Search results

ST has always been weaker internationally, but I think Paramount saw the $257 million domestic number on the 2009 film (which was massive, the only prior ST film to even cross $100 million unadjusted was Voyage Home) and thought they could build from that. Into Darkness did better worldwide, but...

If it's taken them this long to come up with a worthwhile story/script, that's probably evidence that they should just pack it in and stick with their TV shows.

Paramount has bungled the theatrical side of the franchise so badly they should probably just give it up. All the false starts, delays, allowing the cast contracts to expire, etc. Or perhaps they need to take another run at The Next Generation with a new cast playing those characters on film...

Don't know why Paramount is always dragging their feet on the theatrical films. They seem to pump out enough series for streaming one after the other.

It puts the cast in line for an even bigger payday, as the project is already announced widely in the press. Unless they're willing to recast some of the roles, they may have to pay even more to bring some of the actors back on board. It would be egg on the face of the producers/studio if they...

May be easier said than done. They had the cast under contract a couple of times to make a 4th film over the past 5 years, but never got it done. I'd think it would cost them more every time they have to re-negotiate with them.

Based on tickets sold (from BO Mojo), there was a significant drop in tickets sold for each movie: Star Trek (2009) - 34.5 million tix ST: Into Darkness - 27.3 million tix ST: Beyond - 18.6 million tix I think Trek is still relevant, just not in the form of a $200m budget feature film, which...

It seems pretty ridiculous that they spent so much on these films given their long history of relatively modest returns. $190 million budgets? No wonder Paramount is struggling, if management is making decisions like that.