I think now that Beyond has flopped there is going to be a lot of talk about the franchise long term history. I think its obvious these films will not last much longer. Beyond COULD be the final one but I think it will do well enough on DVD to maybe make one more but we'll see? But if the next one flops too or just break even then thats it for these films.
Paramount was hoping these films become their Harry Potter, Marvel, Star Wars, etc and they just never took off for some reason. Dr. Strange has made more money than this movie in just two weeks and that one also cost $20 million less than this one. Thats the problem ultimately, these movies just can't create any real buzz or hype.
I'm hoping though if they do stop making these films they won't give up on Trek for the long term. We do have the show coming, although THAT now seem to be in some trouble, but hopefully if its successful who knows maybe that will could become a new film franchise in time if these movies are dead but thats years away of course.
End of the day I just want some form of Star Trek. I didnt love these films but they were at least fun distractions. Star Trek really belongs on the small screen though. I like that they gave Star Trek a big screen treatment but its just not really working unfortunately. Maybe it just needs to stay on TV for awhile again.
Marvel 2016: Agents of Shield, Agent Carter, Daredevil, Civil War, Dr. Strange, Luke Cage!
reply
share
TrevorAclea
8 years ago
At the end of the day it comes down to the budget. They tried to turn a niche, fairly modestly budgeted franchise into a massive budget blockbuster franchise, but never attracted a large enough audience to justify the massive extra expenditure. The first film performed badly overseas but was one of the last really huge titles on home video and led them to think they had a Batman Begins situation, the second one dropped Stateside, improved overseas but again cost way, way too much while the third really had nothing going for it with the general public - yawn, not another alien out for revenge? - while Paramount had by then alienated a lot of the old fanbase who they clearly regarded as not that important since they couldn't stop Nemesis bombing. When it went $35m overbudget it went from a picture that would make money eventually to one that'll make its money back some time around the next manned NASA trip to the Moon, haemorrhaging both Trekkers and general audiences alike.
They really need to stop thinking space battles and killer aliens and look at something more plot/idea led with a much, much lower budget: Paramount's Arrival could have been a Trek story, and with a critically acclaimed director, a strong cast and a $47m budget even though it won't gross as much it's going to show a tidy little profit and give the studio some awards credibility into the process. That's where they should be aiming with Trek.
"Security - release the badgers."
reply
share
fctiger
8 years ago
I agree with all of this. I was the one who said over and over and over again STID budget was just ridiculous. It was too much. Yes a slight increase makes sense but not $40 million more when the last film just barely broke even. I think the Nolan Batman films do apply here because yeah I think they were kind of hoping the first film would get people interested like BB but then take off with the sequel as TDK did. But what people seem to forget is the Batman films were already huge before Nolan showed up. Batman 89 was one of the biggest films ever at the time. They just ran it into the ground by the time Batman and Robin showed up but Batman was always a big deal, especially in America.
The one thing those franchises had in common though is neither was all that big internationally. Now TDK changed the game for that franchise while Trek is still waaaaaay behind in terms of interest outside of America. Better but still pretty poor.
Star Trek was always just a niche appeal and while yes it could certainly have a bigger budget but something on the size of Star Wars, Transformers and Avengers is a bit much. All those are billion dollar franchises. Star Trek can't even reach half that. You would think STID would taught them that.
And yet they doubled down with Beyond. It shouldve been $130-150 million at most but they gave it the same loony budget and thought if they added bigger explosions and a rock soundtrack would get people in when all it did was alienate both long time Trek fans and casual audiences.
Again its not to say Star Trek can't have kick ass action, DS9 did it weekly but it also had something to SAY and thats the difference. These films are pure popcorn driven. To be fair they do try and give it some depth in terms of the themes of the films but all of that gets overshadowed by all the one liners and explosions. No one ever just sits in a room and contemplate anything. Again it doesn't have to turn into some philosophy lesson but there is nothing wrong that has a story that gets the characters to think beyond locking phasers or getting into a fist fight every twenty minutes.
I think if they did something like TUC that was a solid action film BUT actually about something beyond someone wanting revenge it could get more people excited again. I dont know if it can happen with these films at this point but I think they now realized trying to turn it into GOTG isn't going to automatically work either.
Paramount wanted to play in the bigger arena but Trek is just not that kind of property unfortunately which is probably why its better to keep it on the small screen if the films aren't going to make it the kind of money they want and only driving the hardcore fans away.
Marvel 2016: Agents of Shield, Agent Carter, Daredevil, Civil War, Dr. Strange, Luke Cage!
reply
share