Box Office Update: STAR TREK BEYOND Disappoints Outside Opening Weekend

Now 20 days into its release, Star Trek Beyond is underperforming in the box office despite its excellent opening weekend and positive critical reception.

The film has grossed $198.2 million as of August 12, and while this means Beyond has made up its budget of $185 million, its numbers are quickly dwindling with each passing day.

$131.7 million of its gross has come from domestic viewings, while $66.5 million comes from international showings.

To put Beyond’s numbers in perspective, the first Star Trek reboot fell 42.8 percent its second weekend, while Into Darkness fell 46.9 percent. Beyond, meanwhile, fell 58.2 percent, according to Box Office Mojo.

These numbers aren’t promising for Paramount, who, according to the Hollywood Reporter, need at least $300 million in box office receipts from Beyond for it to be considered a success. At this point, Beyond will virtually never reach this point.

The reasons for this lackluster box office performance are unclear, however the tepid critical reception to Into Darkness likely contributed to Beyond’s poor performance. Beyond also competed with heavy-hitter Jason Borne in its second weekend, which undoubtedly drew viewers away.

The film currently holds a 68 on Metacritic.com and a 84 on Rotten Tomatoes Adjusted for inflation, Beyond sits as the 10th highest-grossing Star Trek, nestled in between Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, and Star Trek : Insurrection.

Kyle Hadyniak

view all posts

At 22 years old, Kyle Hadyniak has been a lifelong Star Trek fan. A graduate student at the University of Maine, Kyle spends his time either doing school work, playing music, reading history, or studying a replica of the Enterprise-E he has above his desk.

121 Comments Join the Conversation →


  • Lucas Bailey

    It should be noted that Star Trek Beyond still has yet to be released in 21 countries, including China. For whatever reason its not being released until end of Aug / early Sept in certain areas.

    Paramount has been pushing hard and advertising hard in China as well. Should make a BIG boost in overall numbers in the next few weeks to come

    • The Anonymous Critic

      The reception in China will partly depend upon the gender preference of Sulu’s character. If Scotty is gay, that would be one thing. But, when the only Asian lead in Hollywood is turned gay… is there really any reason why so many families stayed away.

      • LOGOS

        You’re correct

      • Demode

        I wouldn’t be shocked if they just cut that part right out of the film in China.

      • Ahndihuang

        Ridiculous! Your misconceptions of Chinese gives you a false reality of gender identity in a non Western country. Those going to see Star Trek Beyond want to be entertained. Awesome fight scenes are very popular in China as is seeing the use of futuristic technology in the hands of the common everyday user. In the only country to ever tackle the problem of overpopulation, do you really think the Chinese people would be put off by Sulu’s family of the future? Another point, China does not suffer from “Bathroom Usage”.

        • bonesmccoy

          While I agree with your comments on fight scenes, I do not agree with your premise regarding gender equality.

          Although some asian nations have a history of gender bending in dramatic arts, the LGBT issues preoccupying the US media are not commonly accepted either Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, or mainland China.

          You can argue all you want but I highly doubt that gay scene will make it through Chinese censors. Pegg et al would be wise to drop the pandering scene and focus on story telling that is relevant to the storyline.

          • Ahndihuang

            I’ve been to China, Japan, and Taiwan. Yes these countries currently ban same sex marriage, and do not afford the same gender equality privileges as the United States. Walking down the streets of the large cities here, one can easily recognize the LGBTQ presence. I’m sure bullying is experienced here although I have not heard of or witnessed any killings/violence towards gay folks/couples, as compared to the United States with it reputation as the freest country in the world for LGBTQ peoples.
            Getting back to STB, the “Questionable” scene in my opinion was so subtle that it could be easily missed even if you were looking for it. When I realized the scene was happening I thought to myself “Oh yeah, I forgot about that”. Also in China two men walking arm in arm, shoulder on shoulder, and even arms around the waste can have all sorts of meanings as opposed to what it means in the US. I stand by what I previously posted, thanks for your view.

          • TV Monitor

            Ahndihuang

            one can easily recognize the LGBTQ presence.

            No, you are mistaking female friendship with lesbian gesture.

            It is perfectly acceptable for girls and women to hold hands together as a sign of close friendship in those cultures.

            Fashion sense wise, you are mistaking normal Asian street fashion with gay fashion.

          • Ahndihuang

            Your remark: “No, you are mistaking female friendship with lesbian gesture” is incorrect because I am aware of that and it is not only female but males too. Being aware of the aforementioned, also helps to clue me in when I do witness same sex couples. I don’t know what you mean by Asian street fashion and gay fashion? Clothing in Asia is still affordable and there’s not too much distinction of str8 attire and gay attire except in those whom are flamboyant. I’m curious as to why you only point out the female aspects of friendship in Asian countries. If you reread my initial post I did mention that males also exhibit this type of close friendship to each other and I know that that does not signify being gay.

        • TV Monitor

          Ahndihuang

          do you really think the Chinese people would be put off by Sulu’s family of the future?

          Of course. Chinese audiences won’t even get to see that part because it’s being cut for Chinese market version.

        • Max X kinght

          yes & its not doing good there

      • Max X kinght

        its doing bad because people are sick of gay propaganda

    • Demode

      Exactly this. In the end, it is going to be a very profitable film.

      • Smithian

        I don’t see how. $300 million does not sound like an accurate assessment of how much a $185 million film needs to gross to be profitable. Note the grim BO assessments of Terminator Genisys, Ghostbusters and Jason Bourne, specifically the estimates of what they needed to gross to turn a profit. Jason Bourne is being quoted as a $120 million film in need of at least a $375 million gross. Maybe there’s a profit participation clause in there for Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass, but I don’t see STB being some extraordinary case. My only guess is that with so many financing companies sharing the risk, Paramount’s exposure is lessened – hardly something for a troubled studio to boast about when you consider these partners were brought in because this was supposed to be a sure bet for them compared to the rest of Paramount’s slate.
        As for China, the film may do well there but the Chinese cut of grosses is huge.

    • Roger McCoy

      And they have two distribution partners for China (Alibaba and Huahua), which is promising.

      (It’s also one of the reasons the opening production and distribution logos were so long.)

      • TV Monitor

        Roger McCoy

        Star Trek isn’t big in China.

        • Roger McCoy

          Not general, but Into Darkness pulled in $57 mil (25% of its foreign receipts) from China, and the China-specific production partners for Beyond may make this a bigger opportunity than it has been in the past. No guarantees, but it’ll be interesting to see what happens.

    • Jenny

      Now watch the latest movies only at 247watchmoviesonline;com

    • Chuck Curry

      Yep, exactly.

  • Spirit of 76

    “Beyond also competed with heavy-hitter Jason Borne in its second weekend, which undoubtedly drew viewers away.”

    Okay, so now that those viewers have seen Bourne, so why didn’t they go see Beyond the weekend after, when Beyond fell another 60%, unless they never wanted to?

    • John Scott

      Suicide Squad came out…..and has twice the revenue of Beyond so far….

    • High ticket prices coupled with an older demographic which would rather buy their kids new shoes than pay to see the same thing twice (or even to see Beyond once, if they only have time or money to see one movie that month and they prioritized Bourne). That’s just a guess. I don’t know what Trek fans’ demographics are, but when I saw Beyond, everyone else in the audience with me looked 30 and up.

  • jeffAMERICA

    No mention of the huge rift between long time Trekkies and CBS and Paramount right now. CBS is suing fans for making their own movies and shows. Most Trekkies are not happy with JJVERSE. All this tension is resulting in boycotts of paramount and cbs offerings like Beyond and the upcoming Star Trek Discovery series. Also a lot of fans are just walking away from jjverse.

    • bonesmccoy

      THIS is exactly on target.
      People are so fed up with Viacom’s insane management of this property.
      It just makes me sick to my stomach to watch the intellectually vacuous storylines that are pumped from $160,000,000 budgeted films.
      There is really something to be said for a story line that is not so dependent on visual flash for the viewer’s attention.

    • Victorinox

      So you are boicotting REAL Star Trek, for FAKE Star Trek, thereby sabotaging the long term survival of the franchise… Real smart!!

      Specially considering how the lawsuit was more than justified. I think Will Weathon said it best: “[They] raised a TON of money, and spent it to build a studio, which will be used to turn a profit from other productions once Axanar’s production is completed. They also sold unlicensed coffee, using copyrighted Star Trek names, and have generally been epic douchecanoes about the whole thing. Axanar put all fan films at risk, because they exploited the passion and love that Trekkies have for Star Trek to get money, and now they’re acting like they’re innocent victims of big bad CBS. … They are morally and ethically and legally in the wrong.”

      • Alan Waterman

        The simple fact is that CBS and Paramount targetted Axanar, a fan film, because they’re able to make a better film for $1M than Paramount can for $200M. It’s as simple as that. Paramount/CBS haven’t targeted other fan films in the past all of whom have used actual star trek actors, names, places, themes, etc and all which have sold unlicensed merchandise to raise money for their productions.

        So yes, I also boycotted Beyond although I had no idea so many others would, but as I’ve talked with trek fans in person and on line over the last few weeks, it’s remarkable how few of us have seen Beyond just because of this lawsuit.

        I really would like to see Beyond and if Paramount drops their lawsuit while it’s still in theaters, I’ll get my wish but I suspect that won’t happen. What a shame.

        • Smithian

          Other fan films didn’t use Kickstarter to build a studio they planned to make money from later. Paramount actually turned a blind eye to all of those productions you alluded to until this one went too far, and now there are set guidelines which ruin the fun for everyone going forward. I think theirs and CBS’s policies are draconian, but I am not oblivious to how far Axanar pushed its luck.
          The number of fans ticked off about Axanar does not even come close to accounting for the $65 million less that STB has grossed versus what STID had in as many weeks. I’ll accept it was a factor if we can agree it wasn’t the main factor.

          • Alan Waterman

            Really? And and how do you know this? How can you account for the abysmal box office results of such a critically successful film? Have you see the consensus on RT? This film showed have by far been the highest grossing of the three.

            If Paramount believes as you do, they can go crawl under a rock and let the franchise die because that’s exactly what’s going to happen.

          • Smithian

            Scroll down to find some common sense reasons why it’s flopping.
            Using trademarked IP without permission to get the capital you need to start a for profit business is theft, sorry.
            As for your exaggeration of Axanar’s impact: You’d have to completely piss off every single moviegoing Star Trek fan in North America to equal $65 million dollars worth of boycott because $65 million is pretty much exactly what the hardcore fan base has ever been worth at the box office.

          • Alan Waterman

            Like I said before. If Paramount believes as you do the franchise is dead. Too bad.

          • Smithian

            It’s numbers, there’s nothing to believe.
            Paramount should learn its lessons from how much it spent on production, the creative of its films and how it markets them. Getting bogged down with lawsuits isn’t productive, but it’s also a granular problem that you’re blowing out of proportion.
            Star Trek’s days as a movie franchise for the hardcore fans died in 2002. I don’t like it, you don’t like it, but it’s the truth. There was no way the films, even on modest budgets, could be profitable any more for an audience of only $70 million domestically every time. JJ polished Trek for the masses and like it or not, that’s what keeps it alive on the silver screen. The audience being catered to now doesn’t give a damn about Axanar. Paramount can even take the high road and point out STB doesn’t thumb its nose at the fans like STID did, and firing Robert Orci isn’t exactly something Trekkies are bemoaning. They did a lot to tiptoe around us, so the failure of STB to connect with the mainstream has to be in the fundamentals of Hollywood movie making and marketing, not the little distractions you’re elevating into epic blunders capable of sinking franchises. They’re not, sorry.

          • robfwtx

            #istandwithaxanar – So whatever this Smithian character said is like the teachers talking in Charlie Brown. Seen so many negative nancys I just tune them out. blah blah blah Axanar blah blah blah

          • Smithian

            Right back at you. Isn’t it a double negative if I’m refuting the initial negative comments that put Axanar on a pedestal capable of derailing a Hollywood blockbuster?

          • robfwtx

            blah blah blah Axanar blah blah blah…

          • Smithian

            Idiot.

          • I don’t think that’s the case. The pissed off fans are Trekkies. Trekkies drag other people to see the movies with them. I personally dragged ten people who weren’t the least bit interested in Trek to see Trek ’09 (I had to see it five times to do it). If I had suddenly decided not to see Trek ’09, that’s fifteen tickets they’d have lost out on.

            We have no idea how many people didn’t see the film because of the fan film issue, but we do know that both they and whomever they’d have dragged kicking and screaming with them to see it, never went to see it. That could be just a few people, or it could be a larger number than we’d imagine.

          • Smithian

            …or could possibly believe. You honestly think that hundreds of thousands of people, let alone millions, are licking their wounds about Axanar? It’s a divisive topic, not a universal consensus that CBS/Paramount don’t have a shred of moral high ground to stand on, and not every hardcore fan is invested in the fan film world to begin with. I’ve followed the story, but this is the most I’ve ever had to find myself talking about it all year. STB is largely lagging behind STID for mundane reasons, not because of some sweeping influence by ticked-off crusaders for the imperfect martyr of cosplay that is Alec Peters.

          • Vocal minorities have a way of sapping enthusiasm from movies, especially when you consider word of mouth and social media. We have no way of knowing what impact these people caused. But it couldn’t have helped that there’ve been thousands of Trekkies who got so upset over Axanar, the fan films and the All Access issue, that they posted everywhere they could that Star Trek is dead, Beyond isn’t “real” Trek, and Paramount and CBS are incompetent.

            Star Trek is just not as appealing to mass audiences as other franchises are (judging by box office receipts of almost every film since TMP), and it relies on its core fans to generate excitement. These core fans are the people who, if they were happy, would’ve seen the film more than once, brought others to see it with them, and generated tons of positive word of mouth through social media that just might have convinced people who were on the fence about the film to choose it over Bourne or Suicide Squad.

            There were many reasons it’s performed poorly. As I wrote above, I think the first (awful) trailer had a lot to do with it. I also think that over the years, the vocal minority who hate the Abrams universe have succeeded in throwing a wet blanket over it. And those who DID like Abrams’ take on it could’ve lost enthusiasm for it because Abrams didn’t direct this one. Others may have stayed away because Justin Lin directed it, and they figured it’d just be “Fast and Furious in Space.” I’m not saying the Axanar debacle was the only cause for the poor box office take, but it most likely did contribute to it. It’s not an insignificant factor.

          • Smithian

            We’ve both posted here about the conventional reasons why STB underperformed, we just differ on our assessment of the size of the impact of the Axanar lawsuit. The hardcore fandom has gotten louder in its stubborn disapproval of JJ Trek with each film (I am hardly not guilty of adding to the cacophony), but again I’ll point out that mainstream audiences who never stepped foot in a theater showing a TOS or TNG film, came to these movies in droves. Appealing to them is key to Paramount, and I don’t know if grumpy nerds complaining about something called Axanar is much of a turnoff to anyone who doesn’t visit Trekmovie.com every day. And again, the lost revenue thus far compared to STID is the total sum of a typical Trek movie’s entire gross in the 80s or 90s – so obviously something bigger than pissing us off is at work, because we are at worst only divided on how much Axanar and Paramount’s handling of the movie franchise in general really affects our desire to see any kind of Star Trek in cinemas. You’re right we can’t exactly quantify how many old school fans the lawsuit became a tipping point for, but mainstream audiences became the movie franchise’s key demographic the moment the 2009 movie grossed more by the end of its first Sunday than all but three of the previous ten films.

          • dougclark

            Exactly well said

          • dougclark

            How do you know what effect pissed off Axanar fans had on the boxoffice? Just because they weren’t listed as backers doesn’t they aren’t pissed off. The publicity got coverage far and wide and is solely the fault of CBS/Paramount mismanagement of the 50th Anniversary and the franchise as a whole. The did it to themselves and have themselves to blame (CBS/Paramount)

          • Smithian

            This is so stupid. A fan film with less than 9000 backers and divided fan opinion about its business practices caused some PR headaches. George Takei and Simon Pegg had a polite difference of opinion about the merits of making the new Sulu gay and the flames got fanned a bit. These are issues important almost exclusively to the core longtime fan made. Common sense dictates that even in concert, the combination of both controversies was not enough to turn off -the entire core fan base- which is what that missing $65 million dollars amounts to according to the box office history of the franchise.
            I’m not saying Axanar had no impact at all, I’m just fed up with you single issue people pretending it had an outsized one. There are far less esoteric reasons why the film is underperforming.

        • Luminya

          I did not boycott Beyond, my husband and I were thinking about seeing it but it really did not look very good and the reviews made us change our minds, so in the end we did not go. I watched the Axanar video and was so enthralled. It seemed so interesting and the story was so involved, the characters were rich and it seemed so full of promise. I must say I was so disappointed that they could not follow through with a movie. It seemed they really understood what would be intriguing to Star Trek fans and that they could tell an interesting story. I have been quite disappointed in the latest 2 Parmount movie offerings. It seems that most of these movies are sacrificing a great story for flashy effects. I can’t be bothered to waste my money going to the theatre for that sort of thing.

        • Arron Bubba Ratcliff

          The simple fact is Axanar broke copy right law when they tried selling Star Trek Axanar Coffee and coffee mugs and other things with the name Star Trek Axanar on them.I was all in favor of Axanar i couldn’t wait to see it.The Minute i saw all that Merchandise like that on their store page i was done with it.Any one with common sense knows you can’t do that.

        • Andrew Adams

          the simplest fact is CBS/Paramount own Star Trek…Axanar does not…moreover, Bryan Fuller is making a REAL Trek show set in roughly the same time frame post-ENT, but pre-TOS…Fuller shouldn’t have to deal with some fan made attempt to steal viewers from them.

        • Thunaer

          “The simple fact is that CBS and Paramount targetted Axanar, a fan film,
          because they’re able to make a better film for $1M than Paramount can
          for $200M”

          Oh? Then where is the film? :p The simple fact actually is, that rather than making the film with the money that you, I and the rest of his donors gave him, he was off forging his own little empire with someone else’s property. Unfortunately, the infringement became so egregious that it left the property owners with a tough decision to make: whether to defend their ownership of it, lest other people jump on the same bandwagon.

          In fairness to CBS/Paramount, they’d let all of the other fan productions that preceded Axanar slide: Phase 2, Renegades, etc, and had Alec just made the movie as promised, I believe that the lawsuit wouldn’t be on-going today. Unfortunately, Alec took all of us for a bit of a ride on his side-adventures instead of making our movie that he promised us, leaving us still waiting past the timeline that had been provided, and with our money unaccounted for.

          I honestly don’t believe that the lawsuit has impacted Beyond’s income. Before I launch into some really rough numbers, I’ll preface my calculations by admitting that I have no idea how movie income is calculated, but let’s generously say that there are 25,000 individual Axanar backers (I’m taking these rough numbers from the Kickstarter and Indigogo campaign pages), and that each and every one of these backers were so enraged at the lawsuit that they boycotted Beyond, at $15.00 per ticket, that brings us to $375,000 of lost income. Let’s also say that each of these backers, being good Trek fans, might have gone to see the movie three times each during it’s opening run, that brings us to a total lost revenue of $1,125,000. Let’s also then say that each of those backers also convinced one or two of their friends to join their boycott and not see the movie, I think the total implication is still pretty minimal. Add to that, Alec himself encouraged his own backers not to boycott the movie, so I’m really sceptical of a boycott by our fellow Axanar backers really having had any meaningful impact and I think the answers with respect to the film’s poor performance sofar, likely lay elsewhere.

          • Smithian

            Spot on.

      • dougclark

        If you think JJVerse Trek is real Trek you are deluded. They (Axanar) are none of those things and only someone who is woefully uneducated would call what they did profitting.They did nothing that other productions didn’t do. ST NV is profiting from tours and they raised funds thru crowd funding. Give me a break. You are doing exactly what the studios want attacking fans.

        • Victorinox

          The more you whine the more you show how ignorant you are about what Axanar really was. I am not “attacking fans”, I am warning fans against scammers.

          First, the tours offered by Star Trek New Voyages are fully licensed by CBS, after they reached a license agreement. A couple of weeks ago during the official Star Trek convention in Las Vegas, CBS actually promoted the tour as an official licensed product (I was there).

          Second, Star Trek New Voyages raised a grand total of $7K in 2012, $65 in 2014, and $50K in 2015. This is a very small fraction of the millionaire bounty taken by Axanar (less than 10%). However, ST NV has produced 13 full length episodes, plus 9 vignettes. Axanar has produced nothing but a 20 minute short “intro”.

          Axanar WAS NOT a fan film. It was a film with professional production, with professional actors, using professional level technology. Axanar paid full salaries to its staff. That was also something no other fan film did. And that’s, of course, illegal because they were hiring people to work on a license they don’t own.

          They also never hid the fact that they were using the Axanar movie as a launching platform for their own production company, which would then move on to create original movies. That was also something no other fan film did, and was also illegal.

          Alec Peters even wanted to publish novels under the Star Trek banner without having the license. He even contacted a Trek author and told him to write under a pseudonym to hide the fact that he was involved. This is also something no other fan film ever did, and was also illegal.

          “Industry Studios” is the facility formerly called “Valkyrie Studios”, which was also formerly called “Ares Studios”. They are have renamed the company three times trying to hide the million dollar facility under a trail of paperwork. They claimed that a group of investors stepped in and took over the studio, but of course they won’t say who those investors are, and no new corporations are linked to the facility. Alec Peters and cohorts sold Ares Studios to a nebulous “group of investors” in order to shield it from the collectors when they inevitably lose the lawsuit to CBS.

          Here is the flyer with the information, in case you want to rent the state of the art studio built with fan’s money and be part of this millionaire fraud.

          http://imgur.com/nZr7uh4

          So there it is, the million+ dollars given to Alec Peters, led to a cool 20 minute short, a cgi scene on Vulcan and a facility he can rent out for profit for years to come.

          That’s some Ferengi level bullshit right there.

          P.S. Axanar keeps claiming that they are “by any metric” the most successful fan film. However, Star Trek Horizon, a true FAN film, has received more views than Axanar, while raising only $23k through crowd funding.

    • Smithian

      I think you are overestimating the pull of the fans who are affected by this. Remember the hardcore Trek audience really only was about $70 million worth of butts in seats, give or take. I think STB just wasn’t positioned and marketed properly and perhaps just didn’t have a great hook for the casual moviegoers.

      • Greg Littlefield

        I completely agree. Outside of Trek-related social media pages, where else have we seen promotion for the film? I honestly can think of anywhere and if I saw an ad for it on CNN.com, it’s because my browser cookies told their ad server to dish it out to me. They shouldn’t be surprised no one is showing up. I’ve taken my family (and they’ve gone voluntarily) twice already.

    • Arron Bubba Ratcliff

      This was just bad planing on Paramount’s part.I know they have made the JJ-verse movies into summer pop corn flicks. but you can’t line up a shoddy sci fi movie like beyond with movies like Jason Borne and Suicide Squad.I went to see Beyond that’s nine bucks i can’t get back. And as far as the law suit goes and fan guidelines I’m on CBS/Paramount’s side. Axanar broke all the copy right rules in the book by trying to sell things like star trek coffee and coffee mugs and all the other crap they were sticking the name Star Trek Axanar on.You don’t get to rip off some one Else’s property rights to try an make a buck.

    • I don’t think “most” Trekkies are unhappy with the Kelvin universe. It seems to me it’s a vocal minority that’s unhappy with it. Prime universe movies didn’t perform any better than these ones, and they were savaged just as much online (well, Nemesis was… there wasn’t much of an online community to gripe about them before that, but you can bet they’d have been there griping).

      But I do agree the tension over the fan film situation and the resentment over forcing people to pay for All Access if they want to see the new show, hobbled the movie.

    • Daniel Grimaldi

      I did not go see Star Trek Beyond because of Paramount and CBS’ attitude towards Axanar.

  • Andrew Matner

    Shame I enjoyed this film far more than Into Darkness. Hopefully ticket sales from China, South America, France & South Korea will help push the final total past 300m mark

  • LOGOS

    What if in the next movie they make Captain Kirk bisexual ? I’m sure that’ll draw a lot of moviegoers !!

    • Victorinox

      Rule #1 of the internet is do not feed the troll. But I am going to do it anyway.

      Star Trek has had gay characters for over 2 decades. If you are offended by that, then you don’t get Star Trek at all.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u_rPON7aLE

      • LOGOS

        Thanks for calling me troll

      • Lynden Maley

        I just watched the you tube video. To give this some context, the Dax symbiant has lived 8 life times sometimes as a male and sometimes as a female, that person may have been in a relationship with her when the Dax symbiant was a male. Sisco most often used the phrase old man when talking to Jadzia Dax.

        • Victorinox

          If you are going to give context, give the full context then, don’t cherry pick.

          That “old man” Jadzia ended up marrying Worf, a male character.

          • Lynden Maley

            And that is a marriage between a man and a woman. What is your point?

          • Victorinox

            You can’t have it both ways, you were arguing before that the relationship between Dax and Lenara Kahn was ok because Dax was a man. Now you are arguing that the relationship between Dax and Work is ok because Dax is a woman.

            Dax is clearly a transgender character. It spends part of its life as a man, then changes sex and lives as a woman, until changing again. Only its physical appearance changes, as it is the same person before and after.

            The Trills help Star Trek explore the concept of switching genders and having everyone around them deal with the consequences of that. In a quote from “A Man Alone,” while Sisko and Dax are having dinner together, they have the following exchange:

            SISKO: He was… you were, are…a mentor, another father to me.
            DAX: This happens to trills, Benjamin. Sometimes our friendships with other species don’t survive because of the change.
            SISKO: It won’t be that way with us. It’s just a little uncomfortable right now.
            DAX: I suggest that you allow yourself to feel comfortable with your discomfort. Time can do the rest.

            Sisko is having a hard time processing that his old male friend is now a female. He basically explains that he is adapting slowly, that it’s just uncomfortable for the time being while he adjusts to the changes. Jadzia is still Dax, so to speak, just with a slightly different feminine lilt to her personality. It’s still Dax on the inside, with all of the same memories and experiences.

            In a similar fashion, transgender people and those around them experience a major life transition. It takes time for friends and loved ones to adjust to the changes.

            So my point is, LGBT characters have been part of Star Trek for decades. And those who dislike that don’t get what Star Trek, and its message of diversity and equality, is all about: Infinite diversity in infinite combinations.

            “Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. […] If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there.”
            ― Gene Roddenberry

          • Lynden Maley

            Here is a biology lesson for you about the trill race for you.

            You are making it sound like Trills are shape shifters that can change their gender at will, that would be really weird. There are male Trill and there are female trill and there are worms. When the worm gets put into the persons pouch it blends with the host. This worms name is Dax, the worms name replaces the new host’s family name. The new host gains all the life experiences from the other hosts through the worm.

          • Victorinox

            A biology lesson on a fictitious TV species?

            Ok, let me give you a reality check lesson. There are no Klingons, they were TV allegory to discuss the mistrust existing with the Soviet Union. There are no half black half white Cheron natives, they were a TV allegory to discuss racism. There are no Ferengis, they were a TV allegory to discuss greed and misogyny. There are no Trills, they were a TV allegory to discuss gender identity.

          • Lynden Maley

            I maybe a true trekkie however I am aware Star Trek is a Science Fiction TV show that is not real. That is reason enough not to change a characters identity to tell people he is now gay. The question is are you gay? If so then I could understand why you are so for this weird change.

          • Victorinox

            In the past we have seen plenty of “character identities” significantly changed, both in Star Trek and other series.

            Starbucks from Battlestar Galactica was changed from male to female, and nobody started boycotting that franchise.

            Spiderman was changed from being a white kid to a black kid and nobody started boycotting the franchise.

            But reimagine a character as gay, and then all hell breaks loose.

            A “true Trekkie” would not accept that kind of bigotry. I am not gay, but I am sick and tired of this whole anti-guy nonsense. Captain Kirk was right, there is no room for bigotry on the bridge (or anywhere else for that matter).
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdqseBkIoSk

          • Lynden Maley

            That video clip is too short to get any understanding of the context of the conversation. Please tell me the name of the episode and I will watch it in full.

      • Daniel Grimaldi

        Actually, I believe you’re missing the point if why people are upset. Has nothing to do whether or not there’s a gay character in Star Trek, but more to with changing a a character who’s be loved by fans. It’s like making a new Superman and saying he never had the ability to fly or if they reboot the Hulk and they say he never turned green.

        Plus, if you really think about it, Sulu being gay actually is an anti-gay statement. if something changed when Spock went back in time and changed Sulu’s sexual preference, then being gay is a choice, which is not what the gay community claims. The claim is that they’re born that way, or am I wrong?

        • Victorinox

          Superman originally didn’t have the ability to fly. He was only able to jump really high and long distances. Yet they changed that. And they went far beyond that. DC Comics once reimagined Superman as a very different character, without a cape, and whose superpower was “electricity”.

          Marvel Comics also reimagined Spiderman as an African American teenager, instead of the white dude we have seen for 55 years.

          http://i.imgur.com/B1859a3.jpg

          Is anybody boycotting those franchises? No. So much for the issue being changing a character who’s be loved by fans.

          In any case, the change in the Star Trek timeline occurred before Sulu was even born, so it is not like he “changed his mind”. Any changes could be considered biological. Plus, there is nothing in the original series that definitively prove that Sulu was straight, it was simply never discussed.

    • Wayne Ralph

      Ha ha, actually would make more sense than the Sulu thing,Kirk really shagged anything that moved.

      • LOGOS

        Just think about that !!

  • iFight4Liberty

    Star Trek is a character driven property.

    It needs a TV show that allows it to develop it’s characters and story lines and then a big budget movie to take advantage of it’s built in base of viewers and timeline.

    While the reboot in 2009 quenched the thirst of Trekkie’s, it’s continued downward box office shows that fewer and fewer Trekkie’s exist.

    The correct formula for Star Trek is to have 1 cast of actors do 2 seasons and then pass the third season and instead film and release a movie.

    This formula could deliver 12 years of a series, 8 years of TV and 4 movies.

    That would be 2 TV seasons, 1 movie, 2 TV seasons, 1 movie, etc, etc.

    The movies would be the highlight of the past 2 TV seasons, being an exciting culmination of the story line.

    If Next Generation had used this formula, ‘The Best of Both Worlds’ that centered on a showdown between the Federation and the Borg would have been the MOVIE and more production and action could have been invested in it and it would have drawn more people to the show itself when it returns.

    In a way, that’s what made ‘First Contact’ such a great movie, it was Picard’s struggle with the Borg that was put on the Big Screen instead of the TV.

    The movies would draw in more viewers and when the TV show returns in the 4th year, those new viewers will turn in and watch it.

    • “Star Trek is a character driven property.

      It needs a TV show that allows it to develop it’s characters and story lines and then a big budget movie to take advantage of it’s built in base of viewers and timeline.”

      I agree it works better on TV, but I disagree that being based on a long-running TV show would help the films. Most Star Trek films with the original cast and the TNG cast didn’t fare any better than Beyond will.

      • iFight4Liberty

        Hi Darrin,

        You’re right with your comment that TOS and NextGen films didn’t fare MUCH better, but I disagree with you because those films were not integrated into the series.

        TOS first film was filmed 11 years after TOS went off the air and Generations aired 6 months after Next Gen went off the air and had neither had any connection to it’s series timeline.

        But to me the 2 best ST films, The Wrath of Khan and First Contact both show that my idea has tremendous merit.

        The Wrath of Khan is a direct take off from Space Seed, a book end if you will and a fantastic one at that. Can you say
        K H A NNNNNNNNNnnnnnnnn!

        And First Contact, while not a bookend, is an obvious continuation of the Picard – Borg war and again, a great one at that. Can you say
        No, NOOOOOOOoooooooo
        (Picard shatters the glass )… … … … …
        The Line must be drawn here, this far, no further and I will make them pay for what they’ve done!!!!

        You just can’t get films and moments like these, consistently, on a once every three year story line. But after 75 episodes you’ve got plenty of rage and hurt stored up to let it burst out onto the screen.

        Best,
        iFight4Liberty

        • I’m not really disagreeing with you. I’d prefer films related to the shows I’ve watched, too. I’m just not sure calling on storylines from the shows makes a film a bigger hit financially. After all, The Voyage Home was possibly the most successful TOS film, and it didn’t have anything to do with TOS storylines.

  • Lt. Commander Obvious

    Why is everyone choosing to ignore the obvious? Simon Pegg was told to make the movie more inclusive = make characters homosexual.

    I thought that was stupid, so did a lot of other people. And I think everyone is getting sick and tired of the 3 main ideas for modern creative writing.. One – Change the gender. Two – Change the ethnicity. Three – Make them gay.

    Congratulations Paramount!

    • john townsend

      thank you……

    • LOGOS

      Excellent

    • Smithian

      What’s obvious is that this is a granular problem which offended fans want to be able to sneer “I told you so” about, but it’s insignificant in the face of bigger issues. Pegg and Jung were dumb to push Sulu being gay when they knew George Takei wouldn’t support it, but the PR headache that one tiny scene caused is a blip compared to the $65 million the film is somehow down from STID by.
      The number of fans in a tizzy about Axanar and gay Sulu are not equal to $65 million in box office. The main reasons for the film’s disappointment have to lie with the fundamentals: the creative, marketing strategy, release date, budget decisions.
      The story was politely praised by critics but often with the caveat that it plays things very safe. The one out-there element is the destruction of the Enterprise, but the ship was already twice nearly blown to bits in the last movies. Idris Elba’s involvement was largely under-marketed, but he’s also not the same kind of worldwide star as Benedict Cumberbatch was becoming 4 years ago.
      The movie was only more heavily-promoted a month out from its release, with just a poor teaser, little social media and not even some Cinema-Con fodder to show before that. The Rihanna tie-in I thought was effective, but for a movie that one could say Paramount’s entire 2016 market share is revolving around, the marketing blitz felt tepid and late and took foreign audiences for granted as if the STID promotional legwork was all that was needed to keep those numbers up.
      Putting the movie out right before Bourne and Suicide Squad was not the best idea.
      Spending $185 million wasn’t either.
      These are far more conventional and obvious reasons why this movie is not doing well.

    • Caitlin

      Because there was literally only a few seconds in the entire movie that even suggested they were gay? As a queer woman, I’m not particularly amused by the way they pandered to us either. Write a new character if you want a gay character, don’t put in a few seconds of effort and call it progress. But only a moron would avoid a movie because of a few seconds of big bad terrifying gayness. Oh noes!

  • Cmdr. Blow Me

    That movie was gayer than George Takai.

  • Steve

    It’s failing because it’s a confusing mess. Haven’t been this disappointed in a Trek movie since the TNG movie days.

  • Rob Bob

    Yeah, I’ve read so many comments about Beyond that say, “I refuse to watch that movie because . . . . ” or “I refuse to spend my money on that because . . . .”

    There is just a certain segment of Trek fans who will NOT support a brand new Trek movie release. It’s a shame. If you want Trek to continue, support it. If you want it to die out, don’t.

    It seems some Trek fans really want their Trek “cooked” a certain way, then they snub it when it’s not. Could you call these Trek fans finicky and hard to please? Probably. Contrast this to Star Wars fans who DO support a new movie release.

    I myself support ALL Trek. And for those of you who refuse to get on the Trek wagon, chances are Trek will go on for ANOTHER 50 years, and you probably won’t like that either !

    • LOGOS

      You just motivate me to go watch the movie again, and I’ll do it, for me the concept of Star Trek is better than Star Wars and I’m not saying that I don’t like Star Wars but Star Trek has entertained me more and made me dream about the possibility of space travel and the mysteries of the Universe.

    • robfwtx

      Star Wars has been carefully managed from day one. Star Trek has had far too many IP owners in the years since The Great Bird of the Galaxy passed. There’s not a single unifying vision any longer. Give the JJ timeline a kick into the deepest and darkest blackhole then let a TV show take hold. God, I would have rather seen Janeway crew back going after a new Borg Queen than this JJ garbage.

      • Roger McCoy

        “Star Wars has been carefully managed from day one.”

        *blink blink*

        * Star Wars: The Holiday Special
        * Droids/Ewoks animated series
        * The Ewok Adventure/Ewoks: The Battle for Endor
        * The prequels
        * Star Wars: The Clone Wars (animated movie)

        So… The reason fans supported Force Awakens was the carefully managed single vision of Star Wars? Note that Lucas was only barely involved in several of the above projects and his input into Episode 7 was basically ignored.

        Episode 7… Which was a reboot by J.J. Abrams throwing out all of the above save the prequels and Clone Wars. It also rebooted the rest of the EU.

        Just sayin’.

    • Roger McCoy

      I love the new movies, but if people aren’t digging them they shouldn’t feel obligated to see them. Even if we’re all Trek fans, we don’t all have to like everything with the name on it. They *should* vote with their dollars and not waste them on something they’ll probably hate.

      But for the love of IDIC I wish they would stop seeking out every news report on the new movies just so they can remind everyone else just how much they hate the films (and, in some harsher cases, the people who enjoy them).

      We get it already, guys. Wish you could enjoy them as much as we do; it’s a shame you don’t, but it’s a valid opinion; now let’s talk about something else already.

  • Kurt

    I saw it again yesterday and was not disappointed this time or the first time, or the second time or the third time….

  • Alan Waterman

    Paramount alienated all it’s fans trying to sue Axanar out of business. Drop the suit while Beyond is still in theaters and I’ll gladly go see it 3 or 4 times like I have with every other Star Trek movie since 1979.

  • Lynden Maley

    The reason I am not watching Star Trek beyond. Beyond is a fan film, all
    of the JJ Abram Star Trek films are fan films most of all they are
    lacking in story and soul also there are too much special effects and
    flashy lights.

  • Roger McCoy

    “The reasons for this lackluster box office performance are unclear, however the tepid critical reception to Into Darkness likely contributed to Beyond’s poor performance.”

    In what universe is 86% on Rotten Tomatoes “tepid”? Other than among hard-core fans, Into Darkness got great reviews from critics and audiences alike and pulled in a good chunk of change worldwide. I hate to break it to you, but Into Darkness beat out Beyond in both critic and user rankings on Rotten Tomatoes, MetaCritic, and IMDb. The only place Beyond is pulling ahead is in fan polls (and only informal ones that I’m aware of).

    And with Suicide Squad breaking records, why are we assuming the critics’ voices even come into it?

    • Roger McCoy

      And, just to be clear, I loved Beyond. I’ve seen it three times. I’m just saying the analysis here seems inconsistent with the facts.

  • dougclark

    CBS/Paramount managed to destroy any enthusiasm I and many other fans with the lawsuit, and then the they lied to Abrams and Lin and used them to deliver a false promise to end the lawsuit. Next they came up with the onerous Fan Film Guidelines. The fans have always played a part in the success of any of the films and TV Series, how much? is OFTEN A matter of some debate, BUT It really doesn’t matter as thru indifference or contempt CBS/Paramount have managed to despoil all the enthusiasm that might have been built if they stopped targeting Fan Films. The failure is probably due to many other factors, like STID and the complete lack of a Star Trek theme in the new movies. Chris Pines contention that you can’t make an intellectual ST film.The 11 years of or more of infighting between CBS/Paramount that resulted in no ST on TV. Sure Beyond was an improvement but it is still an action film made to look like Star Trek. The only ones to blame for this is CBS/Paramount and there decision to attack the fans in the one year they should have been celebrated. Nice job. Crowdfunding will likely end the studios anyways despite there desperate attempts to stop it. But after this I am looking forward to it.

    • Andrew Adams

      at the end of the day, Trek is owned by CBS/Paramount…the Axanar folks have no right to make a Trek movie that violates the CBS/Paramount copyright…they should have gone non-profit 501(c)(3) like Star Trek Continues.

      • dougclark

        They are non-profit just like Star Trek Continues which by the way violate the fan film guidelines in a far more egregious way.

    • Rob Bob

      Look, If you owned Coca-Cola, would you allow anyone else to make Coca-Cola and make a profit selling it ???

      Hint – The answer is, HECK NO.

      • dougclark

        If you had encouraged it for over a decade you couldn’t just say now we mind could you?

        • Andrew Adams

          yes you can…that’s called owning something…you can do whatever you like to something you own.

  • nptdz

    I’m a long time Star Trek fan. Beyond is the first Star Trek I ever walked out on. This movie was the most banal installment I’ve ever seen. Poor and tired story line. Cliche dialogue. Bad character development. Seems like it was made for 12 year-olds with average IQs. What a waste of talented actors !! Come back J.J., they need you. If all I wanted was special effects, I’ll buy a video game. Earn to tell a story Jeremy Linn.

    • Andrew Adams

      how you could sit through “Generations”, “Insurrection”, and “Nemesis”…but leave during “Beyond” is well, ‘Beyond’ my comprehension. I thought Jeremy Lin and Simon Pegg told a solid story (with yes, lots of actions and effect, but that’s what summer blockbusters are made of)

    • Roger McCoy

      Jeremy Lin did learn to tell a story… It’s called Space Jam 3.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAy5Ms15YIM

      (Possibly you meant Justin Lin though.)

  • Arron Bubba Ratcliff

    this was a bad remake of search for Spock.Just like darkness was nothing more then a remake of wraith of khan.09’s Trek was by far the best movie of the bunch.I got to say this does not leave me with any hope whats so ever for the Fourth installment of the franchise.

  • Andrew Adams

    adjusted for inflation? that sounds like Republicans talking about ‘real unemployment’…Star Trek (2009), Into Darkness (2013), and Beyond (2016) have earned almost 1.065 BILLION dollars worldwide…no Trek movies have come close to that…I had to sit through TV shows like ‘Enterprise’ and movies like ‘Insurrection’ and ‘Nemesis’…so let me be the first to say, this new trilogy is like night and day compared to that crap…Beyond hasn’t even been released in China, Japan, Mexico, or South Korea…let it play out.

  • ZOD

    This is really too bad. In many ways, I thought it was the best of the new three.

    The lack of advertising in the states has been shocking. There were a few ads (including some ham-fisted product tie-ins) in the week leading up to the release, and a then a few on opening weekend, and then… silence. Nothing. Did Justin Linn park in some paramount executives reserved space or something? Even crap blockbusters get more publicity — and this movie had good reviews and audience reactions. I guess the posters were pretty…

    At this point, most people don’t even know that Star Trek Beyond is still in theaters. The thing that bothers me the most is that Paramount was supposed to care. This is the 50th anniversary movie. Even if it was awful, they should have made a big deal about it. “For half a century Kirk and his crew have boldly gone…” Nothing. Convention appearances aren’t marketing. Everyone there is going to see the film. The movie didn’t even a tie-in with the Smithsonian’s restoration of the original Starship model. Also, no real tie-in with that History Channel documentary that everyone forgot to watch.

    Gizmodo & others have written articles about the lack of marketing leading up to the movie. I don’t recall a Star Trek movie getting such a small publicity campaign. Anyway, I do hope that it continues to roll along into profitability. I’d hate to see what a scaled back release would look like for the rumored fourth film in the new series.

    • Shanahan

      My hometown theater, which has seven screens, played “Beyond” for exactly two weeks. TWO. Guess they needed more screens for “Suicide Squad”.

  • Randy King

    Star Trek makes Gay a choice moviegoers reject.

    • Andrew Adams

      and by ‘reject’ you’re talking about the quarter BILLION in worldwide profits it’s made, right? lol

      • Randy King

        It has not made a quarter of a billion in profits; it has not even made its initial investment back; step away from the kool-aid queer boy.

  • RkyGriz

    I’ve seen it twice so far. It’s better than STID, but lacks anything close to a real plot. It’s kind of like ST III and ST IV in some ways with elements of ST VI thrown in. Just a mish-mash of things. Mostly action without the soul that made the original Star Trek so great. At least there we no lens flares in this one…

  • I suspect that first trailer did a lot of damage. I’ve seen every episode and every film, read a lot of the comics, some of the novels, and I’ve watched a few fan films… it’s safe to say I’m a Trekkie. …and that first trailer made ME decide not to see it. The only thing that changed my mind was Pegg and Lin both basically saying they hated the trailer too. But how many people other than those who frequent sites like these even knew about that?

    Then there’s the Axanar lawsuit and those overbearing guidelines for fan films. Whether they were right or not (and they clearly had the *right* to set whatever guidelines they want, since it’s their IP), they handled it poorly. Paramount shot themselves in the foot. Hopefully they take that into account when they assess how well (or how poorly) this film performed, and greenlight the sequel anyway.

    Then if they’re wise, they’ll spend the next couple years figuring out how to make peace with all the fans they pissed off. …and if they’re smart, they’ll hire whoever makes DC’s trailers (which people seem to enjoy much more than the films themselves), or whoever made the Force Awakens or Rogue One trailers. Beyond was a good film, and it deserved a better trailer.

    • Kim

      I don’t think the Axanar lawsuit had much to do with it, I think that only affects a small portion of a well-informed Trek community.
      But I totally agree that the trailer was a total mistake, but then it was the epitome of the JJ-verse that leads with action and brawn rather than brains. I also don’t find the characters in the JJ-verse endearing, I can’t relate to them.

  • Ellen

    I love the JJverse of the Star Trek reboot. I was a fan of the show since it first debuted in the 1960’s. I grew weary after Deep Space Nine. I lost count of how many times I have seen Star Trek 2009, and Into Darkness. I even forgive the glaring flaws. I have seen Beyond only 5 times as I was out of the country for the first 2 weeks. While it is apparent that some devoted fans took their love too far and violated copy write laws, boycotting the film won’t change the laws. I intend to remain a fan. I hope Beyond eventually meets expectations.

  • Chuck Curry

    It still hasn’t been released in several countries, including some where the first 2 films pulled in big numbers. It will do just fine, and there will be a fourth.

  • Lawrence Levine

    I dont get it It was a n excellent movie great special effects and acting There is no accounting for taste Movie audiences seem to prefer garbage

    • Shanahan

      Seeing “Independence Day: Resurgence” only made me want to see “Beyond” even more

  • Its pretty clear that true StatTrek fans boycotted this train wreck because the producers saw fit to make Sulu gay, much to the chagrin of George Takei. The producers basically said “we don’t need your millions of dollars, its more important that we make a social statement – regardless if it screws the franchise and pisses all the fans off”.

    • Kim

      If people do that, then they completely misunderstand what Star Trek stands for. Star Trek’s always been about making social statements. The first interracial kiss, a multi-national crew in the heat of the Cold War… It would be great to see an independent poll though of what kept people away. I personally was completely turned off by the trailer, and as I already found the JJ-verse a to have disappointed me twice, I wasn’t about to get fooled again.

    • Shanahan

      The social statement lasted just a few seconds, blink and you’d miss it.

  • JB

    I wonder what “the studio” will learn from this. There are a lot of moving parts.

    No JJ Abrams: can anyone direct sci-fi other than this guy? Well, obviously yes. In fact, there have been several far better movies and TV shows put out since he rose to prominence.

    Gay characters: bad right? I honestly don’t think this was much of a thing. I think the ret-con probably was more offensive than the gayness, but other than Kirk, Trek has a pretty sterile sexual universe, and most of us probably don’t mind that.

    Axanar: don’t sure your fans? It’s hard to say to what degree this injured the film, but if you figure it was even 10% of your core audience (between, say, my one or two viewings plus a significant other), that would have gone a long way towards making the film less of a failure. Plus there’s the whole negativity surrounding a film that hasn’t come out that sort of poisons the well. I don’t particularly care to argue the merits of the lawsuit. I’ve always thought it was a bad strategy, not a bad legal argument, and most of the stuff people say about Axanar is based on “because they can.” Nevermind that we should all know that just because you can do a thing, it does not necessarily mean that you must do that thing.

    Hopefully the studio learns that Star Trek ought to be sort of niche. They can make a $50 million movie that they don’t have to market everyone and, provided it isn’t a disaster, double or triple their money. I don’t think Trek can or should even try to complete on the same level as Star Wars with these new Disney movies coming out every year for the foreseeable future.

  • SFSeries&Movies

    September 10th, with the help of China, according to Box Office Mojo (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=startrek2016.htm) Beyond is now at $294,453,883 ww