Star Trek Beyond (2016)

[Chaotic]

The budget is $185M. Making only $243M WW so far is terrible.

[Geoff D]

Yup, $250M against a $185M spend isn't good at all (remember kids: that's just the gross box office returns, not the net takings) and, as was said, even if it goes over in China and nudges it nearer what the other two did it'll still have made less because of the paltry slice of the proceeds that the Chinese government let us capitalist dogs have in return.

They genuinely didn't intend to spend $185M on it though, it's worth keeping in mind that the production was moved to Canada (first Trek feature or show ever to do so) to actually SAVE money, but the departure of Bob Orci fairly late into pre-production meant that they had to basically restart the movie from scratch - only with several months less time to do so, given that the soundstage booking, release date etc was already set in stone.

That won't excuse the numbers, natch, but it does help to give some perspective so Paramount may not be as harsh on it as people might think. And IF they can make a fourth with a unified creative vision from the start then they should be able to start bringing costs down.

[Adam_ME]

Originally Posted by Mighty Max

And also Leonard Nimoy's passing

I don't really think that was gonna have any impact on the series. I was frankly surprised they brought him back for Into Darkness. Although that cameo did inspire a very funny How It Should Have Ended on YouTube.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

They genuinely didn't intend to spend $185M on it though, it's worth keeping in mind that the production was moved to Canada (first Trek feature or show ever to do so) to actually SAVE money, but the departure of Bob Orci fairly late into pre-production meant that they had to basically restart the movie from scratch - only with several months less time to do so, given that the soundstage booking, release date etc was already set in stone.

What's funny to me is when there are relatively "low budget" blockbuster movies like Deadpool I don't really see much difference. Really makes you wonder why ST Beyond and Ghostbusters needed all that money. If anything I bet a lower budget would have been the necessary that fuels invention and improved the movies.

[blurayfriend]

Originally Posted by Adam_ME

I don't really think that was gonna have any impact on the series. I was frankly surprised they brought him back for Into Darkness. Although that cameo did inspire a very funny How It Should Have Ended on YouTube.

Same, I kind of thought they may way too much of a to-do about him. He was mentioned in Beyond more than Yelchin or Cho, and he was dead! I still think we need to see fat Shatner interact with Kirk one last time before he kicks off. Thor and Kirk sounds like absolutely zero fun.

[BaronVH]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

What's funny to me is when there are relatively "low budget" blockbuster movies like Deadpool I don't really see much difference. Really makes you wonder why ST Beyond and Ghostbusters needed all that money. If anything I bet a lower budget would have been the necessary that fuels invention and improved the movies.

Beyond was excellent, and that was after scrapping the director and script. Maybe cutting the budget slightly and giving it more time to develop would help, but the huge mistake was that initial trailer. Beyond was good Star Trek. The trailer was bad action. Paramount need to let Pegg script another one and Lin direct.

Ghostbusters was another matter. I really wanted to like this. It stank. Not funny at all. The problem was you could see the talent was there. Leslie Jones should have been given more to do, and Kate McKinnon was great, but, again, it felt like they were both held back. The other two stars, arguably the more famous, were given next to nothing. If they previewed this, they should have drastically punched it up with reshoots.

[LeeFanatic007]

Originally Posted by blurayfriend

Same, I kind of thought they may way too much of a to-do about him. He was mentioned in Beyond more than Yelchin or Cho, and he was dead! I still think we need to see fat Shatner interact with Kirk one last time before he kicks off. Thor and Kirk sounds like absolutely zero fun.

If Chris Hemsworth and Chris Pine are going to be starring together in the next film as reported then it probably will deal with time travel, seeing as George Kirk is supposed to be dead.

If that's the case and we get a time travel story, it's the perfect place to do a William Shatner cameo, showing Old Kirk at some point.

[biglou114]

Originally Posted by LeeFanatic007

If Chris Hemsworth and Chris Pine are going to be starring together in the next film as reported then it probably will deal with time travel, seeing as George Kirk is supposed to be dead.

If that's the case and we get a time travel story, it's the perfect place to do a William Shatner cameo, showing Old Kirk at some point.

...or the crew could encounter the "Mirror, Mirror" universe.

[blahsi]

Originally Posted by BaronVH

Beyond was excellent, and that was after scrapping the director and script. Maybe cutting the budget slightly and giving it more time to develop would help, but the huge mistake was that initial trailer. Beyond was good Star Trek. The trailer was bad action. Paramount need to let Pegg script another one and Lin direct.

I agree about the first trailer. I saw it and was immediately turned off of the movie. I can totally see why this greatly affected the GA response to the movie. Without being able to connect the Beastie Boys song to what happens in the final third of the film, it felt very out of place and made no sense considering the franchise. On top of that, there was nearly zero footage from the movie leading up to release, so no one knew what to expect. It's especially disappointing considering this has been my favorite entry since the first movie of the reboot series. I am hopeful for a fourth movie, but I'm not certain based on the reception so far.

[seannyd]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

What's funny to me is when there are relatively "low budget" blockbuster movies like Deadpool I don't really see much difference. Really makes you wonder why ST Beyond and Ghostbusters needed all that money. If anything I bet a lower budget would have been the necessary that fuels invention and improved the movies.

I appreciate the movie more but I definitely can sense a difference. There was a clear lack of locations in Deadpool and fewer big set pieces as well. Most action took place on that one stretch of highway or on that downed pseudo-helicarrier. And not to mention even Deadpool himself mentioned how light the cast was.

Beyond had the huge destruction of the Enterprise along with them going through all the craziness with the Franklin, in addition to creating the world of that spherical base that is definitely gonna be effects heavy, plus hundreds of extras and all that good stuff.

As for Ghostbusters, that entire last 30 minutes was one giant effects shot for better or worse.

If anything it's a testament to how bigger isn't always better and you gotta serve the story you're telling first before you get all insane with the budget.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

What's funny to me is when there are relatively "low budget" blockbuster movies like Deadpool I don't really see much difference. Really makes you wonder why ST Beyond and Ghostbusters needed all that money. If anything I bet a lower budget would have been the necessary that fuels invention and improved the movies.

Why low budget in quotation marks? Deadpool was made for $58M which is an absolute pittance, even the last Resident Evil cost more than that!

[chelray1]

Originally Posted by Adam_ME

It's a bomb right now. And unless it cleans up in Asia and Latin America over the next couple months, it'll remain that way. The worldwide dropoff from Into Darkness is only part of the problem. The movie also cost $185 million to make. That's an inexcusably high budget for a Star Trek movie. If Paramount does plan to make a 4th film in the rebooted series, they'll have the slash that in half to maintain profitability.

Personally, I don't think we'll see a 4th one. The bad box office, muted reception, and passing of Anton Yelchin might spell doom for the franchise on the big screen.

Are you kidding? Star Trek will never die! It will always be on the big screen. As to the box office of Beyond, I could care less. I actually liked it better than Into Darkness.

[Jlouisbarrett]

Originally Posted by LeeFanatic007

If Chris Hemsworth and Chris Pine are going to be starring together in the next film as reported then it probably will deal with time travel, seeing as George Kirk is supposed to be dead.

If that's the case and we get a time travel story, it's the perfect place to do a William Shatner cameo, showing Old Kirk at some point.

I'm thinking, perhaps, since George Kirk "died" being sucked into the black hole/temporal anomaly which brought Spock Prime and Nero decades into the past thus creating the Kelvin Timeline, perhaps they'll find some way to have George suddenly appear, floating around space in a pod or something all these years later and brought in to the Kelvin Timeline? Sort of à la finding Khan except with George Kirk time traveling to the future via the black hole rather than being cryogenically frozen for centuries.

Just a thought! I feel like somehow using the black hole, since this is the last time the character was seen, to shoehorn him back into the Kelvin Timeline is the only logical move.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by seannyd

I appreciate the movie more but I definitely can sense a difference. There was a clear lack of locations in Deadpool and fewer big set pieces as well. Most action took place on that one stretch of highway or on that downed pseudo-helicarrier. And not to mention even Deadpool himself mentioned how light the cast was.

Beyond had the huge destruction of the Enterprise along with them going through all the craziness with the Franklin, in addition to creating the world of that spherical base that is definitely gonna be effects heavy, plus hundreds of extras and all that good stuff

I obviously know where most of that huge budget went, what I mean is it doesn't actually help the movie. I didn't love Beyond as much as some others, granted, but I don't think it would have been hurt by having less CGI overload, less locations and more character work. It would have helped the film, honestly. The best parts of that movie are Spock and Bones talking while sitting on a rock, or Scotty joking around in a room with the alien girl. Neither of those things cost a ton of money.

Sometimes less is more, and sometimes limitations breed invention and focus. Way too many blockbusters now-a-days just throw endless CGI and set-pieces at the camera instead of focusing on story and characters.

[Mighty Max]

Or what if George is now in the Prime timeline?

Originally Posted by Jlouisbarrett

I'm thinking, perhaps, since George Kirk "died" being sucked into the black hole/temporal anomaly which brought Spock Prime and Nero decades into the past thus creating the Kelvin Timeline, perhaps they'll find some way to have George suddenly appear, floating around space in a pod or something all these years later and brought in to the Kelvin Timeline? Sort of à la finding Khan except with George Kirk time traveling to the future via the black hole rather than being cryogenically frozen for centuries.

Just a thought! I feel like somehow using the black hole, since this is the last time the character was seen, to shoehorn him back into the Kelvin Timeline is the only logical move.

[mhp68]

Digital Bits is reporting the 9/20 street date will be announced shortly after all.

[imsounoriginal]

Will be tricky for Paramount to lower the budget while expand the scope of the next movie. A time-travel story is clearly gonna be more in line with the scope of the Abrams movies, which I'd prefer TBH. Don't really want another bottle episode movie.

Originally Posted by mhp68

Digital Bits is reporting the 9/20 street date will be announced shortly after all.

No way it's coming out that quickly. Unheard of.

[nmycon]

Originally Posted by mhp68

Digital Bits is reporting the 9/20 street date will be announced shortly after all.

No, it won't be.

[Chaotic]

All right, let’s talk Star Trek Beyond. I’ve now gotten pretty reliable information via retail sources that Paramount’s Star Trek: Beyond (BD, BD3D, DVD & 4K), as well as a Star Trek Trilogy Blu-ray Collection (including 2009, Into Darkness, and Beyond) are going to street on 9/20. This hasn’t been officially announced by the studio yet, but we expect the press release any time now. Those same sources are still telling us to expect Paramount and CBS to release Star Trek: The Animated Series as a stand-alone Blu-ray release on 11/15. So make tentative plans accordingly.

[Editor’s Note: Amazon is now telling its pre-order customers to expect this title on 9/20, and – as of the time of this writing – Best Buy has now listed the title as streeting on 9/20 (see link). Other retail sources have privately given us this date as well. Paramount could yet change their minds – it’s not set in stone until they issue their press release. But that is the date retailers have tentatively been given for this title thus far. Stay tuned.]

hmmm

[Arawn]

Originally Posted by Jlouisbarrett

I'm thinking, perhaps, since George Kirk "died" being sucked into the black hole/temporal anomaly which brought Spock Prime and Nero decades into the past thus creating the Kelvin Timeline

I'm not sure we watched the same movie.

George Kirk didn't die being sucked into a black hole/temporal anomaly.

He died from suicidally crashing the Kelvin into the Narada.