Star Trek: Beyond

[pr_capone]

Paramount just released the trailer to Star Trek Beyond. I am less than pleased overall.



Justin Lin, the director of the last 3 F&F movies, is at the helm of this bullshit and from the tiny snippet of Simon Pegg jumping out of a pod and hanging off the side of a cliff... it looks equally as campy as F&F.

Justin Lin, the director of nothing but remakes and sequels, is also the guy in charge of the reshooting (because there won't be anything new about it) of the Highlander movie.

I love Trek but this new movie series has been largely garbage. Little to no rewatchability at all for either movie. For the first time ever... I am more excited for something Star Wars related than Trek.

[Chiefspants]

[unlurking]

Originally Posted by DaFace

And that's fine - everyone has an opinion. I'm just surprised it's so negatively concentrated here when the review sites out there (Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, Metacritic) show that people enjoyed both of them pretty well, and most people I talk to seem to think they were pretty solid flicks.

Isn't CP where all the cool Negative Nancys hang out?

[unlurking]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The film cost $190 million to produce with another $70 million in marketing. The Domestic Gross was only $228.

You also have to keep in mind that these figures do not include Exhibitor's percentage (which can be higher than 30%).

Compare that with Deadpool's $57 million budget and $763 million worldwide take (without China!!!) and it really shows just how little fan love there really was for STD, despite reviews.

(No idea the marketing budget for Deadpool, but it was MAGNIFICENT. Thanks @Kiimosabi!)

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by unlurking

Compare that with Deadpool's $57 million budget and $763 million worldwide take (without China!!!) and it really shows just how little fan love there really was for STD, despite reviews.

(No idea the marketing budget for Deadpool, but it was MAGNIFICENT. Thanks @Kiimosabi!)

Star Trek has never been a big grosser. Paramount also has no idea how to market the series.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

Star Trek has never been a big grosser. Paramount also has no idea how to market the series.

Star Trek has always had a limited fan base, which is why it was cancelled in the 60's after 79 episodes. The first ST movie was just short of awful and way out of the league of other Sci Fi films of that day (Star Wars, TESB, Alien, Blade Runner, etc.).

All Paramount can really do is market to the target audience, which IMO, is a waste of money.

Die hard Trekkers are going regardless and I seriously doubt that this film will appeal to a broader fan base.

[unlurking]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

Star Trek has never been a big grosser. Paramount also has no idea how to market the series.

And now that it is becoming an action series, I'm sure it will continue to rise in monetary fortune. Kinda sucks for those of use that liked it as a scifi series, and not a blockbuster summer event for the masses.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by unlurking

And now that it is becoming an action series, I'm sure it will continue to rise in monetary fortune. Kinda sucks for those of use that liked it as a scifi series, and not a blockbuster summer event for the masses.

I just can't see the crossover from the Fast & Furious crowd to Star Trek.

If the movie tanks, it might need to go back to TV for another decade or more, which is probably the smart move in the long run, anyway.

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Star Trek has always had a limited fan base, which is why it was cancelled in the 60's after 79 episodes. The first ST movie was just short of awful and way out of the league of other Sci Fi films of that day (Star Wars, TESB, Alien, Blade Runner, etc.).

All Paramount can really do is market to the target audience, which IMO, is a waste of money.

Die hard Trekkers are going regardless and I seriously doubt that this film will appeal to a broader fan base.

Meh. Marvel was able to get 775 million from Guardians of the Galaxy (starring a rabbit and a tree).

They also suck at tying in the series with the movies. They should have been replaying TNG and the original series in the lead up to the release to Into Darkness. Instead we got a WHO IS THIS VILLIAN IT'S NOT KHAN HOHOHO! (Which no one outside of trekkies knew anyways).

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by unlurking

And now that it is becoming an action series, I'm sure it will continue to rise in monetary fortune. Kinda sucks for those of use that liked it as a scifi series, and not a blockbuster summer event for the masses.

It's coming back to TV. Wish it would be to Netflix but CBS will do.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

Meh. Marvel was able to get 775 million from Guardians of the Galaxy (starring a rabbit and a tree).

Marvel has a gigantic built-in fan base and Marvel has earned the trust of the movie goers.

Paramount?

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

They also suck at tying in the series with the movies. They should have been replaying TNG and the original series in the lead up to the release to Into Darkness. Instead we got a WHO IS THIS VILLIAN IT'S NOT KHAN HOHOHO! (Which no one outside of trekkies knew anyways).

Yeah, I said this at the time as well. Paramount should have had a "movie night" in which the reboot was shown on CBS as well as Showtime for a few months before the release.

Of course, they didn't. Paramount is lucky to be in business with all of the blunders they've made in the past 30 years.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

It's coming back to TV. Wish it would be to Netflix but CBS will do.

Are you going to pay $5.99 per month for a year, just to see the new program?

I won't. I'd rather wait until it's flipped to Amazon or Netflix or it shows up on Blu Ray, well, that is, if the reviews are any good.

I'm skeptical that they can make this work.

[unlurking]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Are you going to pay $5.99 per month for a year, just to see the new program?

I won't. I'd rather wait until it's flipped to Amazon or Netflix or it shows up on Blu Ray, well, that is, if the reviews are any good.

I'm skeptical that they can make this work.

Yeah. That's a big no go for me. Star Trek is pretty much dead to me.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I'm skeptical that they can make this work.

I like the creative team behind it.

Nicholas Meyer and Bryan Fuller are certainly talented.

Now if CBS can market this into a hit? Who knows...

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

I like the creative team behind it.

Nicholas Meyer and Bryan Fuller are certainly talented.

Now if CBS can market this into a hit? Who knows...

If it's GREAT, the market will follow.

Fuller and Meyer are talented but what's the budget?

How long will CBS allow them to build an audience?

There are too many questions at this point, especially about the cast and timeline.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth

Pegg is the only reason I'm completely dismissing that shitty trailer and holding out hope it'll be better than what the trailer showed.

He's a hardcore Trekkie- and this trailer doesn't even remotely feel like it's associated with the franchise.

Possibly a purposeful attempt to cast a wider net to attract a larger audience?

The ST faithful are going to buy their ticket no matter what. I just don't buy that Pegg would abandon the makeup of ST.

I loved the first one with Pine. Very well done. Abrahams gets credit?

2nd movie was good. Not spectacular but I thought it was better than most did.

This 3rd one I'm not feeling it yet. Why do we have to have a whole new world, with new stories? There is so much material to work with. Why can't you expand on something from the history and make it pertinent to non ST fans as a movie?