Star Trek 4 (2 Viewers)

[dpippel]

Could this be the end of the Kelvin Timeline films?

https://movieweb.com/star-trek-4-shelved-paramount/

 

[Brandon Conway]

Too bad, but totally understandable from a producer standpoint. Star Trek has been revived on TV, its more proper home, and Star Wars has zapped away the theatrical box office of general audiences that used the first two Kelvin films as a placeholder in a time when no SW films were ever expected again.

 

[Jake Lipson]

After they couldn't reach new deals with Chris Pine and Chris Hemsworth to return, this isn't much of a surprise. You can't do that version of Star Trek without Pine as Kirk. As we've discussed previously at length in other threads, the long hiatuses between films didn't help either, in this climate where sequels are almost always done in two or three years at the latest.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Paramount has continued to drag their heels on the theatrical franchise at the expense of box office potential.

When they did the ‘09 movie, they brought in a lot of people who never would have considered seeing a Star Trek movie and got them excited about it. As a lifelong Star Trek fan whose fandom was usually met with derision, seeing a Trek film open and be accepted by a wider audience was thrilling.

But Paramount waited four years to deliver a sequel, and then another three years after that for the next one.

In an era where franchises need to have new releases every year, or every other year at the most, to build and maintain an audience, that just isn’t enough.

Paramount’s refusal to pay Chris Pine the salary that they were contractually obligated to give him was a low blow as well. It’s not Pine’s fault that his bosses have mismanaged the franchise and he shouldn’t be expected to work for peanuts due to their poor decision making. Its easy to blame this on Pine but not accurate. He wasn’t asking for a raise. He just expected Paramount to honor the terms of the two picture deal that was signed before Star Trek Beyond went into production.

 

[Jake Lipson]

If you go look at the Deadline article that MovieWeb cites as a source for their story, the shelving of this project isn't even the main topic. It's buried inside an article about HBO hiring S.J. Clarkson to direct the Game of Thrones spinoff pilot.

I hear Clarkson was recruited by HBO for GOT after she recently became available. Earlier this year, Clarkson was the first female director to be tapped to direct a Star Trek movie when she was hired to helm the fourth feature in the current series. That project has since been shelved.

By "earlier this year," they probably mean 2018 and forgot that it's 2019 now. But the fact that the cancellation of a once-major movie property such as Star Trek isn't even the headline of its own story is very telling as far as how much attention this franchise continues to command from Paramount and the industry at large.

https://deadline.com/2019/01/game-o...to-direct-naomi-ackie-7-more-cast-1202531071/

 

[dpippel]

It's a sad state of affairs any way you cut it. I really liked the 2009 film, and I also (despite its problems) really liked Into Darkness. The time gap between it and the third film was problematic for me, particularly since I think Beyond is the weakest of the Kelvin Timeline movies. It lacks the sweep of the first two and just feels like it was done by-the-numbers. A contractually obligated production. It's really too bad that we'll most likely not see any more adventures with these iterations of the characters. I think the whole cast did a fantastic job carrying the weight of who they were portraying.

 

[Tino]

This is all premature I say. Paramount will figure it out and reach deals with everyone and ST4 will get made in the next 2-3 years.

 

[Jake Lipson]

ST4 will get made in the next 2-3 years.

Let's say you're correct and it gets made and released three years from now. That's 2022, which would be a six-year gap between films. What a way to kill interest in the franchise. They're really not managing it well.

 

[Tino]

Let's say you're correct and it gets made and released three years from now. That's 2022, which would be a six-year gap between films. What a way to kill interest in the franchise. They're really not managing it well.

In my opinion you can never kill interest in Star Trek.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

But Paramount waited four years to deliver a sequel, and then another three years after that for the next one.

But was that four years between 1 and 2 Paramount's decision or JJ's?

 

[dpippel]

In my opinion you can never kill interest in Star Trek.

You can kill it enough to make it unprofitable as far as a feature film with this cast is concerned.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

After the ‘09 movie came out, Abrams wanted to work on an original project (which was ultimately Super 8) and was not willing to commit to another Trek film. Paramount was willing to wait for Abrams to complete Super 8 in the hopes that he could then be persuaded to direct the next Trek movie.

I do not believe that Paramount should have waited. And if that meant doing the film with Abrams as a producer instead of director, so be it.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

This is all premature I say. Paramount will figure it out and reach deals with everyone and ST4 will get made in the next 2-3 years.

I still think that’s the most likely possibility. But I also think it’s likely that the grosses will be down, and Paramount will not understand that the long stagnation between films is a major factor in that. Right now, it’s three years since the last film. At best, a new one could come out 2 years from now. A five year gap is deadly for a modern franchise. If Star Trek Beyond isn’t already the last theatrical Star Trek film ever made, the low grosses resulting for another excessive delay will almost certainly guarantee that the next film is.

 

[Sam Favate]

This is just the latest evidence that Paramount - which isn't even a functioning movie studio anymore - doesn't know (and hasn't known) how to handle Star Trek. Nothing will change until there's new management at Paramount and/or Viacom that has some understanding of Star Trek and treats it better. The decision to split the TV and movie rights to the franchise between two of Viacom's units (who are under no obligation to work together and, indeed, have not) is one of the worst decisions in an industry full of bad decisions.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

They were incredibly dumb to not do what Abrams and Bad Robot wanted to do from the start, which was to use the ‘09 movie to reboot the entire franchise as a cross-platform offering that would have included a series of both stand-alone and interconnected films, television and web series. The TV and film divisions wouldn’t even entertain the idea, and that’s part of why Abrams lost his enthusiasm for Trek.

Over the span of ten years, Marvel Studios made twenty films (all of which were commercially successful, with the vast majority also securing critical acclaim) as well as multiple television and streaming series available on a wide variety of platforms. If you would have asked anyone in 2007 if Iron Man, Thor and Captain America would be a billion dollar business, you would have been laughed out of the room. Marvel Studios trusted the integrity of the property they had, hired competent craftspeople, kept a busy schedule, and created a big picture endeavor that could absorb any losses, setbacks or changes in direction without sinking the ship.

Paramount has done absolutely none of that with with Star Trek, but still expects those kinds of results and judges the success or failure of Trek projects by that metric. It’s bizarre.

While I don’t expect Trek to do Avengers numbers, a Trek movie can reliably be expected to gross several hundred million dollars worldwide. Alan and I have talked about this in many Trek threads; there’s no reason why the studio couldn’t make a great Trek film for half of what Star Trek Into Darkness cost, and while the billion dollar gross may be out of reach, grossing $400 million worldwide on a $75 million budget seems very achievable.

I’m currently rewatching the original crew movies, and with the exception of 1979’s Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the rest were budget productions. They’re still wonderfully entertaining today and they hold up because of the characters and the storytelling. I’m not saying make a Trek film without special effects, but I think filmmakers today don’t realize how much less they could get away with.

Look at another Paramount film like A Quiet Place. That movie cost almost nothing to make, but as a viewer, you never doubt what’s happening onscreen. You don’t say to yourself, “I didn’t see the alien invasion, therefore I don’t accept the premise.” The characters spend every moment fearing the aliens, and that’s more than enough sell it.

 

[Thomas Newton]

You can kill it enough to make it unprofitable as far as a feature film with this cast is concerned.

Maybe destroying the Enterprise in every film isn't the key to success?

 

[Sam Favate]

Maybe destroying the Enterprise in every film isn't the key to success?

This is a good point. They kept relying on the same things that worked once (Spock dies! The Enterprise crashes! Data gets taken over by someone! A madman wants to destroy the galaxy!) and using them as a gimmick. For crying out loud, Rick Berman promoted every Next Generation movie by saying "this one has the best villain since Khan." Every time. The Abrams films (including Beyond) reused many of the same things from the old films.

 

[benbess]

Star Trek Beyond was beyond bad for me. Into Darkness doing Khan again was also a major flaw. 2009's Trek destroying Vulcan and the original time line? I wan't so happy about that either. Making Star Trek movies so many years apart and each with c. $180 million dollar budgets? Neither of those are good ideas. I'm ok with Star Trek dying on the big screen for now, and it seems like it was almost inevitable. I'm not sure what Chris P. and Chris H. make for a big movie these days, but it's probably c. $10 million each. Star Trek can't financially support paydays like that. I'll be maybe the only person here who agrees with Paramount on that call which meant pulling the plug for now.

 

[dpippel]

Whatever Pine and Hemsworth were being paid, it was in the contract both they and Paramount signed.

 

[RobertR]

Star Trek Beyond was beyond bad for me. Into Darkness doing Khan again was also a major flaw. 2009's Trek destroying Vulcan and the original time line? I wan't so happy about that either. Making Star Trek movies so many years apart and each with c. $180 million dollar budgets? Neither of those are good ideas. I'm ok with Star Trek dying on the big screen for now, and it seems like it was almost inevitable. I'm not sure what Chris P. and Chris H. make for a big movie these days, but it's probably c. $10 million each. Star Trek can't financially support paydays like that. I'll be maybe the only person here who agrees with Paramount on that call which meant pulling the plug for now.

I honestly loathe the 2009 and beyond series of Trek films, so I'm not the least bit disappointed in this news.