GustavoLeao

BEYOND Box-Office Projections from Deadline

502 posts in this topic

Speaking of orchestral score, I'm glad Michael Giacchino's highly repetitive theme and motif has been downplayed a little in Beyond; The same bombastic theme(in itself pretty good) was heard as a reprise way too many times in the first two Abrams movies.

"Highly repetitive" ... you mean like every one of Jerry Goldsmith's scores? I think the term you mean is, "melody." Like it or not, Giacchino's theme is the theme of Star Trek at the moment. As a life-long fan of the franchise and the member of an orchestra for 8 years? I'm perfectly fine with it. I'd rather have this than the melody-less sonic wallpaper that Dennis McCarthy's churned out for Generations and endless TNG episodes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of orchestral score, I'm glad Michael Giacchino's highly repetitive theme and motif has been downplayed a little in Beyond; The same bombastic theme(in itself pretty good) was heard as a reprise way too many times in the first two Abrams movies.

"Highly repetitive" ... you mean like every one of Jerry Goldsmith's scores? I think the term you mean is, "melody." Like it or not, Giacchino's theme is the theme of Star Trek at the moment. As a life-long fan of the franchise and the member of an orchestra for 8 years? I'm perfectly fine with it. I'd rather have this than the melody-less sonic wallpaper that Dennis McCarthy's churned out for Generations and endless TNG episodes.

I think Tupperfan's just talking about the fact that the central motif is a little more subtly applied in Beyond, and I'd agree. It's Giacchino's best score yet for the franchise. As far as my ears can tell, he just gets better with each movie.  

As for McCarthy, he was only responding to requests for the producers (i.e. Berman). If he hadn't changed his style, he'd have been fired, just like Ron Jones was. Music for Trek, during that period, was subject to all kinds of external pressures. I'm no fan of the sonic wallpaper either, but I think McCarthy did a clever and amazingly diplomatic job of slowly turning things around again with both his scores for Generations and Deep Space Nine. It's McCarthy we have to thank for leading the way in allowing for many other composers with different styles to come on board for DS9 and Voyager. 

Edited by Robin Bland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the Generations score. It's surprisingly NOT wallpaper compared to the series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of orchestral score, I'm glad Michael Giacchino's highly repetitive theme and motif has been downplayed a little in Beyond; The same bombastic theme(in itself pretty good) was heard as a reprise way too many times in the first two Abrams movies.

"Highly repetitive" ... you mean like every one of Jerry Goldsmith's scores? I think the term you mean is, "melody." Like it or not, Giacchino's theme is the theme of Star Trek at the moment. As a life-long fan of the franchise and the member of an orchestra for 8 years? I'm perfectly fine with it. I'd rather have this than the melody-less sonic wallpaper that Dennis McCarthy's churned out for Generations and endless TNG episodes.

I think Tupperfan's just talking about the fact that the central motif is a little more subtly applied in Beyond, and I'd agree. It's Giacchino's best score yet for the franchise. As far as my ears can tell, he just gets better with each movie.  

As for McCarthy, he was only responding to requests for the producers (i.e. Berman). If he hadn't changed his style, he'd have been fired, just like Ron Jones was. Music for Trek, during that period, was subject to all kinds of external pressures. I'm no fan of the sonic wallpaper either, but I think McCarthy did a clever and amazingly diplomatic job of slowly turning things around again with both his scores for Generations and Deep Space Nine. It's McCarthy we have to thank for leading the way in allowing for many other composers with different styles to come on board for DS9 and Voyager. 

I was indeed talking about motif. The previous two movies made it sound like that main theme was the only thing you'd hear (and it wasn't the case). It was not criticizing the "melody" (thanks for the quotes, by the way :p) itself, which I enjoyed, but the fact that it reoccurred way too regularly in these movies, popping out grandiosely every time something heroic happened..

As for the sonic wallpaper of TNG's lore, much has been written and I agree with Robin Bland: it came from Berman. McCarthy's score for Generations, in my  opinion, is really good and works well. The same can be said about DS9's intro.

And regarding Jerry Goldsmith: If I prefer James Horner and Cliff Eidelman's (I'm ambivalent about Leonard Rosenman's score for Trek IV. Sometimes I like it, sometimes not, but it did fit that movie's atmosphere) Trek movie scores, and that we can't deny there was a decent amount of repetitiveness in his work, it wouldn't be fair to ignore that some of it comes from Trek producers again being a little cheap (and weird) and just re-using the same stuff all over again.

As for the later Next Generation movies: Well yeah, after First Contact, we got it. But then, the whole movies were blah.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.thestreet.com/story/13679963/1/viacom-s-boardroom-battle-may-be-over-but-star-trek-could-add-to-paramount-woes.html

 

The biggest disappointment for investors, however, is Paramount's apparent inability to send its flagship Star Trek movie franchise into warp drive. The studio spent $185 million to make the latest installment, Star Trek Beyond, which stars Chris Pine as a younger Captain Kirk, and another $120 million to market it.

 

Released on July 22, the movie has so far generated $142 million in domestic ticket sales, according to movie site Box Office Mojo, 60% less than the 2013 installment,Star Trek Into Darkness, despite the benefit of higher ticket prices three years later.

Star Trek was thought to be the one bright spot for Viacom in what's been a disaster year for them," said Michael Nathanson, a media analyst and partner at MoffettNathanson, who is neutral on the stock. "And Ben-Hur won't help."

............

 

Studio executives, who declined comment, have said they anticipate foreign ticket sales, which in 2013 accounted for 51% of the ticket sales for Star Trek Into Darkness, to boost the take for this year's edition. The film opens on Sept. 2 in China, which in 2013 alone accounted for $57 million of that film's $467 million worldwide total, according to Box Office Mojo.

 

"We're showing that Star Trek is a brand that is strong around the world," Paramount vice chairman Rob Moore told Variety.

............

But foreign markets haven't lifted the Starship Enterprise and crew to the same altitude so far this year as in 2013.  Star Trek Beyond has generated smaller box office sales in territories where it has already opened, including such major film markets as Germany, Russia and the U.K.

 

So they need at least $305M to break even.

Which will be quite difficult, but China and Latin America still can save this movie..................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So they need at least $305M to break even.

Which will be quite difficult, but China and Latin America still can save this movie..................

Well, China anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So they need at least $305M to break even.

Which will be quite difficult, but China and Latin America still can save this movie..................

Well, China anyway...

Yeah, Latin America just isn't going to bring in much.

As for Paramount's banking problems, it comes down to them greenlighting wrecks like Ben Hur to start with, and then marketing them poorly. They didn't market Ben Hur to the Christian audience they wanted and they left a LOT of money on the table with the staggered release of Beyond.

In those cases, it wasn't the market that failed. Paramount failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In those cases, it wasn't the market that failed. Paramount failed.

Actually, I disagree. The only time marketing to Christians is a factor is when it's a Left Behind film or anything Kirk Cameron collects a check for. :P

Let's be honest though, big, historical epics like Ben Hur haven't been cool and interesting since 10-15 years ago when CGI was really starting to come along. Then a movie like Gladiator or Pearl Harbor would real them in. Now? There's nothing special or awe-inspiring about the movie whatsoever. Troy, Gladiator, that Egypt one - it's all been done to death. I mean... who thought for one second that a movie like this would appeal to mainstream audiences today? The gimmick of it died years ago when CGI like this became commonplace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In those cases, it wasn't the market that failed. Paramount failed.

Actually, I disagree. The only time marketing to Christians is a factor is when it's a Left Behind film or anything Kirk Cameron collects a check for. :P

Let's be honest though, big, historical epics like Ben Hur haven't been cool and interesting since 10-15 years ago when CGI was really starting to come along. Then a movie like Gladiator or Pearl Harbor would real them in. Now? There's nothing special or awe-inspiring about the movie whatsoever. Troy, Gladiator, that Egypt one - it's all been done to death. I mean... who thought for one second that a movie like this would appeal to mainstream audiences today? The gimmick of it died years ago when CGI like this became commonplace.

I don't entirely disagree, but they wanted some of that Kirk Cameron: Left Behind money, yet they did literally nothing to go after it and then hang their heads when the movie debuts in 5th.

It's just so stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might do well in China given that Alibaba and HuaHua(new one to me)co-produced it.

It makes sense now. I wouldn't be surprised if somehow Paramount sold this to China, purposely sabotaging it in both marketing and plot. "It did poorly here but fantastic there" scenario. A couple of American execs pocket a ton of money and China can now do whatever they want with it absorbing most of the costs and direction.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might do well in China given that Alibaba and HuaHua(new one to me)co-produced it.

It makes sense now. I wouldn't be surprised if somehow Paramount sold this to China, purposely sabotaging it in both marketing and plot. "It did poorly here but fantastic there" scenario. A couple of American execs pocket a ton of money and China can now do whatever they want with it absorbing most of the costs and direction.   

Nah, I don't buy that conspiracy theory. Paramount has no problem cranking out new Trek if it does well, especially domestically. It would be wildly successful in China if it cracks $100M, that isn't enough to fund a project like this. They need North America. I don't think it was purposefully sabotaged by anyone.

What I think happened is Pegg and co were under a tight deadline and didn't have time to do their background research. If only Pegg had watched Insurrection, we might have gotten an entirely different film. He thought he was being clever and fresh, but ended up with a recycled twist. It's really too bad. I don't expect the writers to watch every episode of every Trek spin-off, but watching and knowing what happens in all the previous Trek movies should be a bare prerequisite to writing a new movie. 

As for the marketing, I think that for the longest time they had to keep the villain's true identity secret, so there was no hook with the enemy. He just became a generic villain in all of the advertising. There was a trailer released just before the movie opened in theatres which spoiled Krall's true identity. I think that was calculated. They likely did their research and discovered that people thought that Krall was generic, so they spoiled the movie in a panic move.

Knowing the events of Insurrection, they should have been straight up about his identity from when he's introduced in the film. I think exploring his motives in detail earlier on in the movie would have been more interesting than preserving the non-mystery around his identity and then throwing us a bone with some personal logs which don't go in depth enough to satisfy us.

Edited by Hammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In those cases, it wasn't the market that failed. Paramount failed.

Actually, I disagree. The only time marketing to Christians is a factor is when it's a Left Behind film or anything Kirk Cameron collects a check for. :P

Let's be honest though, big, historical epics like Ben Hur haven't been cool and interesting since 10-15 years ago when CGI was really starting to come along. Then a movie like Gladiator or Pearl Harbor would real them in. Now? There's nothing special or awe-inspiring about the movie whatsoever. Troy, Gladiator, that Egypt one - it's all been done to death. I mean... who thought for one second that a movie like this would appeal to mainstream audiences today? The gimmick of it died years ago when CGI like this became commonplace.

I don't entirely disagree, but they wanted some of that Kirk Cameron: Left Behind money, yet they did literally nothing to go after it and then hang their heads when the movie debuts in 5th.

It's just so stupid.

Kirk Cameron's Left Behind made money?  :giggle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$4M, actually.

 

Go figure. :)

It cost $4 million to make, it made $4.2 million.  That isn't really "making" money.  And if you are going for that crowd?  You don't spend $100 million. Now if you are going for the Passion of the Christ crowd, now that spent $30 mil and made $612 mil....that is a budget to profit ratio where you can say..."oh spending $100 mil could still pay off in spades!"  But you can't avoid marketing the Christian angle completely.

Also what is this thread about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also what is this thread about?

It's about people thinking they know about Hollywood and how films make money for their studios apparently. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Korea Box Office: ‘Tunnel’ Stays on Top, ‘Star Trek’ Lands in Second Place

http://variety.com/2016/film/asia/korea-box-office-tunnel-stays-on-top-1201841925/

 

^
"Biggest Star Trek opening in Korean box office history".... not bad.   Sold fewer tickets than STID but earned more money.   I can't wait to hear China's numbers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China is a big wildcard and is becoming more important to the studios. There are also cultural taboos that prevents certain content from being shown there, many surrounding death. For example, avatars which show part of the skeleton in WoW are all covered up with flesh, the showing of bones is taboo. The PRC has said "wronged spirits and violent ghosts, monsters, demons, and other inhuman portrayals" were banned in audio/visual content. It's an interesting market to say the least...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope they respond well to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China is a big wildcard and is becoming more important to the studios. There are also cultural taboos that prevents certain content from being shown there, many surrounding death. For example, avatars which show part of the skeleton in WoW are all covered up with flesh, the showing of bones is taboo. The PRC has said "wronged spirits and violent ghosts, monsters, demons, and other inhuman portrayals" were banned in audio/visual content. It's an interesting market to say the least...

It's one that will dictate a lot of what gets produced going forward. We've already seen changes to movies because of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites