Star Trek Beyond (2016) (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

For sure. And I bet you could do a great Star Trek movie for $100 million. I don't know what the $12 million Wrath Of Khan cost in 1982 is worth today, but I'd guess it would be less than that.

I loved Beyond, but the final battle at Yorktown went on a little long for me, and it looks like it was probably one of the most expensive things to do. Cut back on that, save on budget, and get a better movie.

 

[Carabimero]

You could totally do a Star Trek movie for less than 100 million.

Write a good script about human beings, even if they're aliens. Shoot a moral story, a movie that leaves audiences deeply fulfilled. One or two set pieces. Good writing is the best way to fill up theaters, but it seems to be out of vogue.

Or maybe it's just the fact that virtually all the good writers work in TV nowadays.

 

[Nelson Au]

My knee jerk reaction Alan, this is Paramount making Star Trek films into huge action films. We all know the roots of the Original Series is wagon train to the stars meant as small screen morality plays. What you described will hopefully be Star Trek Discovery.

I've always felt the worst thing they did to Star Trek is make it into a film series. And so the expectation are Marvel box office numbers and spectacle. I didn't read that article about how Beyond is a flop, but I agree it's silly to say it is.

 

[Carabimero]

My knee jerk reaction Alan, this is Paramount making Star Trek films into huge action films. We all know the roots of the Original Series is wagon train to the stars meant as small screen morality plays. What you described will hopefully be Star Trek Discovery.

I've always felt the worst thing they did to Star Trek is make it into a film series. And so the expectation are Marvel box office numbers and spectacle. I didn't read that article about how Beyond is a flop, but I agree it's silly to say it is.

BFG is a flop. BEYOND is, at this point, a disappointment. In the long run it will do okay.

 

[Nigel P]

You could totally do a Star Trek movie for less than 100 million.

Write a good script about human beings, even if they're aliens. Shoot a moral story, a movie that leaves audiences deeply fulfilled. One or two set pieces. Good writing is the best way to fill up theaters, but it seems to be out of vogue.

Or maybe it's just the fact that virtually all the good writers work in TV nowadays.

I concur. Yet so many huge budget films go into production without a script being anywhere close to finalised.

 

[Carabimero]

I concur. Yet so many huge budget films go into production without a script being anywhere close to finalised.

Yes, or they have a script finalized, but it's fractured, and they either don't realize it, don't know how to fix it, or don't care. SUPER 8, for example, would have been ten times more powerful if a simple fix had repaired the fractured ending. JJ later admitted it. But the movies make money anyway, usually, so there's no motivation to ever really do top-notch writing.

Writing is the most important thing in a movie, and it's almost always disrespected on some level, if not many levels. No one would ever dream of telling the DP how to do their job, but everyone thinks they can write, and that they have a better idea for a scene than the writer.

Even if someone pulled off a tentpole movie with primarily just good writing, the other studios wouldn't imitate it properly, just like studios didn't understand why DEADPOOL was successful. They invariably take the wrong lessons away from failures and successes.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I miss the days of an IMAX experience being more selective - when fewer movies were chosen to recieve the IMAX treatment, but those that did stuck around.

I was just thinking that I saw Star Trek '09 about 7 times in theaters - including at least four IMAX viewings. Like STID, when it left IMAX 15/70 theaters, museum screens were able to get it, and I saw it at the New England Aquarium on their gorgeous screen a bunch.

So in other places, "museum IMAX screens" don't get IMAX feature films until a few weeks after initial release date?

We get 'em same date here in DC - maybe because "museum IMAX" is the only true IMAX we have!

 

[benbess]

Long-time Trek fan, as some of you know, but I'm joining this discussion late. Apologies. Anyway, I thought Beyond was beyond bad. Made me nostalgic for the JJA Treks, which I didn't think was possible. In retrospect I'm looking at them more kindly now. Beyond had empty and seemingly endless action, with little in the way of an interesting plot or character development.

How would you grade all of the Trek films. Here are my ratings. I'd be interested to see those of fellow fans.

The Motion Picture: B (great moments and serious flaws)
Wrath of Khan: A
Search For Spock: B
Voyage Home: A-
Final Frontier: C-
Undiscovered Country: A
Generations: A (am I the only one who loves this one!?)
First Contact: B
Insurrection: C
Nemesis: C+ (Underrated imho)
Trek 09: B
Into Darkness: B
Beyond: D+

 

[Sam Favate]

For sure. And I bet you could do a great Star Trek movie for $100 million. I don't know what the $12 million Wrath Of Khan cost in 1982 is worth today, but I'd guess it would be less than that.

$12 million dollars in 1982 equates to approximately $30 million today. (Courtesy of www.usinflationcalculator.com/) That's a cumulative rate of inflation of 149.8%.

Just imagine.

 

[benbess]

I think Beyond is a relative failure at the box office so far. Total worldwide gross is currently c. $201 million for the movie, compared to a reported production budget of $185. That would seem like a small profit, but the studio only gets about half of the gross box office take, meaning that Paramount is only at this point seeing $100m or so. Plus the production budget does not include publicity and studio overhead, which for a title like this can be c. $100m. So we're looking at a total cost of maybe $280m and a income of $100+, which looks like a big loss.

Into Darkness grossed $467m on a production budget of c. $190. I think that movie was about breakeven, but probably made a profit when home video and cable is taken into account.

I see Beyond as a sea of red ink that will make the studio reconsider what they are doing with the Star Trek movies.

It would be good, imho, to try something else entirely. I think they need to ditch the current approach and current high priced cast, fx, directors, etc. and reboot along the lines of what Nicholas Meyer did in 1982. Make the story first and dial back the budget to less than $100m.

 

[Malcolm R]

Yeah, it's the budgets that have gone crazy, necessitating grosses well over $100M just to avoid "bomb" status.

One would think with advances in technology and computing, it would become cheaper to make these FX-filled films, rather than so much more expensive.

 

[Tino]

Again, Beyond HAS NOT opened in many overseas markets yet and won't until after the Olympics.

 

[benbess]

Again, Beyond HAS NOT opened in many overseas markets yet and won't until after the Olympics.

True. And maybe it will do better in overseas markets.

But looking at US grosses alone we have these numbers (adjusted for inflation by box office mojo):

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

1. Trek 09: $299m US
2. The Motion Picture: 284m
3. Voyage Home: 250m
4. Into Darkness: 236m
5. Wrath of Khan: 232m
6. Search for Spock: 197m
7. First Contact: 180m
8. Generations: 156m
9. Undiscovered Country: 155m
10. Beyond: 135m
11. Insurrection: 127m
12. Final Frontier: 114m
13. Nemesis: 64m

Given how expensive Beyond was, I think we can say it was a flop. Except for Trek 09 and Into Darkness, all of the other movies that outperformed Beyond cost a whole lot less. Even the $35 million spent on The Motion Picture, adjusted for inflation, would be about $116 million today, making it a lot less pricey than Beyond.

Nemesis had a production budget of about 60m in 2002 dollars, and grossed 43m in the US back then. The gross was only about 72% of the budget (43/60). This percentage is similar for Beyond so far (although it may add a few million more in the US when all is said and done): 135 gross in the US / 185 production budget = c. 73%. I think it was a mediocre movie (at best) that is bombing so far. But maybe foreign BO will pull it up?

 

[Carabimero]

$12 million dollars in 1982 equates to approximately $30 million today. (Courtesy of www.usinflationcalculator.com/) That's a cumulative rate of inflation of 149.8%.

Just imagine.

Yes, many studios have certain ideas about the way they think they have to do things, but they don't have to do them that way. In fairness, many young people find RAIDERS slow. So I grant the paradigm has changed somewhat, but nothing that a well-written script, with good moral argument and thematic revelations, couldn't overcome, even with a couple of set pieces. If they wanted to, they could make a good ST movie for 50-60 million. But they don't believe they could.

 

[Tino]

Again definitely not a "flop". A flop is a $50 million domestic gross. Underperforming more like it. And in the end it will be profitable.

 

[benbess]

Again definitely not a "flop". A flop is a $50 million domestic gross. Underperforming more like it. And in the end it will be profitable.

Box office performance needs to be considered in relation to the costs of a film.

Last year's movie "Spotlight" grossed $45 million in the US. But since it had a production budget of only about $20m, it was a modest hit in relation to its costs.

But a movie that costs $185 million, like Beyond, needs to gross at least twice that to get close to break even.

Here's a recent example from a film with a somewhat similar situation:

"DreamWorks Animation’s Penguins of Madagascar pulled in $373.4 million at the worldwide box office on a $132 million budget, but took a $57 million write-down on the film because of marketing costs of about $130 million."

http://www.boxofficeflops.com/articles/when-does-a-movie-break-even-at-the-box-office/

This movie had a lower production budget than Beyond, and so far has grossed 170m more than Beyond, and yet it lost money.

Adjusting for inflation, Beyond ranks in 10th place out of the 13 Trek movies. That's a flop when a movie is this expensive. If it had cost more like $100 million, which is still very expensive, it might have been considered a mild hit.

Beyond grossed less than Undiscovered Country in the US, and yet adjusting for inflation UC had a production budget of about $53m. Beyond's costs were more than 3x higher for a lower box office.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Yes, many studios have certain ideas about the way they think they have to do things, but they don't have to do them that way. In fairness, many young people find RAIDERS slow. So I grant the paradigm has changed somewhat, but nothing that a well-written script, with good moral argument and thematic revelations, couldn't overcome, even with a couple of set pieces. If they wanted to, they could make a good ST move for 50-60 million. But they don't believe they could.

You could almost extend that argument even further - studios in general could make good movies, period, of all genres, for $50-60 million apiece, but they don't do that anymore. The mid-level movie, the thing that used to be the bread and butter for Hollywood for decades, is all but extinct today. We get microbudgeted movies made for either hundreds of thousands or in the low single digit millions, and we get giant extravaganzas - but almost nothing in between anymore. Like you mentioned earlier, television is filling a lot of the void there, the kinds of things that in the past could have been done as a mid-level production are now coming as original series or made-for-premium-cable films. It's really a shame - I think there's room for all of these different types of movies to co-exist.

One thing I'd love to see in a future Star Trek movie, although they probably would be adverse to it, would be the equivalent of a "bottle show" episode on the big screen. The Enterprise hasn't been as much as a character in the Kelvin universe as I would have liked. Excluding its destruction in Beyond, it's present in the other two films, but there's not really a sense of what its like to live onboard the ship. Storywise, that made sense in the first film as the ship was brand new. But in the second film, we still don't get a lot of what life would be like onboard; the Enterprise seems more like a giant taxi that people take to get from one place to the next, not a destination in and of itself. We even see Kirk's home on Earth, but not his quarters on the ship. So I absolutely loved the opening "captain's log" sequence of Beyond because it filled in that gap. But I'd love to see them take the next step and have it be more of a shipbound story. I think by the end of Beyond, we spend too much time at Yorktown starbase, which as magnificent as it looks was a little too reminiscent of the Spock-Khan finale on Earth at the end of Into Darkness. Sure, have the crew beam down to a planet, it doesn't have to be a 100% bottle show, but I'd love a new Star Trek movie where the Enterprise crew are all we see of the Federation - no trips to Earth, no trips to starbases that seem as huge as planets, etc. The Enterprise is where this crew lives and works - I'd love to see more of it in that context.

 

[benbess]

For good Trek movies, increasingly I find myself revisiting the premieres and 2-parters of TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. And, of course the mother of all TV Trek movies is The Menagerie. The better TV Trek movies are better than more than half of the theatrical films that were released imho, and yet were often made on comparatively quite modest production budgets of probably c. $6 million—even adjusting for inflation.

The premiere episodes of DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise were a lot more expensive, because they had all of the launch costs rolled into them. And "Caretaker" had all sorts of production problems, cast changes, and had ambitions to being like a Star Trek feature film. As it says at Memory Alpha, when all was said and done Caretaker was more expensive than The Wrath of Khan:

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Caretaker_(episode)

"Due to the cost of building Voyager's bridge, converting the old TNG sets, reshooting the scenes shot with Geneviève Bujold and the ones after Janeway's hairstyle was altered, some very ambitious special effects scenes and a substantial amount of location filming, this episode had a final budget of US$23 million, making it the most expensive television episode in the history of the Star Trek franchise. When adjusted for inflation, it proved even more expensive than Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and more than twice as expensive as ENT: "Broken Bow", the episode with the next-highest budget."

 

[Tino]

Box office performance needs to be considered in relation to the costs of a film.

Last year's movie "Spotlight" grossed $45 million in the US. But since it had a production budget of only about $20m, it was a modest hit in relation to its costs.

But a movie that costs $185 million, like Beyond, needs to gross at least twice that to get close to break even.

Here's a recent example from a film with a somewhat similar situation:

"DreamWorks Animation’s Penguins of Madagascar pulled in $373.4 million at the worldwide box office on a $132 million budget, but took a $57 million write-down on the film because of marketing costs of about $130 million."

http://www.boxofficeflops.com/articles/when-does-a-movie-break-even-at-the-box-office/

This movie had a lower production budget than Beyond, and so far has grossed 170m more than Beyond, and yet it lost money.

Adjusting for inflation, Beyond ranks in 10th place out of the 13 Trek movies. That's a flop when a movie is this expensive. If it had cost more like $100 million, which is still very expensive, it might have been considered a mild hit.

Beyond grossed less than Undiscovered Country in the US, and yet adjusting for inflation UC had a production budget of about $53m. Beyond's costs were more than 3x higher for a lower box office.

Believe me I'm very much aware of how box office returns work.

I just don't agree with your "flop" assessment.

 

[trevanian]

True. And maybe it will do better in overseas markets.

But looking at US grosses alone we have these numbers (adjusted for inflation by box office mojo):

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

1. Trek 09: $299m US
2. The Motion Picture: 284m
3. Voyage Home: 250m
4. Into Darkness: 236m
5. Wrath of Khan: 232m
6. Search for Spock: 197m
7. First Contact: 180m
8. Generations: 156m
9. Undiscovered Country: 155m
10. Beyond: 135m
11. Insurrection: 127m
12. Final Frontier: 114m
13. Nemesis: 64m

Given how expensive Beyond was, I think we can say it was a flop. Except for Trek 09 and Into Darkness, all of the other movies that outperformed Beyond cost a whole lot less. Even the $35 million spent on The Motion Picture, adjusted for inflation, would be about $116 million today, making it a lot less pricey than Beyond.

Nemesis had a production budget of about 60m in 2002 dollars, and grossed 43m in the US back then. The gross was only about 72% of the budget (43/60). This percentage is similar for Beyond so far (although it may add a few million more in the US when all is said and done): 135 gross in the US / 185 production budget = c. 73%. I think it was a mediocre movie (at best) that is bombing so far. But maybe foreign BO will pull it up?

Are they claiming NEM's budget was only 60? Pretty sure it was closer to 70, but then INSURRECTION had the numbers redone after the opening weekend was below expectations. The reshoots had driven it up from 58 to around 65 (possibly more -- we're talking lots of VFX companies working around the clock on both practical miniatures and pyro and CGI, plus a live-action component), but miraculously the Monday after opening the budget was back down to 58 again.

The TMP number is low as well. Based on RETURN TO TOMORROW and other sources, it is almost certainly close to 40 mil even without the charges for false-starts on PLANET OF THE TITANS, PHASE 2 and the writing of THE GOD THING and other treatments. With those on there, it is easy to think the number is closer to the 46mil often bandied about back then

Then again, the TMP box office underwent a huge downward revision before the internet age that I don't believe, something I've gone on at length about in the past, so I think the original figure of 175 mil worldwide, adjusted for inflation, would put TMP higher than this standing (based on what, a 139 figure?) indicates.

You'd figure that Paramount -- which always seems to want to repeat KHAN in as many ways as possible, except perhaps the artistic ones -- would have learned that sophomore efforts on this franchise need lower budgets, not higher ones. They spent a ton on 09 and somehow managed to snow the planet into liking it for reasons that are still wholly unclear to me, but then spent even more on a followup that wasn't a whole lot better than 09, and alienated most of their western audience. THAT is what is killing BEYOND, along with the unrealistic megahit expectations driving that budget, which I think they should have halved.