Noah Hawley takes on the next Star Trek movie (1 Viewer)

[Neil Middlemiss]

Noah Hawley might take the Star Trek reigns writing and directing the next movie!

https://deadline.com/2019/11/star-t...el-jj-abrams-chris-pine-paramount-1202785280/

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

I hope this is true. He is a gifted writer and a very capable director. Legion is one of the best shows of the last decade, and his Fargo TV work has been superb. This bodes well for the franchise.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

It may be good, it may be bad, but it will most definitely be interesting. He hasn't made a boring thing yet.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

More Star Trek is always a good thing and this iteration has such a good cast. I loved Beyond but don’t want it to be the final word on this version of Trek. Glad to see Paramount moving forward. I tried Legion and couldn’t get into it but that doesn’t mean he’s unskilled. He clearly has a vision and a good sense of how to make older iconography feel like new discoveries and that’s a valuable skill to bring to an older franchise.

 

[joshEH]

Will there be glassware?

 

[Josh Dial]

If he's given the same creative license he was given on Legion then I expect great things.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Paramount is under new management since the last film, and Bad Robot tends to be supportive of a variety of styles and tones, so yeah, I’m thinking that it wouldn’t be half-assed.

It’s probably telling of Paramount’s intentions that they switched out a non-writing TV director known for great style, performance and adherence to schedules and a script from writers not known for originality, in favor of a TV showrunner known for prestige work.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I'm confused.

I thought it was reported that the previous version of this fell apart because Paramount couldn't come to an agreement with Chris Pine.

As I recall, Pine wanted Paramount to pay him his fee that they agreed upon when negotiating for Beyond and a fourth film before starting production on Beyond. Chris Hemsworth was also supposed to come back as Kirk's father. Then, when Beyond underperformed, they asked Pine and Hemsworth to cut their fees for the fourth installment, they declined and the project stalled.

Regardless of whether the director is S.J. Clarkson or Noah Hawley or anyone else, they still have that issue. Is Paramount finally going to agree to pay them what their contracts were written up for them to be paid? I don't really see them changing their stance, and I don't think they should either. If they want to cut costs, you could do a fourth movie without bringing back Hemsworth, but it would seem impossible to me to do a film in this continuity with this cast and not have it be headed by Chris Pine.

Also, it's not like the rest of the cast have been waiting by the phone for Paramount to call them back, so wrangling schedules for this extremely in-demand group of people will be a challenge. Just today Zoe Saldana signed on for another movie. Plus, of course, she'll have Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 shooting probably in 2022 (I'm guessing) and another couple Avatar sequels coming down the pike. And that's just her.

https://deadline.com/2019/11/sabaya...-monahan-2015-special-forces-raid-1202789735/

I'm not sure what everyone else is doing, but I expect they're keeping busy. Are the contracts signed when production on Beyond started even still valid?

I'm not saying that it's impossible for Paramount to pull this off, but their waiting around and doing a lot of stopping and starting when the cast is very popular and highly-sought-after is going to make this harder to get off the ground than if they were doing this expediently from one film to the next film and everyone involved knew when to build a commitment like this into their schedule.

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

I'm confused.

I thought it was reported that the previous version of this fell apart because Paramount couldn't come to an agreement with Chris Pine.

As I recall, Pine wanted Paramount to pay him his fee that they agreed upon when negotiating for Beyond and a fourth film before starting production on Beyond. Chris Hemsworth was also supposed to come back as Kirk's father. Then, when Beyond underperformed, they asked Pine and Hemsworth to cut their fees for the fourth installment, they declined and the project stalled.

Regardless of whether the director is S.J. Clarkson or Noah Hawley or anyone else, they still have that issue. Is Paramount finally going to agree to pay them what their contracts were written up for them to be paid? I don't really see them changing their stance, and I don't think they should either. If they want to cut costs, you could do a fourth movie without bringing back Hemsworth, but it would seem impossible to me to do a film in this continuity with this cast and not have it be headed by Chris Pine.

Also, it's not like the rest of the cast have been waiting by the phone for Paramount to call them back, so wrangling schedules for this extremely in-demand group of people will be a challenge. Just today Zoe Saldana signed on for another movie. Plus, of course, she'll have Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 shooting probably in 2022 (I'm guessing) and another couple Avatar sequels coming down the pike. And that's just her.

https://deadline.com/2019/11/sabaya...-monahan-2015-special-forces-raid-1202789735/

I'm not sure what everyone else is doing, but I expect they're keeping busy. Are the contracts signed when production on Beyond started even still valid?

I'm not saying that it's impossible for Paramount to pull this off, but their waiting around and doing a lot of stopping and starting when the cast is very popular and highly-sought-after is going to make this harder to get off the ground than if they were doing this expediently from one film to the next film and everyone involved knew when to build a commitment like this into their schedule.

Nothing to be confused about. Things change all the time, negotiations continue and decisions get made. If the reporting is correct and this is the fourth film in the series, Paramount and the principle cast must have resolved, or be closing in on a resolution to the challenges - pay included. It’s been an awful long time since the report on the negotiation break down before.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Right, Paramount is under new management since that last deal broke down. New management has stated that getting these things back on track is a priority. And CBS and Paramount are rejoining, and one of the motivating factors for that reunification was said to be getting Star Trek all under the same roof again so that they can finally build a cross-platform franchise in the way Disney is doing with Star Wars and Marvel.

 

[benbess]

As a Star Trek fan since the early 1970s, I've been mixed about these new movies. I still can't quite forgive the first one in 2009 for blowing up the planet Vulcan, having Kirk behave like a bad frat boy, having the Enterprise constructed on Earth, etc. Still, it had overall a good cast, nice production design, and several good moments, and I'd rate it a "B". Anyway, I think it barely covered its high costs at the box office. In 2012, bringing back Khan in Star Trek into Darkness was a mistake imho, and being lied to about that before the movie came out wasn't exactly cool either, but overall I like the film, which was another "B" for me, and it also did ok at the box office.

But I think Star Trek Beyond was a weak film, and the mediocre box office and high costs meant that the movie lost money.

As some you know, I also don't care for Star Trek Discovery.

Overall, the Star Trek productions starting in 2009 have been a mixed bag for me, so mixed that I can't at this point get excited about this new movie. I'll see it, of course, but my expectations are low.

 

[Sam Favate]

Hawley is a talent, that's for sure. It remains to be seen if he is a good fit for Star Trek. Legion was great, and one of the most original things that has ever been on TV. Kevin Feige of Marvel said Hawley has great ideas and he'd love to work with him. (Hawley has apparently pitched a Dr. Doom movie.)

As a Star Trek fan since the early 1970s, I've been mixed about these new movies. I still can't quite forgive the first one in 2009 for blowing up the planet Vulcan, having Kirk behave like a bad frat boy, having the Enterprise constructed on Earth, etc.

That's classic Abrams: Destroy something important or kill a beloved character to goose the audience's reaction. I hate that kind of writing - it's lazy.

I do think the writers on Discovery came around in the second season and honored Trek. Certainly the inclusion of Anson Mount was a great move. I look forward to seeing what Michael Chabon brings to the Picard series.

What Star Trek lacks, both for movies and TV, is a coherent voice, like Marvel has with Feige. Finding the right person for that job is enormously difficult.

 

[Osato]

This news made my day!

a new Star Trek movie sounds great to me!

I hope we hear more details soon!!

 

[benbess]

Here is the "Honest" trailer made several years ago about Star Trek Into Darkness, directed by J.J. Abrams. Although comedy, this trailer makes several points that are valid. I still liked the movie overall, but it was deeply flawed, and I think somewhat damaged Star Trek overall.



And J.J. Abrams himself feels it was a mistake to mislead about Khan.

https://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies...nto-darkness-jj-abrams-on-where-it-went-wrong

And JJA even admitted himself that the movie wasn't all that good....

"As for his overall assessment of the movie? “I felt like, in a weird way, it was a little bit of a collection of scenes that were written by my friends - brilliantly talented writers - who I somehow misled in trying to do certain things. And yet, I found myself frustrated by my choices, and unable to hang my hat on an undeniable thread of the main story. So then I found myself on that movie basically tap-dancing as well as I could to try and make the sequences as entertaining as possible.”

Abrams praised the cast – singling out Benedict Cumberbatch in particular – but added that the film “didn’t work as well as it could have.”



The damage done by this movie, 09, Beyond, and the series Discovery is why I've lost most of my enthusiasm for Star Trek, and why I'm also now worried about Star Wars IX The Rise of Skywalker.

 

[Jason_V]

Here is the "Honest" trailer made several years ago about Star Trek Into Darkness, directed by J.J. Abrams. Although comedy, this trailer makes several points that are valid. I still liked the movie overall, but it was deeply flawed, and I think somewhat damaged Star Trek overall.



And J.J. Abrams himself feels it was a mistake to mislead about Khan.

https://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies...nto-darkness-jj-abrams-on-where-it-went-wrong

And JJA even admitted himself that the movie wasn't all that good....

"As for his overall assessment of the movie? “I felt like, in a weird way, it was a little bit of a collection of scenes that were written by my friends - brilliantly talented writers - who I somehow misled in trying to do certain things. And yet, I found myself frustrated by my choices, and unable to hang my hat on an undeniable thread of the main story. So then I found myself on that movie basically tap-dancing as well as I could to try and make the sequences as entertaining as possible.”

Abrams praised the cast – singling out Benedict Cumberbatch in particular – but added that the film “didn’t work as well as it could have.”



The damage done by this movie, 09, Beyond, and the series Discovery is why I've lost most of my enthusiasm for Star Trek, and why I'm also now worried about Star Wars IX The Rise of Skywalker.

If we're really gonna have this conversation, the damage was done WAY back with Nemesis, a lackluster first two years of Enterprise, seven years of Voyager not doing a whole lot of anything interesting AND the old CBS/Paramount fight over rights. It was further damaged by fans splintering off into "not my Trek" camps and boycotting/refusing to give anything new a chance. Into Darkness isn't a brilliant movie and I still want to punch the screen when I watch it...but it's hardly the one thing that damaged the franchise. And I won't lay the problem at the feet of the Kelvin universe or on Discovery by themselves.

As for this news: I'd like for it to be true so we can have a new Trek adventure on the big screen. But I'm also being pragmatic: the QT movie is in development (I don't like QT, but I WILL see the movie in the theater to support big screen Trek and to be informed when I talk about it) and it's already been three years since the stinker of Star Trek Beyond hit the screen. Directors and writers have come and gone, actors have walked away...this movie, if made, won't come out until 2021 at the absolute earliest. That will be five years since Beyond.

 

[Tino]

The damage done by this movie, 09, Beyond, and the series Discovery is why I've lost most of my enthusiasm for Star Trek, and why I'm also now worried about Star Wars IX The Rise of Skywalker.

I don’t think there’s been any “damage” at all. Loved all the new Trek films and I think Discovery is great. I have no doubt TROS will be terrific in JJ’s hands.

 

[Gary Seven]

Here is the "Honest" trailer made several years ago about Star Trek Into Darkness, directed by J.J. Abrams. Although comedy, this trailer makes several points that are valid. I still liked the movie overall, but it was deeply flawed, and I think somewhat damaged Star Trek overall.

This movie is so bad, I refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[benbess]

The box office of Star Trek Beyond might be revealing some damage to the Trek brand....

Grosses
DOMESTIC (46.2%)
$158,848,340
INTERNATIONAL (53.8%)
$184,623,476
WORLDWIDE
$343,471,816

That might be okay box office, except for the high production costs of c. $185 million plus another c. 100m for advertising and overhead.

And Beyond had lower box office than Solo, which is considered a box office failure:

DOMESTIC (54.4%)
$213,767,512
INTERNATIONAL (45.6%)
$179,157,295
WORLDWIDE
$392,924,807

Although, as we know, with production costs of c. $275 million Solo was one of the most expensive movies ever made, and that almost certainly made the loses on Solo go way beyond Beyond.

 

[Jason_V]

The box office of Star Trek Beyond might be revealing some damage to the Trek brand....

Grosses
DOMESTIC (46.2%)
$158,848,340
INTERNATIONAL (53.8%)
$184,623,476
WORLDWIDE
$343,471,816

That might be okay box office, except for the high production costs of c. $185 million plus another c. 100m for advertising and overhead.

And Beyond had lower box office than Solo, which is considered a box office failure:

DOMESTIC (54.4%)
$213,767,512
INTERNATIONAL (45.6%)
$179,157,295
WORLDWIDE
$392,924,807

Although, as we know, with the production costs of c. $275 million Solo was one of the most expensive movies ever made, and that almost certainly made the loses on Solo go way beyond Beyond.

The ratings for DS9, Voyager and Enterprise would do the same, as did the BO for Nemesis.

 

[Tino]

The ratings for DS9, Voyager and Enterprise would do the same, as did the BO for Nemesis.

I agree with Enterprise and Nemesis
But DS9 was a ratings hit and Voyager did fine at the time. Here’s and excerpt from an older article.



Deep Space Nine spent most of its lifetime as the number one syndicated first-run show on television despite its falling number of viewers. Even when it became a near-serial show (usually, long-term serial shows are ratings disasters -- witness Babylon 5) airing in prime-time in less than 60 percent of the nation, DS9 managed well over a 4.0 average in its final two years. As a general rule, a syndicated show needs to maintain a 3.0 to be successful, DS9 always maintained that despite the strikes against it. Look at the other sci-fi shows similar to DS9: Earth: Final Conflict is regarded as a decent show ratings-wise, staying in the lower 3.0 range and Babylon 5 is the hot potato of science fiction television -- it's done so poorly that no one wants to hold on to it.

As a serial, more cultish television show, DS9 is right behind the X-Files on the all-time list of successes even with extreme disadvantages.

Voyager, on the other hand, has very little that it can brag about. That's not because Voyager is an awful, unpopular show, but because it's on an awful, unpopular network. Voyager can only do as well as UPN because of Voyager's status as a network show. UPN has been losing stations since day one and is now only airing in a little over 60 percent of the nation, meaning that Voyager is competing in a very crowded market with both hands tied behind its back. For its disadvantages, Voyager has still managed to remain UPN's top show. However, Voyager will never be able to perform near the level of its predecessors so long as it drags the carcass of UPN wherever it goes. That's not the sign of viewers losing interest in Trek, it's the sign that viewers aren't interested in UPN.

In short, the ratings *are* down. Less people are watching. The bleeding off of TNG's more casual Trek audience is nearly complete and the shows are losing some of their viewers to competition. What does that mean? Is Star Trek dying? No, Star Trek is not dying, it's just not a mainstream hit anymore. Things have grown far smaller, but smaller isn't necessarily bad as long as a show is maintaining minimum audiences, which so far Trek has done. Star Trek may someday stage a mainstream comeback with a TNG-sized hit, it may not. But as long as Star Trek maintains its loyal audience that it currently holds, the franchise will be fine.