Chris Pine Hasn’t Heard Anything About Next Star Trek Movie + Paramount Searching For New CEO

In an interview promoting Armani fragrances, actor Chris Pine spoke briefly (and vaguely) about the follow-up to Star Trek Beyond. More info on that plus Zoe Saldana is gearing up to return to Pandora and there is news on a Paramount management shakeup. Check it all out below.

Pine on next Trek: we’ll see what happens + Saldana To Start Shooting Avatars Sequels This Summer

[EDITORS NOTE: It appears that although the article from Extra about Chris Pine was dated March 2nd, the video was actually shot late last year. TrekMovie has reached out to ExtraTV to get clarification.]

Chris Pine is out promoting his campaign for the fragrance Armani Code and between talking about that and other projects, ExtraTV asked the actor if “another Star Trek” is in his future. Pine replied:

I haven’t really heard anything about it. I haven’t gotten the script, so we will see what happens. But, I love – I love this group of people.

The last we heard from an actor related to the next Star Trek film was Chris Hemsworth (who was announced to be returning to the role George Kirk, father of James T. Kirk). During the Golden Globes Awards in January Hemsworth told MTV News that the movie was still happening, although he “wasn’t sure on the dates” but he felt JJ Abrams has an “amazing pitch” on the concept for his fourth Trek film production.

Another recent bit of news related to Star Trek is that director James Cameron is gearing up for production on the next Avatar film. Shooting should start in August. So even if there were movement this year on a new Star Trek film, it looks like Zoe Saldana (who is currently filming Avengers: Infinity War) will be unavailable for the rest of the year and maybe longer (especially if Cameron follows through on shooting Avatar 2, 3 and 4 back to back).

Paramount looking for new CEO with Grey out after bad 2016

Another factor with regards to the next Star Trek movie is that Paramount is in the midst of a management shakeup, with CEO Brad Grey stepping down last week. It was under Grey’s 12-year reign at Paramount that JJ Abrams was brought in to reboot the Trek franchise as a tentpole property. And of course it was under Grey’s leadership that a 4th JJ Abrams-produced Star Trek film was announced last July. However after the studio posted a major loss for 2016, he was shown the door. While Star Trek Beyond was the studio’s highest grossing film for the year, it still under-performed expectations. As noted by Deadline last week:

Grey wanted to move the studio forward, but the problem for Grey was that he picked a bad time to have his worst year, with the studio at the bottom of the heap in 2016, losing $455 million for the fiscal year that ended in September. Sequels didn’t work: Star Trek Beyond, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows, Zoolander 2, and Jack Reacher: Never Go Back were way down from previous outings.

The now former CEO of Paramount Brad Grey with JJ Abrams at “Star Trek Beyond” premiere

The search for a new CEO is currently underway and the studio recently announced a $1B new financing deal with two Chinese companies who will fund 1/4 of the studio’s films for the next three years. The CEO of Viacom – Paramount’s corporate parent – told investors this week the various parts of the corporation weren’t “connected” and Paramount Pictures was “run like an island. It didn’t benefit in any way from our network portfolio and its brands.” According to the New York Times Viacom’s new strategy is to create more synergy between Paramount and its various cable brands, however they report the studio will still “focus on franchise and tentpole projects.” But until a new CEO is in place, it’s likely no big decisions are being made at Paramount.

Stay tuned to TrekMovie for more updates on the next Star Trek feature film.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Well that’s best bit of news I’ve heard in a while!. After the performance of Paramount last year, heads needed to roll. I just hope the CEO isn’t the only one on the chopping block. Some common sense would have gone a long way to salvaging Paramount’s reputation and fiscal earnings last year.

I find that funny because in my opinion ( which goes all the way back to Sept. 8th 1966 so a fan for as long as you can be )this last movie was the best and the most Trek like. I thought the possible plot of Kirk being able to meet the father he never had in this time line sounded interesting. Also I’d like to see more of the Enterprise A.

As much as I enjoyed the first two, Beyond was as Trek-like as any TOS film (bar TMP). Pine was the most Kirk-like here, more mature and leader-like, too. The cast’s interactions also felt much more natural. Would really like to see them move forward with a sequel.

Mr. Disney, would you pleeease, by Mr. Parabound?

With Saldana tied up in work away from Star Trek for next few years it probably means that this trek crew are done, at least for a while.

I would agree with that, chances are that JJ-trek is over.


Such alarmism on this site.

I’m not alarmed to be honest. I was lukewarm to the last two movies. The 2009 movie is alright in and of itself. Thats how I feel. They are not movies which I feel attached too in any particular way, like many of the older Star Trek movies. Ive always been more a fan of the TNG universe myself anyway. I do really enjoy the original series and movies though.

If they make a fourth movie I just hope it is worthwhile and has a lot more weight and grounding. The Star Wars vibe needs to be gone, we’ve already got those movies coming every year now. Star Trek must be its own thing!

JJ Trek over is not alarmism. It’s optimism.

@myofb dog

Hahah, yeah that’s how I ment it :)

Saldana and Sam Worthington both worked on other projects while shooting Avatar so you’re getting ahead of yourself here.

Avatar will be a huge project for all involved once it finally gets going for filming. Especially if James Cameron does shoot back to back for Avatar 2 and 3.

“With Saldana tied up in work away from Star Trek for next few years” she has a career outside of trek, just like she did when she filmed the first 3 movies. Nothing new.

The box office wasn’t the problem. The ridiculous budget was. If they can reign that in under $100 million, and maybe even lower if they want to shoot for more of a Gravity/Interstellar/The Martian/Arrival audience, which would be my dream.

Agreed… An ideal scenario for me would be a lower budget with a great storyline that culminates in resetting the timeline and ending the JJ-Verse. I seem to recall some rumors that this was part of the intended script and is why Hemsworth was coming back as George Kirk… Who knows if it is true.

@Captain Danno That’s an awful thing to suggest. The point was that this was a timeline that stood on it’s own and didn’t need to be resolved to ‘fix’ the prime timeline. But that aside, try to think of it from a writer’s point of view, or an actor’s.. You breathe life into these characters, you make them your own, you actually care about them… and all *you* see them as is disposable pieces of trash. If the timeline were to end, everything these characters have been through would be completely pointless. Imagine telling Chris Pine ‘yeah I know you actually care about Kirk’s development and direction but we’re just going to kill him off for real and everyone else too and make it like all this never existed’. Yeah, not going to happen. You may not like these movies but that doesn’t mean there aren’t others that do.

Hi Ashley, I think you misunderstood me, or probably I was very careless in my comments. I’m actually a big fan of the JJ movies. I think they breathed some much needed new life into the franchise and the casting was wonderful! I thought Beyond was particularly good. Yeah, like a lot of folks I cringed with the death scene homage in Into Darkness, but overall I love these movies, and these actors, and really appreciate how the writers positioned this new timeline in a way that connected with the prime universe. My comments above were a reflection of how Trek has a history of “fixing” alternate timelines, especially those that have had devastating results like the destruction of Vulcan and most of San Francisco. I think whether it is the next film or the 8th film in the Kelvin timeline a great way to end it would be having our heroes repair that damage. It would be a great bookend to this chapter of Star Trek. Thanks for pointing out the carelessness of my comments so that I could clarify.

Fair enough, but you still need to consider that this is not just a different timeline but a different production crew. They made it on purpose, and have no intention of ‘fixing’ it, because it doesn’t need to be fixed. It’s a separate thing from the prime timeline. And there’d be nothing heroic about them trying to collapse their own universe..

I respect that viewpoint. But to quote the finale of TNG, “All Good things” come to an end :-) I’m just saying that one good way to end this iteration of Trek, only in my opinion, would be to have our heroes realize that they have a way to save Vulcan, San Francisco, etc. and have to struggle with the realization that it means the end of their existence. There could be some very powerful storytelling in that plot. But, I would be very content if this universe went on in parallel to the Prime Universe forever also. My comments were not intended to disrespect this production crew.

That might work if, and only if, this new timeline were a subversion of the prime timeline. That’s the only way The Reset Button (which I’m not a fan of) works in the Star Trek universe. However, this is a separate timeline. Theoretically, they could go back in time on their own timeline and maybe prevent Nero from destroying the Kelvin and Vulcan, etc., which is what I believe you are suggesting. But it’s not going to destroy that timeline, just alter it. I suppose this is just a technicality though, since the ‘Kelvin Timeline’ would then (in theory) develop just like the Prime Timeline. I still think it would be a separate timeline though, but it really depends on which time travel theory you subscribe to, as both have been established.

However, there’s still the problem with them undoing decades of history, and affecting many billions if not trillions of lives throughout the Federation and beyond much like Nero did. It might make an interesting ethical dilemma for Spock, but I don’t think he’d go for it in the end. And how would they go about it? Would they somehow destroy Nero’s ship before he destroys Vulcan? Destroy it before the Kelvin is destroyed? Or would they actually go into the Prime Timeline and mess with it? Perhaps it’d be interesting if they completed Prime Spock’s mission, and saved Romulus, but I don’t think it’d do anything for the Kelvin Timeline… It’s mixing the multiverse method of time travel with the concurrent version and just sounds like a recipe for a convoluted mess. I think the Kelvin Timeline should just continue on and be left unresolved, but that’s just my opinion.

Ashley, people are explaining the obvious to these guys since 8 years now and they still don’t get it. It’s a loss of time. Someone who, in 2017, still says “a great storyline that culminates in resetting the timeline and ending the JJ-Verse” obvioustly missed a foundamental narrative element of this trek, and if they didn’t get it by now that this trek is AN ALTERNATE PARALLEL reality and thus nothing needs to get fixed or ‘resetted’ because tos still exists, they just never will. It’s hopeless to still try to argue with people like that. They are stuck.

and I don’t want to be condescending but some people are just EXASPERATING. It’s years, I’m sick of reading the same arguments over and over and over.

and they call their suggestion ‘great storyline’. ha! Sure, Paramount&Co are going to just KILL their own trek franchise that opens a million of possibilities for them to make more movies even without this cast (e.g., going as far as showing how the characters from other trek series are in this reality) that’s just GENIUS!

I say it with the bitterness of a tired trek fan myself but this franchise will always be doomed by its conservative fans with nostalgia, and as long as the people behind this trek keep trying to placate people like that, they are going to lose more and more and alienate (see Beyond) the fans that made this trek successful. I wish Orci never interacted with fans too.
The funny thing is that certain people are still convinced that if the movies keep doing it even worse with the pandering to fans stuff, it’s going to make this trek more successful, in spite of the facts so far already proving that making movies tailored on what a few nerds with nostalgia say online is a bad, counterproductive, idea.

Honestly I really hope they never do that. I agree with others, if you do that then it would feel like the other films never really counted. I know some of the haters would truly love that lol but also why I don’t see it happening.

The entire point of placing it in another timeline was for two reasons: A. To not ‘erase’ what happened in the prime timeline and B. To just be its own thing at the end of the day. Yes you’re right usually when the timeline is changed they go about their way trying to fix it. But at this point this timeline is very lived in. Usually when they do that, it just happened like days. Year of Hell on Voyager was an exception and that was always changing for a long time. But here this timeline has been around for 30+ years from the time the Kelvin was destroyed to Beyond. They would be wiping out millions of people at this point if they tried to reset it. A few days, sure, but decades later it would have the opposite ethical issue and that is now changing something thats has created a lot of changes might be wrong to erase.

But that said I dont see them changing it at all. Mostly because I think they want others to see the KT as its own thing and you don’t do that by just erasing it. Also it makes even less sense now since 99& of the time you repaired the timeline by sending the people back who changed it in the first place ala Yesterday’s Enterprise. In this case it would be Nero and Spock and they are both dead. Sure I guess you can go back in time or something just stop Nero from destroying the Kelvin and that pretty much ends that but I think its better to leave it on its own.

And lastly why end a possible money stream for Paramount? Even if the films stop more than likely they will be making comics, novels, games etc for this universe for a long time to come. I think Paramount wants to keep it for those reasons and also because CBS basically owns the Prime universe. Paramount at least makes money from the stuff done in the KT and another reason why they would never completely end it.

Agreed. Budgets north of 180MM presumed a Trek movie could do box office north of 600MM worldwide, which was overly optimistic, at best. A 100-120MM budget keeps content on the screen consistently, which really is what any tentpole franchise needs.

Best Trek movie ever made, bar none, was also the cheapest. Does no one at Paramount take note of that fact?

Nobody anywhere seems to care. Stupid studios think that throwing money at a film project makes it better somehow, and “fans” delude themselves into believing that more money means a bigger, better movie. They all ignore the lesson of STII at their own (financial) peril.

I mentioned the need for another “low budget” Trek film here a while ago and was told it couldn’t be done. I beg to differ. The budget of STII was about $12 million, so adjusted for inflation that would be around $30 million today. There’s no reason they can’t do it – and do it well.

I think a Trek movie at 30M is out of the question.

Why? The cast.

Pine alone earned $3M for Beyond, almost twice the $1.6M he made for STID, which was a huge leap from the $600K he earned on ST09. He’s already inked a $6M deal for ST4.

Quinto was reportedly paid handsomely as well and secured a raise himself, and with Saldana a hot commodity now, she could ask for anywhere between $5M and $10M.

Throw in Hemsworth, who might command 5-10 million himself thanks to his role as Thor (he was paid over 5M for Age of Ultron), and I can see the cast alone eating up a good $35-40M, when you throw in John Cho, Karl Urban and whoever they get to star as the villain!

The advantage the original cast had was that only Shatner and Nimoy were “must haves” and none of the rest of the cast had much of a career to leverage beyond Star Trek.

Pine, Quinto, Saldana– even Cho and Urban– they could all walk away and be just fine. They have Paramount over a barrel and can set their own price (within reason). Their careers don’t hinge on appearing in Star Trek, like Koenig, Takei, Nichols, and Doohan.


I remember reading long ago in a TV guide article where George Takei said for all the films while Shatner, Nimoy and Kelly got 7 figures for the films and could negotiate for each film the rest of them only got around $125,000 per appearance. And I remember him saying snarkily if they didn’t accept it then don’t bother being in the film which meant Paramount didn’t think they were really important enough to the film one way or the other. They were nice to have for the fans but essentially wall paper and most would show up anyway. I’m sure they made money in merchandising, video sales, etc but I’m guessing nothing major compared to the billions Paramount made.

Its pretty sad in so many ways how they were treated and kind of crazy when I think the cast of TNG was essentially making around that per episode and they made 25 of those a year. When they went into the first film I don’t think any of them made a lot more money on Generations, maybe just a few hundred grand more but by the time Nemesis came I think all of them were making 7 figures and I think its safe to say Patrick Stewart was still the only real star out of the bunch since he was now doing the X Men films and others (although they killed his character off in that franchise a few years later…poor guy did he ever get to do another X Men film after?).

And yes I imagine with the KT cast they are seen mostly as bonafide movie stars so their asking price is just going to be higher, even if Saldana is really the only one with real BO clout but most of them do star in a lot of films now. And their Trek movies are just bigger anyway.

Thats hilarious, does Takei still think he was a star of Star Trek? Hey George, the nasty studio offered you peanuts…and you took it because you needed it. I hope he sent Shatner flowers every film as a thank you.


No offense but you are talking about a time in Hollywood that long since passed. NO studio makes $30 million franchises anymore. Thats just not today’s reality of big budget franchise tentpole films. There are people out there begging Marvel to make a cheap strip down Black Widow movie for around $60 million. They just won’t do it. Studios think a very different way today than they did in the 80s. In the 80s you could make cheaper films because studios didn’t depend on the global box office like today. Not everything was tied up in merchandising back then. They didn’t have 20,000 screens to fill. Back then the biggest cineplex was maybe around 8 screens. Today the average is 15 to 20. IMAX has now become a big part of the movie experience. You don’t make films for theaters that size in 3D for $30 million. It would feel cheap (because it is lol) and yes studios want to get their movies on IMAX. They also want to get them in CHina which requires IMAX and 3D. So no matter WHAT you do you if you want a film to compete for todays global economy and technology you have to spend the the money.

Now true its not to say it isn’t impossible. The R rated Deadpool defied all of that by becoming a $700 million hit or at least a $60 million budget. But I also think it was just genius counter programming to have a foul mouth superhero when most superhero films are usually big CGI popcorn fests designed for teenagers. I don’t think making a low budget Trek film will have the same appeal. Yes it would certainly make a profit at least, one of the reasons why Star Trek stayed so cheap, it was low hanging fruit. But these days studios just don’t have that mentality anymore. They rather spend $200 million to make $600 million instead of spending $50 million to make $150 million. The days of the mid budget film is dying. Clearly they still happen, but its mostly in comedies and dramas where the budgets tend to be lower anyway.

But action/genre films are big business more than ever and everyone is chasing the golden ticket. MAYBE one day it will go back to the more basic approach where you can just make a solid film and avoid all the eye candy all the time. But in our world today of big franchises, shared universes, CGI, 3D spectacles studios are more interested in capturing as many people’s attention as possible and that only happens with mostly big budget fare.


While I agree it’s a shame, let’s face it– for the most part, Nichols, Takei, Koenig and Doohan WERE wallpaper in those movies, and even on the show to some extent. Take them away, and would the movies be all that different? While us fans would have been upset, would the average moviegoer really care? I mean, Chekov didn’t even join the show until season 2, and most episodes (and the movies that followed) largely revolved around “the big three.”

It was only in TVH that the full cast had a lot to do, and i’d bet much of that was director Nimoy’s doing, as he often stood up for much of the cast (as was mentioned in “For the Love of Spock”).

So while it’s a shame they didn’t get treated better, it’s hard to blame Paramount. As you say, the rest of the cast did likely did well in royalties on merchandise.

Okay, I get it. You guys DON’T get it. Okay, moving along. :)

Yeah everyone on the planet don’t get it but you apparently. Got to love the internet.

Yeah I agree obviously. I know they are basically wall paper as well which is oddly why I never get all the TOS love. I mean I DO love it lol but there was so little character development outside the three main characters.

In fact, whats crazy is those four characters gets WAY more development in those 6 films than they did in 3 seasons of the show. And they barely get anything in the films obviously as discussed but its easily much more than they ever got on the show. So they at least tried to give them some background in a few films and yes TVH was definitely the one film where everyone got something to do and not just bounce off of Kirk and Spock. I think TUC they all got decent usage as well, certainly Sulu at least.

The film was already subject to cost cutting measures and a bit of creative budgeting. Production was moved to Vancouver, a different effects house was brought in, additional funding was secured from Alibaba and so on.

A $100 million budget with the current cast is unrealistic. To bring a Star Trek movie in on that budget you would need re-boot TNG with a cast of unknowns, bring in a director who would work as a hired gun without dragging his entire production company into it. Paramount has to retake control of the franchise.

I agree. Keep the budget at 60-70M and the studio’s BO needs become much more attainable.

Thanks Torchwood, at least you seem to get where I’m coming from.

I spelled it out in the past: new cast if necessary, new crew if need be, give it an independent budget, shoot on existing sets, have only a handful of CG shots, and go with it. Paramount is their own worst enemy when they throw money away on these films, assuring their boxoffice failure.

There have been some *great* $10 mil. theatrical features with “name” actors in recent years; BIG EYES, LOVELACE, PARKLAND for example, and I’m sure there are many more. Is $30 mil. so unrealistic for a ST feature? (And the wind whispers “No…”)

Everyone gets where you are coming from. I’ll say it AGAIN, Studios in Hollywood today don’t back under-$100 million franchises today unless its a comedy or something. Please, prove me wrong. Show me one action/fantasy franchise you can think of right now that is under $100 million?

Those films you named are small one offs independent drivers. They are not meant to build a studio’s coffers. They are not meant to have sequels for the next 50 years. They are not meant to sell merchandising. They are not meant to be a theme park ride. And they are not meant to appeal to 15 years old.

THATS what you’re not getting. Star Trek like all the others and are meant to build on the studio brand and give studio bragging rights of the market share. Lovelace isn’t. Studios are simply NOT interested in mid budget films like they were 30 years ago. Not if they want to build a franchise around it because franchises are suppose to bring in the bigger money, not JUST to make a profit. Thats not how studios think these days.

They may lower its budget obviously (and definitely should) but you won’t see a $70 million Star Trek movie. Why? As said because its not worth it to them. They want a film that can sell everywhere worldwide and so it has to be big.

So yes VERY unrealistic for Star Trek in today’s movie world. In the 80s sure but not today. And probably why its better to have it on TV anyway. Less pressure to perform at that level.

I think if they could keep the budget at $100M, and earn $300M-350M, they’d be happy. The problem is that they keep thinking, as Vokar says, that more budget is more ticket sales.

But Vokar’s “under $30M” is just ludicrous for an FX-laden, star-studded action film.

Perhaps the solution is make it a buddy film, ala Lethal Weapon, and cut out the rest of the cast! Set the film on board an abandoned Enterprise, with Kirk and Spock being chased by a Klingon crew. DIE HARD MEETS STAR TREK!

…and yes, I know they did it already on TNG…

Unfortunately, to hit that 70M budget, you’d have to scrap most of the cast, ask them to work for less than they’re worth, or set the movie in a shopping mall, and film it over the course of a weekend.

We both now that the way to success is with a 70M budget, but to do it, they’d have to get more creative than the story itself.

As for your “10M features starring big actors” let’s look at Big Eyes: Amy Adams, Christoph Waltz and Danny Huston.

None of these, at the time, were A-Listers. Only Amy Adams, following Superman, would be considered a star today. And she is not the bankable name that Zoe Saldana is. They were probably each paid less than 500K for the film.

Do you think Pine, Quinto, and Saldana would work for that amount for ST4?

Yes, see my post above: 30M for a sequel to STB is out of the question, unless the cast agrees to MASSIVE pay cuts.

It’s possible to make a lower-budget Trek, but not with this cast, not anymore.

$100 million?

It is impossible to do an ensamble cast in a sci-fi heavy cgi movie under $100 million. I honestly do not think you could do it today for less than $150 million, and that is with serious salary cuts and serious cuts in CGI.

The fact they kept it under $200 million I think was impressive.

Hell look at BvS that cost $250 million dollars just to make the movie.

I think with some creative plot, you could do it for 100M. Keep it on real sets, such as the Enterprise or within a single starbase, with just a few exterior/space battle scenes.

As they say, necessity is the mother of invention: budget constraints could force them into making a more character-driven story, with less reliance on the whiz-bang FX and over-the-top action that isn’t what Star Trek is traditionally about. Budget constraints could lead to a better film.

But under 100M is pushing it with a big star-studded ensemble cast.

Unless China helps out.

The “Avatar” sequels have been James Cameron’s No. 1 project for the past several years. It’s why he’s kept pushing back the release dates. If he’s finally ready to start filming 3 of them back-to-back, then I think Zoe Saldana is gonna be tied up for a while. So, like the article said, even if there WAS a Star Trek 4 script ready to go, Saldana wouldn’t be available. I guess this Paramount shakeup came at a good time, if only to delay the decision on which way to proceed with a possible 4th film in the Kelvin timeline. (Personally, as a guilty pleasure, I’d love to see a balls-out Mirror-universe adventure.)

M-U setting +9000!

~Pensive’s Wetness

If Im the studio, Mirror Universe is a non-starter from the aspect of educating non-Trekkies about it. They’d have to have a solid bookend to explain it.

Although I agree, the Defiant existing in the time of Enterprise (Mirror Universe) might explain why “TOS” looked so absurd in the JJ-verse.

Amen! That would be a really fun romp. Given that Hemsworth was rumored to make an appearance, MU was actually my first thought as to how they would do it. I doubt they’d want to do another wonky time travel story. Sadly though I must agree with the general consensus that the JJ films are done, which is…fine, I guess. All our eggs are in the Discovery basket, and that’s ok with this fan

The style (look) of Beyond lent itself nicely to a mirror universe episode in my opinion. It may well be the only way to proceed, if they want to explain the absences of Uhura and Chekov.

Get Star Trek back on TV and forget doing movies. Paramount has never known how to market or make Star Trek in movie form.

Star Trek’s II, IV and VI called. They say “We disagree.”

Ha, nice.

The mistake was Paramount thinking Star Trek could be Star Wars. Make thoughtful Star Trek with good writers who get it (not the ones who think its broken and only they can fix it) and stick to a $100 million budget and you’re laughing.

That’s just crazy ridiculous to suggest Trek shouldn’t be on the big screen. It’s all about how you do it. Meld wonder, character study, and action/adventure together to get a good Trek film.

I’m curious whether Barco Escape hurt Beyond at all – after the first couple of weeks in my local theatre, it was only available in Barco in a small theatre for close to $20.

I know we like to think Trek fits in Arrival/Interstellar/Gravity territory, but it’s never actually been like any of those. Even the most Cerebral TNG episodes usually had an explosion somewhere (okay, so did arrival and interstellar and gravity).

I think Beyond was trying too hard to please everybody. It’s tough to watch again – although I can watch Star Trek 2009 over and over again and still enjoy it.

As you said, Arrival, Interstellar, and Gravity all had explosions. But they were all pitched at a mainstream fall audience. They proved that you can have awesome visuals and thrilling adventure without relying on good guys and bad guys. It doesn’t even need to be a science fiction film for that.

It would be fun to see a film with a premise similar to The Chase, for example.

Anyone know if there was still a deadline or timeframe that Paramount has to make more Trek films before the rights revert?

Excellent news!
Now if this ghastly TV TOS reboot prequel would die the door can be left open to move forward, not backward yet again.

That was an idiotic comment. Try again.

I think that is the unfortunate outcome here. The in-fighting at CBS has resulted in a production by committee. It won’t please any section of the fan base, even the TOS fans will be having a complete retcon here and suspect won’t like what they will see.

The leaked concept art is nothing like Star Trek, it’s terrible. They have no idea what the hell they are doing and it’s going to absolutely nosedive so hard that we’ll be lucky to get anything for another 10-20 years. The films haven’t done much better either with the most recent being a box office flop. It’s just slapping the words “Star Trek” on something, then changing it’s essence to make it less cerebral and more dumbed down for this mythical “wider audience” they claim to be writing for.

Agreed. Also, the time period they’ve chosen to set it in has really been a turn-off for me, plus the mandatory streaming purchase to watch it.

The time period isn’t the time I would’ve chosen either but if this is truly going to be a new take on the way a Trek series is presented (story format, characters that we’ll follow, the narrative across a season, camera angles, etc) why won’t people even wait for a first episode to at least start to form opinions or wait until there’s more to take a look at?

Yeah I agree with this. This time period isn’t my favorite either and frankly I think a mistake but I’m still excited and optimistic for it. Plus it looks like they are going to reboot it giving it a very different look which I’m excited for as well although I know it may bother some of the really old Trek fans. But thats what it needs, completely updated style like the KT films did.And I love thats its completely serialized. Something sci fi TV has done for awhile now. SO I’m going to wait and give it a chance.

The films have had 8 years to establish themselves. Trek fans voted in to darkness as the “worst trek movie”, Beyond has flopped and COST paramount and it’s investors millions of dollars.

We’ve all be trying to tell them why for years, Paramount just don’t want to listen, place too many restrictions on the writers (such as Pegg being told not to make it “too star trekky” all they care about is money.

CBS are no different, this show is being abused as a linchpin to all access in the states while netflix pick up the bill for the first season.

Paramount are not listening to the fans and that film series thankfully is dead.
CBS didn’t listen to us with Enterprise, and they are not listening on this outing either.

They have no idea who their target audience is, and as a consequence they are ending up offending their customer base before the thing even airs with more of the same junk they have been trying to push since the 1st season of Enterprise. The showrunner was cut back to executive producer, and now he isn’t even part of the show at all.

Every time official information comes through the community take a collective sigh of disappointment while the TOS fan boys keep telling us to quit moaning at their nostalgia.

We don’t want Discovery, we’re not going to pay to watch Discovery, and we’re not going to risk our viewer metrics justifying something abysmal a second season.

So you say they producers put too many restrictions on the writers but also “only care about money”. Which is it? I think the line from Pegg is sometimes misinterpreted. I think it meant more to avoid being AWFUL like STID.

Ofcourse, it’s Bob Orci’s legacy that he put a bullet in the head of Trek films. But he was on the right track in general, just not in execution. If Paramount could lock Bob in a tower somewhere and let him only throw general ideas around and NOT actually have anything to do with the script, casting etc, then he might be a solid contributor to Trek.

He was certainly correct that the only way to come back from the stink hole that was STID was a story that involved Shatner & Nimoy.

If they can figure out how to market it right, Discovery will be wildly successful, haters be damned. Discovery is forward thinking — it’s meant for a modern audience. No offense to most of the people on this site, but Discovery isn’t meant for the 40 and over crowd…it’s meant for people open-minded enough to give new Trek a chance. The dwindling number of aging Trek fans aren’t gonna save the franchise. It’s about bringing new people into the fold — and that’s exactly what Discovery is gonna do. The old people who are too set in their Trek ways won’t hold it back from that one bit. Discovery is the future, and the future looks bright enough to me.

Discovery is guaranteed to be a hit – for Netflix, which has the rights to it outside the US and Canada. A huge brand like that, which appeals exactly to the sorts of “early adopter” types that go for new tech like Netflix, will boost their subscriptions even more than currently. Netflix will shovel a mountain of money at CBS to keep them making the show.

In the meantime, CBS can patiently build up their streaming service domestically. I’m sure they realize one Star Trek series won’t do much to boost their subscriber numbers, not when the rest of their lineup is cop shows and vanilla sitcoms. They’re going to need a more Netflix-y library, and that’s going to take time to build. I expect Netflix will push CBS to make several Star Trek series, a la ABC/Disney and their Marvel series.

Except that Netflix can see metrics for exactly who is watching, for how long, and therefore how justifiable future spend is.

With so many people dead set against this thing it’s unlikely all but the most hardcore TOS fan is wanting to invest any of their time watching a prequel/reboot/retcon of a show they had no interest in the first place, particularly with the monthly subscription being a prerequisite.

Quite frankly I’d rather see it canned, as it’s going to damage the prospect of the large majority of fans getting something better that they actually want to watch.
No amount of “it’s not a minority” will wash. The show runner is out of it, Moonves cant seem to stop meddling with it, The dates keep getting pushed back. It’s junk, uninteresting retcon junk with a Star Trek badge on it, and I’ll have no part in the destruction of the franchise yet again for a long, long time.

Cap’n “So many people dead set against this thing” = the handful of commenters on this site who care so strongly about Discovery that they’ll write it off completely and prematurely.

“Hardcore TOS fan” = not even the target audience; the target audience is the gigantic segment of the population that doesn’t care about when and what the premise is of the new Trek series, people that just want to see quality entertainment. Discovery looks like it will be quality entertainment. You may disagree, but just like the backlash leading up to Beyond, most of the haters were pleased in the end.

Discovery isn’t a TOS reboot. It’s a completely different Trek. So calm your prejudice! Just because it’s new and different doesn’t mean it’s bad and broken. And frankly you sound ridiculous! uninteresting retcon junk please

Dont confuse the voices in your head with everyone else. Who’s deadset against it? I see just the opposite in fact. Go back to playing your TNG DVD’s on loop and stop posting.

Aha! So by casting aside the over 40 crowd room can be made for all the rest of those who know it all!

I’m over 40 and have no issues with any of that. I completely agree with you Trek needs to appeal to more modern audiences and give a wildly different approach in look and tone. In fact this is why I like the KT films even though I hate prequels because they at least attempted to do something different. Now the execution haven’t always been great but I don’t mind them in general.

But its true reading this board sometimes its like some people expect people to look and act like Trek from the 60s and its very naive. Listening to some people they sound like they want Trek to be stuck the same way they watched it for the last 50 years and thats just unrealistic. Obviously not everyone but it is telling. That was the entire reason I want it to go forward because then it could do what TNG did and just go a very different direction for its present time. Based on what we know it looks like they are possibly doing that but just in a previous timeline which I personally don’t mind at all but I think will be a big risk for the main fanbase. Hopefully I’m wrong and it works out but I can see a lot of old fans complaining left and right about it. Hell some already are lol. But I think until we really see what they are going for most will give it a chance.

Amen thank you! I have a feeling you and I and everyone else who watches it will be glad we did

Yeah here’s hoping!

Whats your source for it being a TOS reboot and who’s playing Kirk?

I don’t wish for any Trek to fail but if the JJ-verse bites the dust, I won’t shed one bloody tear.

That’s like saying “no disrespect…but I don’t like you”

I really loved all the Abrams’ films. Yeah, I had some quibbles with them, but, on the whole, I thought they were all wonderful. It was fun seeing some of that Star Wars rock and roll in Star Trek. I liked how that made the last three films different from the others (although ST II, III, IV, and VI) are still my favorites.

I love the cast Abrams and company put together, I loved the design aesthetic they achieved, I loved the action, and I loved the humor. They can definitely make money with a new film if they can bring down their cost a bit and market the film better.

The problem is, like it or no, that Bad Robot evidently can’t produce a Star Trek film for less than $170 million, and can’t control costs during production, no matter how little money is involved. That’s incentive right there for Paramount to cut ties with them on the next Trek film. And while the option to make a 4th film with most of the current cast exists, there is almost certainly a clock associated with it. Add to that if BR is cut out of the picture, a new producer is likely going to want to reboot the franchise, not pay royalties to BR; and given the complication with the loss of Yelchin, and scheduling issues with Saldana, as well as the aging cast, they’re unlikely to move forward unless there’s an incredibly compelling — and profitable — reason to do so. Then there’s the Paramount deal with CBS — rumor was some time ago that it was coming up for renegotiation. Given the potential for CBS to absorb Viacom, and the corporate and film studio shakeup in general, CBS may be in a position to simply keep the film rights for itself, and unite the entire Trek franchise under the CBS umbrella as one driving marketing force — the way it was before Paramount TV was spun off to CBS. Trek would make a heck of a tentpole for CBS Films to launch them into a new realm of profitability, just as they are positioning DISCOVERY to carry a lions share of the All Access service.

I actually agree with a lot of this. Even if they do get a fourth one made chances are its probably the last one with this cast and crew UNLESS it pulls in a lot because I think its just harder to shoot these films under $150 million because now the cast can demand more money and its just harder and harder to get them all back when its such a big ensemble.

And I love the idea of Trek being under one roof again as it should be like in the 90s. I mean its crazy to me in the age of shared universes and you got rival studios now working together like Disney and Sony to Spider-Man in the same universe appearing in multiple films from two studios its bizarre that Star Trek is treated like some opposing franchise between CBS and Paramount. The whole thing is just weird. Its true because KT takes place in another universe it makes logical sense not to be included too much but it really shouldn’t be that way.

I think if Discovery is a hit and the KT franchise die out then the next project should tie in more like ALL these franchises are doing. I mean look at DC. I’m not just talking the films but the TV verse has gone all in tying this big mythology together between multiple shows. Thats what Star Trek needs to do like it did in the freakin 90s and make the franchise whole again with other shows on in time.

But even if its just one show and a new movie series set farther in the future ala TOS and TNG then thats fine too but at least make them feel they are part of the same franchise as TOS and TNG did. So I hope if we do eventually get that again. Trek has to compete with the present day and frankly it did all of that before this stuff was popular and can do it again.

Impressive command of the numbers. But with the Chinese involvement it’s difficult to say with certainty who is paying for what. Did Beyond actually cost Paramount $180 million or did their Asian counterparts make a contribution for its’ production? And if the folks in China shoulder a significant portion of production costs on any subsequent films who knows what the final costs would be for Paramount?

It stands to reason that if the Chinese are investing the lions share of production costs, they are expecting a large return. They arent getting it from Trek.

It doesn’t matter. It’s still money that has to be recouped, and if the box office doesn’t command it, then they are making movies that are too expensive with producers who don’t seem to be able, or willing to control costs. It’s that simple. STB started with a reasonable $150 million budget and it ballooned out of control with Abrams costs. The Chinese almost certainly had factored into the original $150 million making the $30+ million cost overruns entirely the cost of the studio.

To be honest, I would be surprised if any Trek movie were in the works this year considering they will really be trying to get audiences pumped for Star Trek Discovery.

Discovery is made by CBS, whereas the movies are made by Paramount. They’re two entirely different companies, and they don’t generally coordinate things between them very well.

Well they did this time. Paramount would not allow a tv show until 6 months after the movie hitting/flopping at the box office.

That’s not coordination, that’s contract.

Well, no Trek on the big screen in 2018. Bummer.

Lets be honest at the rate it took just to produce the first 3 films more than likely the soonest would be 2019 or even 2020. Its not like they were shooting these things like Star Wars is now. But thats also the problem sequels just come out a LOT faster now. Marvel managed to pump out 3 Iron Man movies in 5 years on top of the character showing up in other movies. Star Trek can’t make a film every four years. We live in a different world today and people simply forget. And when you’re like Disney and having Star Wars in peoples minds every year because there is always a new film it speaks to the new mindset.

But thats the beauty of a TV show, its always there and something to give the fans while giving them a big film every few years. Thats the way it should be done like before. People say that was overkill but its really not when you look at how things are TODAY with so many franchises, especially Marvel. This year ALONE there will be six TV shows and three films. How crazy is that? I mean it makes the old Trek format of two shows on and one film every 2-3 years look small scale by comparison.

I believe that Jaylah should graduate and join the crew in the next movie as the Enterprise’s new Navigator replacing Chekov

Lets postulate that the JJ films are over and lets assume that a new Trek movie will still be made. Who should write it? Direct it? Will it be a prime universe reboot? A movie that takes place post-Nemesis? Somewhere in between? Who would you cast? Would it even be Kirk and crew or a completely new crew?

Honestly whatever they do I REALLY hope they avoid another TOS reboot. I think fans are just too anal to be honest with you and trying to recreate those characters in the present day just seem too hard. I would like for them to just go with a completely new crew for the films as the shows do. I get thats riskier though and especially in todays franchise world where everything old is new again but I think the KT films proves Star Trek just can’t compete on the level of Transformers and Harry Potter even with a very known group of characters. I think if they took a chance and built up new characters in a movie series like they always do the shows and just have them become their own thing would be the better way but I get marketing wouldn’t be as easy where a movie really needs to perform big these days.

Hear here.
I am sick to my back teeth with TOS reboots. I don’t even like TOS, never have. The TOS fan boys have many fan productions, they had Enterprise, they have the three reboot movies and six other movies.

The studios keep scratching their heads as to why the millions being pumped in to TOS reboots and prequels are resulting in an uninterested reception. This reboot TV show will go exactly the same way. It’s such a small minority who want this to go ahead but they don’t seem to grasp that it will continue to damage the franchise and no one will get what they want. This series is a complete retcon, I doubt the narrowest of margins of TOS fans who will be happy with anything is going to push it forward. They won’t be happy until they see the actual ratings, at which point it will be too late.

At this juncture I would be absolutely delighted if this TV reboot/prequel was cancelled before completion, at least there will be some damage limitation to the franchise.

So you’re sick of the one TOS re-boot that everyone, including the evil TOS fanboys all agree arent very good. Okay then.

Newsflash: DSC is not a TOS reboot.

You know what i’d like to see? A starship Enterprise with an entirely new crew. I don’t care what universe, I don’t care what time period. Show me a new cast, a new set of characters, on a new Enterprise we’ve never seen.

And let it be about the characters, and the stories, and not the FX. Though i’ve enjoyed the JJ films, I do want them to get back to less reliance on FX and action.

Then again, that’s essentially what Discovery will be (hopefully)…

I hope there will be a Trek 4 with cast and crew, but I also hope the Kelvin Timeline will extend FAR beyond that. It would be so much fun to see a revamped Next Gen era set in this very timeline. The potentials are virtually endless. They could bring in the coolest characters from DS9 (Odo, Quark) and VOY (Seven, Doctor) to form the ULTIMATE 24th century crew.

@Smike – that no one watches.

No gnews is good gnews.

It’s a near certainty that anything Paramount does with Star Trek at this point is going to be a travesty. They’re King Midas in reverse. So, the more time that passes with them not exploiting Star Trek with their grubby fingers and small minds, the better. Mitigating the damage is the best that I can hope for from them at this point.

I can’t be sure, but I think capitalism and money is on it’s way out.

Grey went from hero to zero its good news for Trek hopefully the next CEO will be more pro Trek & want several different movies ready to go every few years to grow the brand globally! Grey was just seeing out his tenure & Paramount are in corporate chaos until the Redstone’s decide who is actually calling the Shots!

Do we really need every single character that was in a previous movie ? No…we do not. We know Chekov wont be recast…( Stupidity in my opinion ) Uhura….if the actress can’t be in the next film….write it into the story. She ‘s on leave from starfleet. Personally….these actors get larger paychecks with each movie. I say do a trilogy of films and move on. How about giving us a proper TNG sendoff while those actors are still alive. After that…give us a new trek that have brand new characters that ain’t tied to any past incarnation.

Its not hard to write out a character without *really* writing them out. In Trek III, Spock wasnt in it til the end but was certainly driving the story. Uhura was barely in it too if I recall.

I definitely agree with not recasting Chekov, not if they do another film with this cast. If they recast the entire film, then sure, recast Chekov. But he was shoe-horned into Beyond and he shouldnt have even been in the first one.

Pine is probably the one real bright spot as Kirk. If he came back and no one else did, it wouldnt be a travesty. They could always do a story that takes place between missions involving only 2 or 3 cast members (or cameo by Zoe etc).

There will be no new Trek movie. Bet it up. The series is dead.