Star Trek Beyond and Ghostbusters box office: What Went Wrong

[Jandrew]

7 minutes ago, superweirdo87 said:

Not totally sudden jandrew, Ben Fritz discussed how the # of movies making between 100M and 350M shrank from 2014 to 2015.

 

Thats pretty sudden considering all the years of modern box office numbers. 2014-2016 is nothing compared to 1980-2016.

[grim22]

21 hours ago, kowhite said:

 

No fucking way.  Gross plays are only reserved for the old guard.

 

If you're recent...you ain't getting that deal.  Ok admittedly I don't know that for sure...but if they are...your deal makers are dropping the fucking ball.  Feig and McCarthy?  Aykroyd?  There's a Hollywood deal now that pays these guys but protects these companies.  Gross deals are dumb.  I bet nobody on Ghostbusters got a gross deal.

 

New info on sequel deals. This is interesting info from EW

 

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/08/10/ghostbusters-sequel-looking-grim-after-box-office-disappoints

 

Quote

Another wrinkle in the struggling franchise is the fact that Sony only has options on two of the four women. According to two sources with knowledge of the deals, Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig are not contractually obligated for another round of busting. And that could make contemplation of a sequel even more complicated, considering the actresses would likely want raises, especially after dealing with the online brutality sent their way.

 

Sony didn't lock in the whole cast for sequels. What the hell????? Every single franchise locks in the key players for at least 3 movies regardless of whether they ever plan to make them or not.

[grey ghost]

Ghostbusters alienated the target audience and Star Trek's general audience appeal peaked a long time ago.

[jimisawesome]

55 minutes ago, grim22 said:

 

New info on sequel deals. This is interesting info from EW

 

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/08/10/ghostbusters-sequel-looking-grim-after-box-office-disappoints

 

 

Sony didn't lock in the whole cast for sequels. What the hell????? Every single franchise locks in the key players for at least 3 movies regardless of whether they ever plan to make them or not.

 

How is that even possible especially when McCarthy is far and away the biggest draw?  They have done nothing right with this film from pre production to post release. 

[trifle]

17 minutes ago, jimisawesome said:

 

How is that even possible especially when McCarthy is far and away the biggest draw?  They have done nothing right with this film from pre production to post release. 

 

She might not have been willing to lock in for any 'reasonable' amount as far as budgeting goes.  She didn't NEED this film.

[jimisawesome]

8 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

She might not have been willing to lock in for any 'reasonable' amount as far as budgeting goes.  She didn't NEED this film.

 

Then this version should never have been greenlit.  She decides not to come back and the franchise is dead anyways. If the point is to launch a franchise you have to plan at least 3 movies out. 

[Kalel009Shel]

On 8/8/2016 at 1:11 PM, Captain Craig said:

Bourne might be added to this list then. Especially if it's third week drop is remotely close to it's second!

Bourne was a letdown my captain. Doesn't surprise me. Only paying a lil to controversial good and sorry Bourne was one of the few I supported. I think it will bomb

. I think star trek needs better marketing team to try and win over new audiences. Great st sequel films,  but nothing shown to blow our socks away like the first. Ghostbusters not having the original cast in key roles, deserved to fail in my opinion.  I have no problem with a female cast, but make sure the guys are a big part of this new film.

 

Share your thoughts captain jack and fellow forum gladiators. And sorry about being away so long my captain warrior brother. I'll be more active from here on out. 

 

 

Edited August 12, 2016 by Kalel009Shel

[trifle]

52 minutes ago, BKB IS CAPTAIN AMERICA said:

 

I think WWW was simply no one asked for these 2 movies to be made.. The End.

 

I wanted another Star Trek with this cast, and liked this one.

[Maxmoser3]

Ghostbusters had bad marketing efforts by Sony they made like it was a sequel to the original film("30 Years Ago), and Star Trek:Beyond's issue the first trailer was a little too fun for the franchise with "Sabotage" by The Beastie Boys playing in the background which playing The Beastie Boys in film trailers has not been too kind for Paramount Ninja Turtles:Out Of Shadows had "No Sleep Til' Brooklyn" playing in the background of its trailer earlier this year and it made a lackluster amount. 

[Mojoguy]

Sony didn't lock in the whole cast for sequels. What the hell????? Every single franchise locks in the key players for at least 3 movies regardless of whether they ever plan to make them or not.

Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig likely saw this thing was going to flop so they only signed on after making sure they didn't have to commit to a trilogy like the Divergent cast, we all know what happened with them.

[grim22]

Looks like Ghostbusters will end between 225-230M WW and Beyond will be at around 250M WW before China. Both will barely do 100M OS-China. 

 

Ghostbusters hasn't had a single weekend hold under 50% yet either after 5 weeks in release, it just isn't having the legs Paul Feig and Melissa McCarthy movies have.

[The Futurist]

Star Wars came back, that s waht went wrong for STB imo.

 

Until 2013, people were happy to have a cool ersatz, now that the King is back in town, there is no place for two Sheriffs.

 

Simple really.

 

 

[Kathemy]

On 8/8/2016 at 7:55 PM, mrqe93 said:

Star Trek has limited appeal to GA due to its "geekiness." In that regard, the first two seemed to have overperformed.

While this statement is repeated so many times it's taken at face value it was never true. People seem to forget that their TOS and TNG movie run produced eight movies in a row all of which profitable with a couple of them actually being mega-hits (ST:IV, ST:II are the best examples.) Resurrection barely broke even and Nemesis lost money but at that point they'd run out of fresh ideas and distanced itself from its science fiction core - remember that the most acclaimed TOS episode "The City At The Edge Of Forever" was scripted by none other than Harlan Ellison. If anything trying to make excuses for the films' "geekiness" is what's backfired. Right now, Star Trek mostly looks like a standard action movie franchise and yes... that general audience is one which might be put off by it. These fans are fickle. Star ships exploding only creates so much interest especially when Star Wars has always outclassed it in that aspect.

 

It's true that ST:ID was generally disliked and considered a pretty awful film in many regards but the worst part of the new movies is that they have done a very poor job generating any actual interest in Star Trek as a concept. They have failed to convert fans to the "Star Trek way of thinking" and to investing in the iconic characters. 

 

As for Ghostbusters there is a definite anti-PC (and now I'm talking about the rabid PC crowd) sentiment and the critics lost all credibility when the studio started blackmailing the audience and the reviewers by suggesting anyone having a problem with this unfunny tripe was a woman-hater. "Respected people", unless they had enormous clout, actually got scared of speaking out against it. It was an utter disgrace and the movie deserved to fail, and fail horribly.

 

It was always a bad idea to try to adapt Star Trek to your average Hollywood blockbuster and in the process it lost much of its soul.

[ecstasy]

24 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Star Wars came back, that s waht went wrong for STB imo.

 

Until 2013, people were happy to have a cool ersatz, now that the King is back in town, there is no place for two Sheriffs.

 

Simple really.

 

 

 

I thought Star Trek had their own fan base. It was never competition for Star Wars because that was just huge but I thought Trekkies held it down respectably.

[Macleod]

19 minutes ago, Kathemy said:

It's true that ST:ID was generally disliked and considered a pretty awful film in many regards but the worst part of the new movies is that they have done a very poor job generating any actual interest in Star Trek as a concept. They have failed to convert fans to the "Star Trek way of thinking" and to investing in the iconic characters.

 

It was always a bad idea to try to adapt Star Trek to your average Hollywood blockbuster and in the process it lost much of its soul.

 

Top statement is so very true.  I really liked Beyond, probably more than the first one (I have no interest in re-visiting ID)...but Paramount, and indeed probably the film itself, haven't done their job.

 

Second statement is at the core of all debates surrounding Trek's adaptation into feature films.  I've written about this myself for a book. 

 

People continue to debate about "Trek fans" when Paramount's whole idea behind the reboot was of course to expand the audience beyond (snicker) the traditional Trek fanbase...and further back into the general audience.  They wouldn't have invested $150 mil if they though they would just be making another Generations.  

 

Whatever's happened at Paramount, they let a really enjoyable movie slip through the cracks this summer, and they will probably regret it, as they will have little justification to beg investors for more money for #4...which seems less likely by the day.

 

...But perhaps you're right...perhaps the GA just wouldn't have been interested no matter how much space in the marketplace the movie had...or how good it looked.

 

Edited August 23, 2016 by Macleod

[Kathemy]

I have yet to see any news of Star Trek NuIV after this box office debacle. It's total radio silence.

[Captain Craig]

ST: Beyond was indeed an enjoyable film, but it needed to be a MEMORABLE one coming out in the franchises 50th YEAR ANNIVERSARY, and it wasn't. 

It needed much more Franchise rich iconography, references and appearances than what we got. With Nimoy gone they badly needed a story angle to work in Shatner or Stewart at the least. Now, that would've meant a different story than what we got but Beyond would work fine as Star Trek 14 in 2019. 

 

Paramount mishandled what this film should've been at this time. 

[Lordmandeep]

Ghostbusters  was marketed as SJW Ghostbusters 

 

Likely did not appeal to wide audience 

[kowhite]

1 minute ago, Lordmandeep said:

Ghostbusters  was marketed as SJW Ghostbusters 

 

Likely did not appeal to wide audience 

 

Well, not really.  This film is really failing internationally, and you're going to have a hard time convincing me that controversy had anything to do with ts lack of international appeal.  No, I think the made a Feig comedy...off an IP with minimal international appeal.  And...that didn't land overseas.

 

I don't know what you do with that except well...make something else.  In some ways that's like Beyond, good or bad, somethings don't have that type of appeal.

[Jonwo]

The reason why Star Trek rebooted in the first place was because it was life support after Nemesis and Enterprise. It had to become more mainstream because appealing to fans just wasn't cutting it anymore as was making films that were at times just extended TV episodes. If it wasn't for the new films, we wouldn't be having a new TV series coming soon.