movie around them.” This should not be the way any Trek movie is conceived, and yet it seems they were.
I also agree with you on a truly international cast. Hrithik Roshan would have made a great Khan [he’s absolutely gorgeous and muscular, the picture of a “perfected human,” and is very popular in India. This of course would mean they would have had to explain [to the uninitiated moviegoer] who Khan was.
And surely there is also a Chinese star who could feature in a Trek film, since Paramount wants the Chinese market. Chow Yun-Fat, or someone in his range of fame and talent.
So now we’re casting actors simply to sell more tickets? As long as the goal is to make as much money as possible off of Trek, the quality of the effort is likely to always suffer.
Smaller budgets + better stories = predictable results. It may not result in a Summer tent-pole franchise, but it doesn’t need to. Trek has and always shall be a cash cow. Trying to commercialize it as Paramount has been doing will only dilute its value. In fact, it’s Paramount’s poor management decisions that put them into a position of desperation to make Trek work as a blockbuster franchise, when it never has been.
My rules for the next few Star Trek Movies
The whole galaxy doesn’t have to be in jeopardy. Just someone we care about. – You’ve already blown up Vulcan and tried to do the same to earth.
Establish the antagonist and motivation early and clearly. Don’t hide under so many layers of makeup the actor cannot act. – Idris was wasted in STB.
Bigger or more numerous bad guys ships aren’t necessary. – Star Wars will need a Death-Star the size of a Dyson sphere the way things are going. Don’t follow their lead.
Leave us wanting more. Don’t wrap it up 100%.
Give the Enterprise some decent shields – “Treat her like a Lady…….”
Don’t replace Chekov – A smaller team is actually better. – If you really need to, bring back Sofia. Or even Cupcake
Continuity Continuity Continuity
OldFed,
And speaking of continuity, why not check in and see how the remaining Vulcans are doing? What conflicts could have arisen from their settling a new planet? What genetic challenges are they facing? And so on.
Agreed on many of those points, especially the waste of Elba.
But while I liked the character a lot, I think it would be a unbelievable to get Jaylah as a crewmember. It was bad enough that a Starfleet Cadet became Captain of Starfleet’s flagship in the first movie.
If they don’t recast Chekov (I see no reason they shouldn’t, Yelchin didn’t originate the role anyway) I’d like to see the replacement be a name somewhat familiar to TOS fans: Riley, Kyle, or even DeSalle. Even if the role is minor, it would be fun to see those characters in the reboots.
@Thorny – Given that we have the tech skill-set backstory on Jaylah established, I don’t see a big reach having her back on the enterprise after graduating an accelerated curriculum at Starfleet Academy.
@Marja – Yes, definitely a chance to clear up the misunderstanding that Vulcans mate only once every seven years.
Add to my list, some techobabel to make sure we never see an interstellar transporter beam again. Gary Seven wants it back…
Meyer’s statement about making films faster makes some sense. The thing is the story. If the story is good and you’ve got the right production people and a director with vision and the fight to see that vision make it to the screen, then more time may be good. A good example would be James Cameron and Titanic. Remember, they had planned a summer release but postponed it to Christmas for tweaking. The rest is box office and critical history. Then again, there aren’t any Trek folk past or present with such a hardhead as Cameron. I still think Shatner should have used some of that multi-million dollar salary he got to put back into V if he had truly believed in the movie he made. Someone needs to ask him that before he passes on for an answer.
Budget. Whats wrong with wanting a high production Trek budget if the story warrants it? If i’m paying upwards of $18 for that IMAX-lite ticket, I want the most bang for my box office buck. I want to be thrilled, amazed and awed by making that travel to the movie theater. Why would I want to settle for high drama and a lower production Trek movie spending that kind of money. I think its ridiculous. Its like like paying $XX to have either filet mignon and hamburger. I’ll take the filet mignon. Its the story. Its the story.
Beyond’s story opens with the crew already way into their 5 year mission. Yet, as an audience we have not cinematically travelled with this crew at all to now warrant deep space fatigue in the latest film. This movie missed a great opportunity to deliver a decent adventure while offering some contemporary message or allusion. And stop with the scene homages to prior Trek films, especially II. II was a good film, but its not one to have to be referred, referenced, remade in anymore Trek movies. Start fresh. No recycling.
Its the story. Star Trek is a science fiction series. The next writer or writers should hire a leading scientific consultant on leading or close to emerging technologies. We’ve got the warp drive, transporters and post TNG; the PAD, holodeck, biomechanics, nanotechnology. Whats next? Take one or more of the ‘new’ discoveries and work that into the movie. Could be a plot device or side one. The idea is to think forward and move Trek ahead of the current times and into the future.
Stop with the Trek cliches. I am tired of watching scenes of the crew reading a line or two looking at a console. Why not show the audience some bridge panel visuals that help the crew conclude that which is reported?
And stop with the ship going down after two or three hits from an alien weapon. The Enterprise is supposed to be the best ship in the fleet and the finest crew. The ship and crew should be able to sustain and use their collective ingenuity and skill to survive. When the Enterprise gets attacked by those Matrix-style attack machines, I was thinking to myself that if this were Voyager, Janeway would’ve launched a high yield matter/anti-matter spread and obliterated
the swarm en masse. End of threat.
Kirk, yet again, gets beaten up by the big bad guy in the third of the reboot films. Why? Why is he such a wimp? He’s in his prime. He should bulk up some muscle by now. Maybe thats why he gets beaten up in all the films. It seems only Sulu is the only one who can fight. Oh..I forgot. Spock punches hard when he lets his emotional side take over. :)
Since JJ is done with Star Wars, perhaps we can get him back in the fold to direct IV. Or, get a decent visionary director like a Nolan, maybe but I’m more inclined to think the director’s we want will want to do their own fresh projects.
The timing against other big movies as well as the poor marketing are key reasons I think. Your recommendations are definitely solid, hopefully these are the kinds of things Paramount and Bad Robot are discussion.
I really have a hard time believing the studio spent 120mill on P&A on this movie. Damn if you weren’t a Trekkie and didn’t know it was the 50th anniversary you wouldn’t have a clue it was from the “advertising”.
And for the haters coming out of the woodwork to pile on (I’m not talking viewers who really didn’t enjoy the flick and give honest reasons why they don’t in a coherent and polite manner and not the dumb excuses like “its not Star Trek” “Your not a real fan if you like it “ect) saying this article is wrong because the “real” reason Star Trek Beyond underperformed at the B.O. is because they think it “sucks” remember that your a tiny minority. The vast majority of viewers really enjoyed the movie… a lot. Audience polled by CinamaScore gave it an A-, not to mention the critics largely agreed with the audience, RT 83% Metacritic 68 out of a 100 indicating “generally favorable reviews”. :]
The vast majority of people loved Beyond. They just didnt bother seeing it. hahahahahahaha
Sorry Hugh, the vast majority did not really enjoy the movie. It wasnt good enough. It was fine. But forgettable. Fine but forgettable is not “really enjoyable”. it just isnt. Beyond wasnt good enough.
TUP I’m talking about the movie going audience obviously. Those viewers did enjoy it by far.
Im not doubting people “enjoyed” it. But too many here are getting caught up in the idea that it was a really good movie because they fell on the side of “like” rather then “dislike”. The fact Beyond was a smoother effort than STID with better character moments belies the fact that it had many issues. But mostly it can be summed up by saying it was very forgettable.
There was nothing about it that makes someone say “hey, man, you NEED to see this! It was really good!”. I’ve mentioned the film Battleship before. I enjoyed it. Actually enjoyed it quite a lot. But it didnt make me go out of my way to tell people to see it. Although I liked it more than Beyond and I’d be apt to defend it (ie. if someone said hey did you see Battleship, I hear its terrible, I would say no no, it was really enjoyable for what it was). But Beyond was a big Meh. More of a “good meh”. It was fine. I enjoyed those 90 minutes. But then i forgot all about it.
It was forgettable. Thats the issue.